If There's A Drone-Airline Collision and Crash, Blame CONGRESS!

No, it wasn't terrorists but rather a motley crew of half-assed drone operators who disrupted air traffic across the nation last Sunday unleashing a swarm of rogue drones near major airports.  The near misses included a white drone startling the pilot of a Jet Blue flight before it landed at LAX, then a quadricopter whizzing just below an Allegiant Air flight and in D.C. a Cessna pilot reported a drone cruising at 1,500 ft. in restricted airspace above the capitol. Then in Louisville, a silver and white drone nearly collided with a training aircraft and over Chicago United Flt. 970 reported a drone passing close by. Twelve near misses in one freaking day!

The news (WSJ, Aug. 14, p. A3, Denver Post, Aug. 20, p. 14A) that there have been 700 close calls with commercial aircraft so far this year (defined as being close enough to see the little bastards) has to have any sober air traveler worried. Because he'd  realize it's only a matter of time before one of the little fuckers collides with a passenger jet or is sucked into an engine causing a catastrophic event with possibly hundreds of lives lost.

The 700 number, through August 9th, according to the FAA,  vastly eclipses the 238 for all of last year. So what the hell gives? What gives is it's "drones gone wild". Thanks to a congress full of poltroons, cowards and venal weasels there are now more than 1 million consumer drones vying for airspace - as if besieged air traffic controllers don't have enough objects to worry about on their screens.

Already the FAA has fined drone operators in 20 cases of drones flying too close to aircraft, but this is like a slap on the wrist. The FAA head meanwhile promises "tough countermeasures" and "strict enforcement" but let's face it - these words are mostly hot air given none of the drones are unregistered  and can't be GPS-tracked. The operators almost have to turn themselves in in order to mete out any punishment. What we really need is for Homeland Security - which is to protect air travel over the U.S. - to have sophisticated weapons available to disable these intruders. If we are expending so much to defend against terrorists we must do the same for these damned rogue drones, and not wait for a disaster.

This is all the more pressing as the Washington Post recently obtained hundreds of near miss reports from a gov't official who objected to the FAA secrecy on the matter. Including that the rogue drones had penetrated some of the most guarded airspaces in the country. That these intrusions could be allowed, and moreover be kept secret (out of a feeling of FAA impotence) is abominable.

If there is, god forbid, a drone -airliner calamity, what then? Then I blame not only the irresponsible drone operators but congress!

The existence of the relevant bill was first reported on Feb. 4, 2012 in The Wall Street Journal  ('U.S. Skies Could See More Drones', p. A7)and it came as a shocker of sorts. First, because it disclosed yet another federal agency (FAA) held hostage to the corporatist-industrial complex, attempting to find new avenues for drone production since the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan were ending.. And second, because it disclosed how secretive this corporate-benefiting information  and cronyist legislating really is.

Medea Benjamin made reference to the spectacle of congressional corporate compliance and being bought out by the drone makers, as she said:

"They’ve been able to write the drone legislation and get their lackeys in Congress to push it through and get the president to sign it.”

In other words, the congressional rats and whores placed the bottom line of corporations over citizen welfare. But this is what we expect in a Neoliberal corporatocracy.  In the case of the FAA bill, worth some $63 billion to the drone lobbyists, we've now beheld the sour fruit:  U.S. skies inundated with a million unmanned drones sharing airspace with commercial planes.

The WSJ piece insists "the FAA and the drone industry are working to educate users that explains the rules, including that drones generally can't fly above 400 feet or within 5 miles of an airport."

But given the close calls, it appears the campaign isn't making a dent. Operators continue to flout the rules, and some aviation "experts" aren't helping the matter by claiming that "drones don't pose a threat to large commercial aircraft". I dispute that, given at least two commercial aircraft have been brought down by small birds being sucked into engines. And make no mistake, a 4-5 lb. drone is every bit as large, in fact larger, than most birds. So this take is bollocks. 

Meanwhile, as it's the 'wild West' in the skies, our congress critters are stuffing their pockets and mouths on all the largesse brought to them compliments of the pro-drone lobbyists.

But if there is one airliner-drone collision resulting in a crash that costs lives, the bastards ought to be made to attend each and every funeral! Also, in the case of any serious injuries - pony up the money to pay for all the hospital bills!

NO - The U.S. Neolibs Will Not Start A WAR With China Over Spratly Islands!

Satellite image of Chinese islands under construction. Neoliberal globalists refer to the scene as "Mischief reef". (Obviously forgetting their own mischief with the TPP!)

Why is it that the U.S. Neoliberals are always out to teach other nations lessons? How about instead they plow through recent history and begin imparting lessons to themselves? Lessons about how too much secrecy (such as to do with full disclosure on the TPP, and JFK assassination files) impels distrust of the government. Lessons about how we already lost two "wars" and can't be serious about plowing more trillions down the drain when our bridges, roads are collapsing.  Lessons about how our educational system is becoming the laughingstock of the world - indicated by the fact most middle or even HS kids couldn't locate the Spratly Islands if their lives depended on it.

Last year, of course, it was all about teaching those terrible, brutal Russkies lessons after they went in and took the Crimea - which they had every right to do after the U.S. and its NATO puppets instigated a coup in the Ukraine - deposing Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fascist -neo-Nazi gov't.  See e .g.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-intelligence-russia-ukraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2uy8lfu8m

Even as recently as a few weeks ago, the NATO Neoliberal Imperium was antagonizing the Russians with their jets when the former were simply probing NATO's expanding airspace. (As any nation would do - even the U.S.  -  if its sphere of influence was being undermined and usurped.  Say with Russian-made anti-missile batteries installed in Cuba.) And please recall here, for those with short memories, that the deal (in 1991) was NO NATO expansion to the east in return for dissolution of the Soviet Union. But within two nanoseconds Bush Sr. broke that promise to Mikhail Gorbachev.

Now China has become the new "bad boy"  to whom the big 'cop of the world' wants to teach lessons concerning geopolitical overreach (a hoot in itself, given U.S. actions in the Ukraine and deposing Yanukovych).  Mind you - China is also the nation that holds or controls one -third of our debt, via bonds held. DO we really want to piss these guys off?

To show Chinese leaders “who’s the boss”,  Defense  Secretary Ash Carter has threatened to deploy US warships and surveillance aircraft to within twelve miles of the islands that China claims are within their territorial waters. But here's the ironic kicker:  the US is challenging China under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a document the US has stubbornly refused to ratify.

The inquiring mind must ask why all the huff and puff? Why does Washington care so much about a few miserable acres of sand piled up on reefs in the South China Sea? What danger does that pose to US national security? For a point of reference, haven’t Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all engaged in similar “land reclamation” activities without raising hackles in DC? So why the visceral reaction to the Chinese?

