Methodology applied to strange case

Malaysian Flight 370 has given rise to a lot of speculation and, with the sighting of debris off the cost of Perth Australia,  hopefully the final hours of the flight will become known.  Sadly, yes, but known.  The recovery of the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder will bring the case to rest.

Over the days since its disappearance the speculation of what happened to it has had to cope will large amounts of new material, like Boeing revealing that the flight last hours longer after the disappearance of the aircraft from radar.  That was not directional data, however, and left a wide radius from the last known position of the aircraft to the point its fuel runs out (Source: WSJ).  That last point, over the South China Sea, was after one course change that was not scheduled that happened during the hand-off of Air Traffic Control zones, and Flight 370 did not properly communicate with the new ATC zone.  At that point all verbal communication was lost with the flight, as well as its transponder information, but information from the engines continued to be sent.

That was the jumping off point for speculation which immediately went to terrorism.  If it was terrorism, no group is claiming it, so that leaves an empty hole in the situation.  That was filled by the report of Lithium Ion batteries being transported on the flight, and even when stowed properly, they can cause problems in very rare instances, which includes bringing flights down with on-board fires in the cargo hold.  That defaults to the situation for Flight 370 by Occam's razor which is that the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is the best.

Pilots get trained in a set of skills that start from the beginning, and they are summed up by the process of actually flying an aircraft: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Thus flying the aircraft and keeping it aloft takes precedence, not just during normal flight but during emergency situations.  The terse 'All right, good night' response from the pilot at the last communication point for the ATC zone he was leaving may be an indicator of something going wrong on-board that had not been properly identified.  Just after that the first course change to the South China Sea took place, deviating from the prior flight path heading into China.  The protocol of Aviate, which is fly the aircraft, comes first.  And the loss of verbal and transponder information may be an indication of either a system manual reset or the power supply to those systems going out for other causes.  