Another interesting twist: While the U.S. has warned it will intervene in an East China Sea conflict if necessary - Washington has made no similar pledges to partners in the region including: the Philippines. So what gives? What's the reason for this inchoate rhetoric and saber rattling?

Well, because China is an actual rival  power as well as a threat to the current Neoliberal unipolar world order (just as Russia is).   You see, the Neoliberals want world domination - all nations living under one mega-market 'jackboot' and with corporations (actually multinational corporations) at the helm. And the passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership would be the nail in the coffin after NAFTA.  SO no, China cannot be allowed to impose its own hegemony in the area - never mind that is its sphere of influence - just as the Caribbean Sea is for the U.S.

Strip away the fact the U.S. hasn't ratified the Sea treaty under which it purports to act, and the underlying Neoliberal dynamics, and the whole thing becomes  a joke. In a symmetrical perspective,  Carter’s claim that he’s defending the lofty principal of “freedom of navigation” is a joke. Why? China has never blocked shipping lanes or seized boats sailing in international waters. Never. The same cannot be said of the United States that just recently blocked an Iranian ship loaded with humanitarian relief–food, water and critical medical supplies–headed to starving refugees in Yemen. Of course, when the US does it, it’s okay.

Again, a double standard in the world - one for the Neoliberal superpower- the other for any nations bold or ballsy enough to challenge its perceived planetary dominion, whether the Russians or the Chinese.

The reality is that, leaving out the fulsome rhetoric,  Washington doesn’t give two shits or an ounce of shinola about the Spratly Islands; it’s just a pretext to slap China around and show them who’s running the show in their own backyard. Carter even admitted as much in a statement when he insisted that the US plans to be “the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.”

Seriously? That's not even your goddamned territory! Check the map! That's China's domain, Roscoe! Are you really going to try to bully -boy the primary nation holding U.S. bond notes? Which if they wanted - could call them in and reduce this whole country to beggary without firing a freaking shot! (Besides, where do you suppose the money is coming from to spend on our defense, whether the F-35 or new aircraft carriers?)

 Whether China or Russia, or everyone in between  - we all  know how this bellicose stance of the unipolar order translates: “This is our planet, so you’d better shape up or you’re going to find yourself in a world of hurt.”

 But let us recall that it was John F. Kennedy who warned, in his June 1963 speech at American University, that the U.S. cannot and must not seek to be the cop of the entire world, imposing its will with American weapons of war. In that memorable speech, Kennedy proclaimed:

"What kind of peace do I mean and what kind "of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time"

Most poignant, Kennedy's words rejecting unipolar orders:

"Let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."

And then:

Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.

Doubtless, most of the eyes and ears of the then U.S. military establishment either disbelieved Kennedy’s words or thought he was simply playing to the audience of young, graduating Catholic idealists. However, barely two months later their cynical clocks were cleaned when Kennedy announced the agreement on the Nuclear Test Ban treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.  This was also the final straw that most American conservatives couldn't take - and so began a 50+ years long media and PR war to try to denigrate Kennedy's achievements, or make him into one of them (the 'cold warrior' myth).  Not to mention deflecting attention away from the national security state that conservatives like John McAdams prize - hence to peddle the "lone nut" myth ad infinitum.

Here’s the skinny: Washington has abandoned its China policy of “containment” and moved on to Plan B: Isolation, intimidation and confrontation. In the opinion of one blogger (Mike Whitney), this is why the powerbrokers (mainly neocons) behind Obama dumped Hagel:

"Hagel just wasn’t hawkish enough for the job. They wanted a died-in-the-wool, warmongering neocon, like Carter, who is, quite likely, the most dangerous man in the world."

I don't know about that "most dangerous" aspect, but parsed through the prism of Kennedy's words in his Pax Americana speech, he could be. Kennedy wasn't shy about nuclear weapons being the most serious threat to humanity - so any words, actions that increase the threat indicate maximal danger.

Whitney goes on with his surmise:

"Carter’s assignment is to implement the belligerent new policy of incitement and conflict. His actions will prove to the skeptics that Washington is no longer interested in integrating China into the US-led system. Rather, China has become the biggest threat to Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia."

To reinforce that take, he cites  an Obama quote lifted up from blogger Tom Engelhardt’s post, “Superpower in Distress”:


“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region….As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.”

Whitney adds that the so called pivot is Washington’s “top priority”, which means that China’s unprecedented ascendency must be slowed and its regional influence curtailed. Thus, the dust up over the Spratly Islands

I would also add that this is why Obama is so recklessly pushing the TPP which nearly his entire party is opposed to. The TPP not only leaves China out (in many ways explainable since there's already massive trade with it) but more importantly to build up trade with partners in the region outside of China - which may also include funneling of military aid, such as the deals in eastern Europe that allowed NATO to expand.

Seen in a geopolitical sense, in terms of the Neoliberal imperative, all these moves make collective sense. For the Neoliberal idiom to rule the world all non-cooperative nation states must be subdued and brought to heel.  Kennedy himself, if alive today, would be aghast, not only that his warnings about Pax Americana were ignored - but that the appeal to diversity was being ground under the ubiquitous Neoliberal  jackboot. And he'd be turning over in his grave now on learning a "progressive" President has essentially torpedoed a treaty for nuclear non-proliferation.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/62471/progressive-apocalypse-obama-opens-door-to-nuclear-nightmare

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/62465/the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-review-conference-goes-down-in-flames

Did Dem Neoliberalism Contribute To The Rout?

"For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future."   -- John F. Kennedy

This header embodies  the central question put forward in a provocative blog post by Arun Gupta on www.smirkingchimp.com, actually written a day before the mid-term election. It is something we may all need to consider - those left of center - especially since 63% of voters in exit polls asserted the "system is rigged in favor of the richest" (which begs the question of why so many voted in the party of the rich and business class). This is also why we must not avoid the painful history Gupta recalls. It is also something I have discussed a number of time on this blog: how the insidious poison of Neoliberalism is poisoning both parties.

See, for example, my April 14 blog post wherein I observed:

The problem with the Neoliberal, pro -free market idiom is that it denies the most basic security for the majority of citizens. In this way it feeds economic inequality while it rewards the speculator and banker class. It also helps to corrupt the political class via unregulated campaign contributions.

I then cited a segment of a 1997 piece on Neoliberalism by Jay Bookman aptly entitled 'The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad', in The Baltimore Sun, December 15, 1997):

"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences."

In other posts I referenced the invasion of many Democratic policies by Neoliberal ideology, priorities and memes , for example as referenced by SC blogger Richard Eskow, e.g.:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/54446/yes-the-left-killed-the-chained-cpi

Excerpt:

“As for the president and his supporters, it is clear that the chained CPI is well-liked by both the White House's key economic players -- and by many of the commentators who support them. That's unfortunate, because it is inaccurate, unjust, and economically unwise. But like it, they do.

It appears that both the Republicans and the White House like it, but neither wants such a politically unpopular measure hung around their neck -- especially in an election year.”

Does that mean they might cooperate on resurrecting this abomination as a sign of "mutual cooperation" like they did after the 2010 Dem drubbing? Possibly!  Further perspective is provided by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media, Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society"

If all this is true, and all the authors present plenty of facts to support it, then it would seem the Democrats are their own worst enemies - seeking to advance a misbegotten, pro-business agenda even at the expense of losing many of their base - or at least turning them off to come out in mid-term elections (though I still believe political immaturity is at least a partial factor). 

What about Gupta's claims? He writes:

"Now, neoliberalism is often thought of as synonymous with privatization, deregulation, and trade and capital liberalization, but the state will discard these policies for corporate handouts the instant elites get into a self-inflicted mess, as with the Wall Street crash.

This has left the Democratic Party in a bind. It relies on votes from social groups like women, union members, Blacks, Latinos, and environmentalists who favor redistributive policies like gender equity in income, a higher minimum wage, lower healthcare costs, more environmental protection, and stronger immigrant rights. 

At the same time, Democrats need billions of dollars to run elections and their party machinery. They go hat in hand to corporations and promise more tax breaks and corporate welfare in return. But Democrats can never be as committed to the free-market ideology as Republicans. Democrats need to satisfy some needs of their social base while Republicans can move the goalposts further right and wait for the Democrats to play catch up."

This is born out by the corporate funding disparity relative to each party, and the fact the Rs always grab slightly more, because - well-  they aren't as dependent on the social groups that rely on redistributive policies. So the Ds can't be as committed to free market nonsense else they'd be the same as the Repubs. 

Gupta goes on:

"Obama and likely 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton say we will manage trickle-down economics more efficiently. This will increase taxes for modest market-based redistribution in the form of healthcare, housing and higher education subsidies, and tax breaks for the working poor. It’s the same role many traditional left parties play in other countries. Democrats offer a bit more funding, miniscule compared to military spending and corporate welfare, for food stamps, homelessness, and energy assistance. But the commitment to neoliberalism leaves the programs vulnerable. Obama readily cut tens of billions of dollars in social welfare to appease Republicans complaining about a $17.9 tillion national debt. Obamacare is part of this framework. While it did extend coverage to uninsured millions, the goal was to reduce costs through intensified neoliberal restructuring, which is reducing overall quality of healthcare."

Which also makes sense and is all verifiable. I have written before about the cuts - including to food stamp programs - back in December, 2013. Again, Democratic Neoliberalism emerges as a malignant cancer eating away at the parties innards. 

Gupta cites the historical background of the Clinton years in embracing Neoliberal policies:

"Lacking a progressive vision, Democrats follow the GOP on economic policy, pushing the center rightward. Most media outlets have little interest in unpacking historical conditions that shape politics, preferring gossip about the personality, values, tastes and lineages of candidates. Yet it’s the historical contradiction Democrats are trapped in that explains how and why Bill Clinton and Obama pursued a neoliberal agenda that dashed the hopes of their supporters, resulting in the biggest midterm losses in Congress of any president in the modern era. It also explains why the Democrats will likely lose the U.S. Senate in November 2014.

Bill Clinton campaigned as a “New Democrat”: tough on crime, fiscally responsible, and stern with welfare recipients. Clinton effectively fulfilled the Reagan Revolution by gutting welfare, passing NAFTA, deregulating telecommunications and the finance sector, and ramping up government spying, policing, and immigrant detention. Clinton could grant the right-wing’s wish list because the Democratic base was conditioned to supporting any deal no matter how bad because the Republicans would supposedly be worse. Yet Clinton needed Republicans to pass NAFTA because the Democrats controlled Congress. He threw millions of poor women and children off welfare to shore up his right flank in advance of the 1996 election. But that cynical calculation was unnecessary Clinton trounced the feeble Republican nominee, Bob Dole in a race that was never in doubt. And deregulation happened in Clinton’s second term when he was freed from election concerns."

The last paragraph, especially, speaks to the perils of 'lesser of two evils'  thinking- thus the base accepting Clinton's travesties because the Repukes under Dole would be worse. (In fact, the odds of Dole getting elected were slim and none but most of the base didn't know that at the time).

So there we are. The Demos have moved progressively rightward economically under the lash of the Neoliberal global imperative. Voters either keep putting them in because  there is no compelling third party alternative, or they reactively toss them out  in droves (including by apathy)  - as the case Tuesday night - to vent their frustrations.

At root, the reason for this perversion is the influx of money into our political system - to buy politicians and parties. The abominable meme of "money as speech", validated by the atrocity of 'Citizens United',  has only reinforced the corrupted landscape - so no wonder so many voters see the system as rigged. Of course it is, for those with the money to buy Senators and whole parties! 

Justice Stephen Brier pointed out that along with the Citizens United decision, the more recent one (last year)  "eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."

Sen. Bernie Sanders has it exactly correct when he said, in response to the ruling:

“Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” 

Alas, that is what has happened and why citizens, many voters, are willing now to say more often than not, "A pox on both their houses!"

In effect, Neoliberalism and its attendant cancer of campaign cash  has engendered an inherent instability in our political system - also fed by polarization-  which is unlikely to abate soon. Perhaps the Dems, as they puzzle over these recent losses, need to take a long, hard look at JFK's quoted words at the top of this post.

The Harsh Truth: Too Many U.S. Hospitals Unprepared to Deal With Ebola

Most U.S. Hospitals lack positive pressure suits, or don't know how best to use them especially in disposing of fluid waste.

Contrary to the PR piffle we’ve been fed the past two weeks, it now is clear U.S. hospitals have not been prepared to deal with the emergence of Ebola in the U.S. In fact, had it not been for the incident in Dallas with Thomas Eric Duncan, we’d likely never have learned how pathetically unprepared our hospitals are. All this after the brainiacs at the CDC have been assuring us that ‘oh yes, we are prepared to meet any challenge’.

Let me make it clear that I’ve always detested PR, or public relations. I believe it cripples a country and makes it believe it’s pursuing truth and objective reality when in fact it is encouraging rampant delusion. But the lack of reality and appreciation of it is exactly what can bring a nation down because it obscures the search for real solutions to its problems. The primary fear then is not so much ISIS, or even Ebola, but the uniform incapacity to accept and deal with reality! After all, it was author Chris Hedges in his ‘Empire of Illusion’ who observed that a nation that does not deal with reality will end up in the dustbin of history for all intents.

Let’s take the case of the codswallop we’ve been fed by the CDC about U.S. hospital preparedness for an Ebola outbreak. First, I never bought into this bunkum. Probably because I 've been well aware how far behind the curve most American hospitals and medical centers are,  especially in terms of medical mistakes – basic ones! Look no further than the recent death of Joan Rivers, which as Dr. Mehmet Oz reported on one of his recent shows (Sept. 19th), was due to carelessness and lack of accountability during a basic outpatient procedure called an endoscopy.

This is a procedure I also had some four years ago. It entails introducing an endoscope down the patient’s throat to examine it for any evidence of lesions or cancerous growths. In my case none were found but in Rivers’ case a small tumor was observed on the vocal cords.  At that point Rivers’ own physician – a non-specialist who had no business even being there -  proceeded to take a biopsy and created a critical situation..

As Oz noted, the problem with this was twofold: 1) Rivers signed NO consent form to allow a biopsy to be done at the same time, and 2) when a biopsy is performed on the vocal cords a breathing tube  must have already been inserted into the airway before the procedure because – if not- the excision will cause the cords to swell up and block the throat – preventing air from getting in. This is exactly what happened with Rivers but few people are aware of it.  Thus, the idiot dr. that performed this on the fly, and despite no consent form,  caused Rivers’ passageway to be blocked and an inability to breathe. She went into a coma even as they tried desperate measures to revive her but it was already too late.

It is geniuses like this on whom we are supposed to rely in the case of an Ebola outbreak  - when the most direct and serious solution would be to prevent all non-essential passengers from traveling to the U.S. from the Ebola-affected regions. But oh no, our Neoliberal government, the State Dept. and CDC doesn’t want to send any negative signals out regarding free trade and free travel!  Denver Post Op-Ed columnist Michael S. Woodson wrote yesterday (Perspective, p. 1D, 'U.S. Has Left Itself Open to Ebola Outbreak'):

 

"A plethora of journalists and the government have emphasized the fact that Ebola is not as contagious as flu viruses to mute justifiable outrage at their policy for leaving such a wide preventable loophole."

 

What loophole?  Allowing non-essential passenger travel from the West African Ebola outbreak zone  to the U.S. "inviting the uncontrolled exposure of Americans to the Ebola virus." As he also emphasized, Ebola has already been classified by the CDC "as a Class A, bio-terrorism agent". Some have even speculated that ISIS might use Ebola infected pawns to spread the virus - but as Woodson notes:

 

"A natural versus weaponized Ebola is a distinction without much difference".

 

In other words,  we ought to treat all those leaving  the hot zone for whatever reason (including 'holiday')  as possible carriers of the virus.  That means shutting down all non-essential air traffic from the West African hot zone - lest we make the U.S. another hot zone. In Woodson's words:

"All non-essential, untraced passenger travel from the Ebola outbreak zone should be banned. All essential relief travel must be screened, and livable, isolated  staging areas set up by the CDC and Department of Homeland Security to observe U.S. entrants until after the incubation period for the Ebola virus has passed."

Clearly, Woodson - like me - doesn't trust the medical infrastructure to do the job to keep us safe. And why the hell should we?

As reported in Saturday’s Denver Post (p.1A, p. 8A) after the Duncan Dallas episode, a CDC official affirmed that “many hospitals remain confused about how they are supposed to react when a suspected patient shows up.”

Seriously?  I thought they all had it covered given the info has been circulating, according to the CDC, since June. I thought from what the assorted CDC honchos have been yapping about on the morning and evening news we were all safe since every hospital in the land knew exactly how to screen for the disease and had the wherewithal – including isolation wards – ready. Turns out it was all bull shit.

The Post piece went on (p. 8A):

“The agency sent additional guidance to health care facilities this week, as it has numerous times in recent months, on everything from training personnel to spotting the symptoms of Ebola to using protective gear.”

The article goes on to state that Emory University Hospital (which treated the two American medical volunteers)  has already provided advice to dozens of hospitals, “many of which are struggling with a lack of awareness about safety protocols and fear among workers who feel ill –prepared.”

Oh really? Well, then imagine what the public must feel as all the truth comes out in bits and pieces that our illustrious medical- industrial establishment wasn’t really prepared after all. We are continually told there is no reason to panic and we must not panic, and yet these people have given us no reason not to. They have literally played the fool!

The Post confirmed that the usual PR is still afoot as it noted:

“At the White House on Friday, federal officials sought to reassure the public that the nation’s health care system was well equipped to treat the virus and stop it from spreading.”

 

But pardon me if I don’t buy it. The Dallas case shows this is a PR myth, promoted for expedience so the gov’t can continue to cover its hide while it allows unlimited plane traffic from the affected areas – to appease the airline industry and Neoliberal market capitalists. 

You think these capitalist money grubbers really care about you or your family's welfare? Think again!  They are all about business and profits and that is ALL they care about! They don't want to kill the golden goose never mind that goose may be a Trojan horse for Ebola. Woodson also cites (p. 6D) a White House Fact Sheet that admits more concern for disrupting West African trade than for U.S. health security. He quotes it reading as follows:

 

"The State Department also has encouraged airlines operating in the region to maintain or reinstate service while ensuring appropriate precautions.  CDC is assisting with exit screening and communications efforts in West Africa to prevent sick passengers from boarding planes. It has also issued interim guidance about Ebola virus infection for airline flight crews, cleaning personnel and cargo personnel."

 

In other words, go all out to keep those planes flying - take all conceivable precautions -  but halting them isn't on the table.  Woodson goes on NOTE:

 

"The White House and State Department  argue that flight bans hurt international efforts  to combat the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. However, they fail to distinguish between controlled, essential travel for relief and stability operations versus non-essential travel to the United States."

 

He has a point.

 

Further, the admission by numerous hospitals that they aren’t prepared and they’ve had to pick the brains of those at Emory (and now likely Texas Presbyterian too) isn’t designed to instill confidence.  That the feds can remotely make the specious claim the “nation’s health care system is well equipped” to deal with Ebola is ludicrous and they must think we’re stupid or not paying attention. Maybe they believe we’re more entranced by “Survivor” or “Amazing Race” among other diversions, like shopping for the latest tech gizmo.

According to Craig deAtley, administrator of the D.C. Emergency Healthcare Coalition, the Dallas case is now prompting health care institutions across the nation to look at their individual abilities to respond.

“Facilities might not realize, for example, how much practical planning goes into training and staffing personnel, configuring isolation rooms, and determining what to do with dirty bedsheets and other waste”,  according to deAtley.

Well the fact that “dozens” of hospitals have had to call up Emory for guidance shows there’s  no “might not” about it – they really don’t know what to do! Ok, let me rephrase that: they didn’t know what to do before they called, and there may be hundreds more that haven’t found out yet. (Maybe they will phone in for guidance after another infected Liberian arrives - say in Tampa - and this time with full blown symptoms. And btw, the case yesterday of a sick Liberian arriving at Newark Airport  - but found not to have Ebola - ought to be another shot over our bow to take action!)

Oh and here’s the real butt kicker (ibid.):

“CDC officials acknowledged that widespread hospital awareness didn’t kick in until the Dallas case.”

Right, so we have had to wait until a possible full scale outbreak before our great medical establishment and health care system had all its ducks in a row. Criminy!  And  we're supposed to believe it's now "kicked in"? I doubt it.

More comforting words from Abigail Tumpey, a CDC spokeswoman:

“We let our guard down a little bit”

Yuh think?

Keep watching as this saga unfolds, and mind whether action is finally taken to halt all non-essential flights from the hot zone if an outbreak begins in Big D!  If nothing happens, you will know the Neoliberal state places its own welfare over yours!
-------

10/7  Footnote: Supporting my contentions, on CBS this morning is the news of a Sept. 24 Nurse's protest in Las Vegas, with the RNs marching to show their fear that their hospitals are not ready for Ebola. Also, of more than 1500 nurses that responded to an online survey nearly 80 percent said that their "hospital has not communicated to them any policy regarding admission of patients infected by Ebola."   Another Nurse from San Francisco interviewed by John Blackman affirmed her hospital had none of the positive pressure suits she herself had seen on TV.

Then a clip of CDC Honcho Thomas Friedan was shown claiming he wanted health workers to be "scared". He wants them to have a healthy respect for the consequences of any lapse". Fine, Maestro, but then make sure the hospitals are all provided with the wherewithal needed, and until then stop the PR.

How the Frackers Prevailed in Colorado

Thanks to an extended report, we now know how Gov. John Hickenlooper, his Neoliberal Dem cronies and the fracker brigade managed to prevail in Colorado. By "prevail" I mean that they managed to finagle a closed doors, or back door deal - presented as a compromise  - that resulted in Dem rep Jared Polis removing his two local fracking initiatives from the November Ballot.  As the Post put it in its report ('Hickenlooper's Deal', p. 1A, Aug. 24):

"Nearly every person interviewed by the Denver Post doubted that anyone but Hickenlooper, a former geologist who has allies in the energy community and environmental communities,  could have pulled off a compromise."

But the problem is that it's no real compromise, only a puny token sham that managed to scrap actual potential for action. According to the Denver Post report back on Aug. 8:

"A 20 - person commission was announced Monday as part of a compromise to keep two oil and gas oriented initiatives from the fall ballot."

And what, pray tell, would  we see from this commission?

"The commission will have 6 months to make recommendations to the legislature which will then consider further legislation."

Oh, terrific! Six months to make "recommendations" and then the (bought out) legislature will have its say in making new laws. All you need to know is that the two largest fracking companies - from Texas- cheered wildly at the news. Can you figure it out now? Because never mind the legislature, the 6 month span will allow the drillers to put down 5,000 more frack wells, threatening our air, soil and ground water, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/now-fracking-pollutes-soil-as-well-as.html


Anyway, Hick and his compadres were propelled to act to get a deal - any deal - after learning from Brian Lawrence (who founded Yorktown Partners - a company that invests in energy) that while the firm had planned to invest $1 billion in Colorado energy companies they were unable to proceed while any fracking control items were on the ballot. Thus the impetus for Hick to come up with any kind of bogus deal he could.

The breakthrough came when U.S. Rep Ed Perlmutter organized a dinner at a downtown Denver steakhouse to discuss the ongoing fracking debate and try to come to a resolution. No members of the fracktivists were allowed to attend, only the inside pols and their lackeys. Oh ...and the oil and gas representatives.  According to the Post (p21 A, ibid.):

"To Chris Castilian, director of government affairs for Andarko Petroleum and deputy chief of staff for former Republican governor Bill Owens, the dinner was a watershed moment."

Oh, I am sure it was as the weasels - in their secluded meetings-  found concordance on how to craft a deal to screw the public out of an opportunity to vote for local control of frack operations. Now, they're at the mercy of "commissions" and an industry-driven "task force".

To make a long story short, Hickenlooper according to the Post,  "practiced shuttle diplomacy" until he got all the participants on board as well as PR firms   - to be able to sell this sham to the public. After all, following all the hoopla of the ballot initiatives you had to toss them a rag when the measures were removed. (It helped of course that the state Dept. Of Natural Resources houses the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - which is the industry 'pet' group designed to run interference on fracktivists )

As Hickenlooper beheld the "hangman's noose", i.e. the date of Aug. 4 approaching with all the signed petitions that would enable the two local fracking control initiatives, he and his minions pushed into overdrive to secure the bogus deal. The break point came when Polis caved under the pressure and dropped all additional demands concerning the composition of the task force designated to oversee the issues via the commission set up for the compromise. The road was then free and clear to bamboozle the public. (Polis was told if he really wanted to have local fracking control he could run for a special state office.)

So we can then plausibly conclude that Polis has likely been playing us all, or at least only exploited the initiative drive to get more press for himself.. Sadly, with the initiatives pulled, it means all those 100,000+ who've signed them will likely not be tricked into doing so again  - for another sham cover by a lying politico only seeking to protect his own hide. Meanwhile, the Neoliberal Dem Governor Hickenlooper has again resorted to his usual codswallop, once describing  the push for the local control initiatives and the action by five municipalities to place bans on moratoriums for drilling as "a rebellion". Obviously showing he has no clue what a REAL one looks like, making me wish I could transport him back in time to Yorktown  or Lexington in 1777, oh,  in a Redcoat uniform.

And in his most recent Post remarks:

"There are still a bunch of critics who say we're kicking the can down the road. But if those critics had their way we would be in the middle of a ballot war right now. "

You have that one right, sonny.  And we'd have had a full throated expression of the people's will which you and your imps have now prevented by a back room deal.

Some things never change, but the people of Colorado won't forget. You can make book on it!

Drones Gone Wild- Why More Air Disasters May Be On the Way If The FAA Keeps Dragging Butt

The Youtube video of a wayward drone scoping out people below on the observation deck of the Seattle Space Needle has commanded lots of attention, as it should.  In fact, this drone - shown in an ABC segment last night - was sent on its mission by some goober in a nearby hotel - who released it from his window. This stunt followed an earlier one a month or so ago when a drone flew high over the wedding of the daughter of a congress critter (who had a hand in fashioning the 2012 bill allowing millions of these things to take to our skies by next year)  In both cases the unleashed drones were in violation of laws prohibiting such drone flight until late next year.

The existence of the relevant bill was first reported on Feb. 4, 2012 in The Wall Street Journal  ('U.S. Skies Could See More Drones', p. A7)and it came as a shocker of sorts. First, because it disclosed yet another federal agency (FAA) held hostage to the corporatist-industrial complex, now attempting to find new avenues for drone production since the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending (well the first has officially ended, the second nearly may not until 2024). And second, because it discloses how secretive this corporate-benefiting information is.

Medea Benjamin made reference to the spectacle of congressional corporate compliance and being bought out by the drone makers, as she said:

 

"They’ve been able to write the drone legislation and get their lackeys in Congress to push it through and get the president to sign it.”
 

In other words, the congressional rats and whores placed the bottom line of corporations over citizen welfare. But this is what we expect in a corporatocracy.  In the case of the FAA bill, worth some $63 billion (and nearly four years in the lobbying and rewriting), U.S. skies would be inundated with tens of thousands of unmanned drones sharing airspace with commercial planes - and recall these are already at the beck and call of overworked air traffic controllers, as gauged by nearly 300 near misses per year. Imagine if they now had to contend with thousands of these unmanned drones flying who knows where?
 

Well, we no longer have to imagine! We now know how bad it can be! Records and data are now available showing dozens of near misses of commercial aircraft with drones, near major airports - highlighted in the FAA map below:



These incidents, exposed in an investigation by the Washington Post,  include one in which a pilot descending into LaGuardia observed a drone with a 10 -15 foot wingspan above lower Manhattan. In another LA incident, two separate pilots reported a drone "the size of a trash can" perilously close by.  The FAA was not able to pursue or identify the offenders because either "radar data was not available" or "the operators could not be identified." (Denver Post, 'Drone Close Calls', June 25th, p. 17A)   The Post notes that (p. 22A):

"The close calls were the latest in a rash of dangerous encounters between civilian aircraft and drones flown in contravention of FAA rules intended to safeguard U.S. airspace.."

Beyond that, the Post reports that "in 15 cases the past two years, drones flew dangerously close to airports or passenger aircraft" (including the incidents noted above in New York and LA.) The accumulating incidents so spooked one commercial pilot (Greg Cromer) that he actually wrote a letter to the FAA opposing the whole insane idea of opening U.S. airspace to these mechanical beasties, writing (ibid.):

 "I can see no way to prevent a collision with something that could be as small as a bird or a plane or kitchen appliance."

In addition, "the NASA database confirms that dangerous brushes between drones and passenger aircraft are more common than the FAA acknowledges." 

Is the FAA already co-opted and bought out? We hope to hell not!  According to the database, there've been 50 incidents since 2005, including potential disasters. Meanwhile, Chris Stephenson, an operations coordinator with the National Air Traffic Controllers' Association, described the pending integration of drones into national airspace as "a tsunami headed for the front porch". Other drone advocates (e.g. General Dynamics' Krista Ochs) are concerned with how the industry will be set back if and when the first major crashes with commercial airlines occur.  As she put it (ibid.):

"If we have a major catastrophe that involves some type of midair collision it could set us back years."


She has a point!

This past week saw three air disasters racked up, one in Ukraine (the shoot down of MH-17 with 298 onboard), one in Taiwan, and one over Africa. Nearly 500 lives lost in a skein of disasters that even has the most savvy frequent fliers biting nails. Steve Kornacki, on his show this morning, observed how the three plane disasters has him asking why (after taking 13 flights and surviving) he'd ever fly again. An aviation guest he had on said he needs to stop his "catastrophic thinking" and give control back to his rational brain.

But that will be hard for any rationalist knowing that because of a worthless, bought out congress commercial aircraft will be under constant threat when millions of unmanned drones with very few regulations, are released.

The inherent problems,  as noted by the Post report, include:

A limited ability to detect and avoid trouble. Cameras and high-tech sensors on a drone cannot fully replace a pilot’s eyes and ears and nose in the cockpit. Most remotely controlled planes are not equipped with radar or anti-collision systems designed to prevent midair disasters.

 

Pilot error. Despite popular perceptions, flying a drone is much trickier than playing a video game. The Air Force licenses its drone pilots and trains them constantly, but mistakes are still common, particularly during landings. In four cases over a three-year period, Air Force pilots committed errors so egregious that they were investigated for suspected dereliction of duty.

 

Persistent mechanical defects. Some common drone models were designed without backup safety features and rushed to war without the benefit of years of testing. Many accidents were triggered by basic electrical malfunctions; others were caused by bad weather. Military personnel blamed some mishaps on inexplicable problems. The crews of two doomed Predators that crashed in 2008 and 2009 told investigators that their respective planes had been “possessed” and plagued by “demons.”

Unreliable communications links. Drones are dependent on wireless transmissions to relay commands and navigational information, usually via satellite. Those connections can be fragile. Records show that links were disrupted or lost in more than a quarter of the worst crashes.

 

The FAA was to have issued regulations controlling drone flight in commercial airspace - but so far they are dragging their bought out asses. According to a disturbing report in The Denver Post ('Flying Blind', July 6, p. 1D)

 

"...an agency official reportedly has warned that the entire rulemaking process could take up to a decade."

 

A decade! That means the rules governing unmanned drone flight won't be available until 7 or so years AFTER the drones take to the skies!   The Post article goes on:

 

"Although rule-making for small, unmanned devices could begin by the end of the year, even the Inspector General of the Transportation Department has concluded 'the FAA will not meet the September 2015 deadline for safe drone integration and it is uncertain when it will be achieved,"

 

Then the solution ought to be obvious to our illustrious congress critters: the integration of drone flight into commercial airspace needs to be postponed! No unmanned drones going up until such time the FAA has its house in order and proper regulations published and mandated.

 

According to the piece, the FAA "disputes that it is creeping along" and even put out a pamphlet, 'Busting Myths' purporting to show how on target they are and calling out "myths and misconceptions".  One myth, according to the FAA, is that it is "lagging behind other countries in approving commercial drones."

 

But to show how Neoliberal logic has infected even federal agencies, the FAA  - as the Post article notes - "never explicitly denies it is lagging behind other countries in approving rules."

 

The Post goes on: "Because it can't.  Australia, Japan and even Britain has moved on with their own regulations".   But wait, the FAA has a built in excuse:

 

"The comparison is flawed, because the U.S. has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world" and "developing rules is a very complex task".

 

Okay, fair enough. Then delay the integration of drone craft until you have the rules in place!

 

Do not be pressured by the drone makers or their congressional whores! Do what is in the interests of the citizens for once!

 

Steve Kornacki may well worry about three airline crashes in a week - but what if that turns out to be 30 incidents a month by September 2015? That could happened if the FAA allows drones to run wild in our commercial airspace before it has solid regulations in place.

 

It is time for government to act in the interest of we the people for once, and not the corporations who are only interested in making profits.

 

Why the ‘Ivy League’ Universities Really Comprise the Corrupt League – In Politics, Econ, Business

The Gaussian Copula Formula (top) used by economists to justify credit default swaps, and the Pareto distribution - used to justify the allocation of most wealth to the richest. These are two illustrations of the bunkum taught at 'elite' universities to subvert economics in our nation and the world at large.











It was actually a comment from a nitwit poster on a Guardian (UK) forum that caught my eye. It was in response to a previous poster’s eloquent contribution and a citation of Prof. Stephen Cohen of NYU.  The response comment read, taking on the source of the citation:

“From a 2^nd rate prof at a 3^rd rate university”

Really? Are there ‘third rate’ universities? In fact, not so much these days and hence the inexplicable  yen for so many t0 blow hundreds of thousands of bucks to  compile massive debt just to get into an Ivy league school for the sake of name cachet.  Or tens of thousands more merely to make futile efforts via applications, to enter the magic, golden doors.  The fact is, it makes very little difference which university you attend (assuming it isn’t a ‘for profit’ or online version). It is more the cachet and reputation of the specific department.  From the May 2011 issue of MONEY magazine: "Don't assume an Ivy League education is better than one from a public or state university."

However, as Chris Hedges observes in his remarkable book, ‘The Empire of Illusion’ it is the “Ivies” – the likes of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others,  that are the source of a continuing flow of zombot, unthinking elites poisoning our nation and the world. To be clear,  this lot are being disgorged in specific academic areas, namely business, politics and economics. Their toxic views are infiltrating the memosphere and reinforcing the hegemony of the elites and their stranglehold on the country – including the ongoing inequality.

Thankfully, their scientific and math contributions remain relatively uncontaminated – unless they’re in the areas which receive corporate grants to support oil shale and natural gas fracking, or GMO foods. In astrophysics, for example, they’re generally fine.

Hedges’ takedown chapter is III: The Illusion of Wisdom and he comes out swinging for the fences with his opening paragraph (p.89):

“The multiple failures that beset the country, from our mismanaged economy to our shredding of Constitutional rights to our lack of universal health care to our imperial debacles in the Middle East, can be laid at the door of institutions that produce and sustain our educated elites. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, the University of Toronto and the Paris Institute of Political Studies, along with most elite schools, do only a mediocre job of teaching students to question and think. They focus, through the filter of standardized tests, AP classes, enrichment activities, high-priced tutors, swanky private schools, entrance exams and blind deference to authority, on creating hordes of competent systems managers. “

Adding:

“Response for the collapse of the global economy runs in a direct line from the manicured quadrangles and academic halls in Cambridge, New Haven, Toronto and Paris to the financial and power centers of the world.”

 

This is a breathtaking accusation but Hedges can fully back it up with his examples and citations. Nor is this simply a matter of “sour grapes from a loser” since Hedges did in fact lecture at Princeton for years. But what he shows is that the tolerance for divergent thinking in these assorted elite faculties and enclaves is almost non-existent. Hence,  the examples he provides shed light on the extent to which all the above named schools “disdain honest inquiry – which is by its very nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent and often subversive.”

They therefore would have little tolerance for a remarkable political thinker like Neoliberal gadfly Henry Giroux,  who for many years was Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. But on account of his work and resolute critical voice (one of “the most vocal critics of the corporate state and destruction of American education”) he was driven to the margins of academia in the United States. The Neoliberal sock puppets and their assorted lackeys simply couldn’t abide his independent research and critical thought and so drove him to Canada where he now teaches at McMaster University. (Certainly not a ‘3^rd rate school’ if it has the likes of Giroux!)

But Giroux is only one of  many examples of the minds marginalized because of their outspokenness.  Hedges also cites those such as Noam Chomsky (linguistics prof from MIT),  consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the late historian Howard Zinn and others who are shut out once they critique the system keeping us all down, as serfs in the alleged ‘land of liberty’.

How do these wretched intellectual pretenders get away with this evisceration of faculty and critical thought? Well, by an entrenched and well-rehearsed, embedded template that sifts all yearly intakes to find the individuals that will be the most easily molded - the most confident carriers of the elite virus and zombie ideas. (Mainly, as Hedges also notes, little dweezils that follow their profs all around -  groveling-   while also grafting for 4.0 in all their subjects.)

As for the zombie ideas forced down the willing throats of these sycophant students, like:  “money is speech”, "corporate personhood", "free markets", "globalization"  and “trickle down economics”, they ought to have died ages ago .  But all are sustained via the publication of specious, pseudo-academic bullshit for which the dumpster would be the only rightful place in a rationally run institution of higher learning.

Hedges details the methods at the outset of the chapter:  

“They organize learning around minutely specialized disciplines, narrow answers …it allows students and faculties to retreat into these self-imposed fiefdoms and neglect the most pressing  moral, political and cultural questions.”

 

And then later elaborates some more (p. 103):

 

"This is what the Harvard Business School method is about, a didactic system in which the logic employed to solve a specific problem always, in the end, sustains market capitalism. These elites are not capable of asking the broad, universal questions, those staples of an education in the humanities, which challenge the deepest assumptions of a culture and examine the harsh realities of political and economic power. They have forgotten, because they have not been taught, that human nature is a mix of good and evil. They do not have the capacity for critical reflection. They do not understand that for every answer there arises another question- the very basis behind the Socratic method's search for wisdom."

 

One of the ways this occurs is the use of specialized vocabulary.  Thus, the pseudo-intellectuals or “quants” that helped develop the Gaussian Copula formula (see embedded graphic at top) were quite confident that when they applied it to the development of credit default swaps  few would figure them out before it was too late. Indeed choosing the name for this bastardized form of credit derivative ensured that they’d be virtually home free. On account of the arcane lingo used and the complex nature of the underlying formula, few ordinary mortals would have the time, intelligence or temperament to get to the bottom of it all.

These nasty devices were geared to enable commercial banks (the ones that hold your passbook savings) to leverage their assets to preposterous ratios just like investment banks, sometimes as high as 33:1.  In other words, their generation of profits would largely be based on phantom money – since they lacked the reserves to make good if the bets (which is what the credit defaults swaps were) failed. In the meantime, the Gaussian formula itself allowed the credit derivatives to be sliced and diced numerous ways to package them throughout ordinary securities such as collateralized mortgage obligations.  The failure of the credit agencies themselves to recognize this enabled them to be outfoxed by the specialized lingo and the presence of one fraction of ‘AAA’ bonds in each. This  then led directly to the misrepresentation of junk bonds as AAA and the collapse of the credit markets in 2008.

Since then  it’s become ever more evident why elite economics is a failure and can’t even be regarded as a science like Physics, or even in a “pre-scientific phase” as one respondent (Sanjay Bissessur)  to an original  Financial Times letter of mine showed. But economists' failure to even appreciate or use the Gaussian Copula formula correctly shows that they aren't even in the pre-scientific phase. And Bissessur’s pathetic efforts to compare the incident to “early physics” was plainly based on false analogy and disclosed his own lack of critical thinking.

 

In the case of the Gaussian copula, invented by David X. Li  and articulated in his (2000) paper: ‘On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach”  it isn't even a true mathematically sound equation analogous to those used in physics or celestial mechanics.. It is more an intellectual Frankenstein monster that never should have seen the light of day any more than a four-headed baby with a pointed tail. For example, Li's misuse of the distribution functions (F_A(1)) and (F_B(1)) would appall any genuine mathematician or physicist. Each is actually based upon significant uncertainties via survival law distributions which can vary enormously. There is no way to normalize any probability based on (T_A, T_B ) so there is no way to equate Pr[T_A, T_B] to anything on the left side. The equal sign is dangerous recklessness masquerading as math. Did elite economists or quants know any of this when they cranked out their credit default swaps? The evidence of failure to predict the 2008 credit crash shows they didn't.

All of which supports Hedges’ condemnation of these mental zombots, i.e. p. 98:

“They cannot grasp that truth is often relative. They base their decisions on established beliefs such as the primacy of an unregulated market or globalization, which are accepted as absolutes.”

 

In other words, they inhabit a self-confected, solipsist world of illusion devoid of critical, empirical testing or critical thought. I mean, Jeez, if any one of these so-called geniuses would have just taken the time to understand WHAT he was doing in applying the Gaussian Copula to credit derivatives he’d likely have seen it was the equivalent of a physicist taking a tiny piece of special relativity and trying to inject it into areas (i.e. thermodynamic systems at room temperature)  that had no relevance because the primary criterion (speeds near c, the speed of light) were not being met. But see, that sort of moral value perception would also have required a moral dimension to their research and its applications, and all the elites lacked it in spades.

At least physics has and uses empirical testing before advancing to hard claims  – so the odds are less that physicists will make asses of themselves. Not so with these economic, political elites.   Unlike astronomers,  who can accurately predict the position of Jupiter or Mars in 2050 or the next lunar eclipse or occultation of a star, the economists can't even predict simple stuff in their immediate domain - say like forecasting the U.S. economic growth would be 3.2 % in 2011 when it was only 1.7%

So why do we keep paying attention to these overpaid clowns? Just because they have Harvard, Cambridge, Princeton, Stanford or whatever degrees after their names? Well, mainly because the politicos who achieve high office (and have similar backgrounds)  tend to install them in their cabinets so instead of being relegated to some corner office behind the hallowed walls of ivy, they have the ear of Presidents and Prime Ministers. These clowns can then help determine national policy which result is usually to the detriment of the rest of us. (Think of the 'chained CPI' gimmick that Obama once entertained.)

Which elicits the question of whether Obama is caught up in this elitist matrix. It was clear in his recent salon.com piece Thomas Frank believes so, as he writes:

"The Obama team, as the president once announced to a delegation of investment bankers, was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” and in retrospect these words seem not only to have been a correct assessment of the situation at the moment but a credo for his entire term in office. For my money, they should be carved in stone over the entrance to his monument: Barack Obama as the one-man rescue squad for an economic order that had aroused the fury of the world. Better: Obama as the awesomely talented doctor who kept the corpse of a dead philosophy lumbering along despite it all.

The Age of the Zombie Consensus, however poetic it sounds, will probably not recommend itself as a catchphrase to the shapers of the Obama legacy. They will probably be looking for a label that is slightly more heroic: the Triumph of Faith over Cynicism, or something like that. Maybe they will borrow a phrase from one of the 2012 campaign books, “The Center Holds,” and describe the Obama presidency as a time when cool, corporate reason prevailed over inflamed public opinion. Barack Obama will be presented as a kind of second FDR: the man who saved the system from itself. That perhaps the system didn’t deserve saving will be left to some less-well-funded museum."

In other words, Frank's take is that Obama has helped to preserve and sustain the defunct market capitalism system taught at the elite schools, as well as the whole corporate hegemonic infrastructure. What does Chris Hedges think? He writes (p. 113):

"Obama is a product of the elitist system. So are his degree-laden cabinet members. They come out of Harvard, Yale, Wellesley and Princeton. Their friends and classmates made huge fortunes on Wall Street . They belong to the same clubs. They speak the same easy language of privilege, comfort and entitlement. The education they have obtained has served to rigidify and perpetuate social stratification."


Not that Obama is any different from Clinton before him and worst of all his immediate predecessor,  Bush Jr.,  who we learned benefited as a "legacy student" at Hah-Vahd. Hedges observes (p. 102) that Harvard sports something called the "Z-list" wherein 25 to 50 well-connected but borderline applicants "are told they can enroll if they defer for a year". Hmmmm.....nice trick if you can get it.  Especially if your pappy happens to be a wealthy SOB that can bestow personal grants on the universiy!

Will this corrupt system ever change to benefit the larger society? Not likely! So long as corporate money, personal wealth and advantage are extolled above principles, honor and moral decency, the myopic, amoral elites will lead their blind, greedy and obsequious students, the blind politicos and the rest of us (who aren't so blind) into oblivion. In this light, Hedges'  words are perhaps most trenchant (p. 103):
.
"A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, which fails to understand that the measure of a civilization is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death."

Will the elites take any notice of this and act to change their ways before the pitchforks really come out? Hardly! They are too smug, self-satisfied and arrogant to take seriously anything an outside critic has to say.

Which more or less resembles the stance of the French elites before the pitchforks - and guillotines - came out (during the French Revolution) , to lop off thousands of elitist heads and send them rolling into large baskets.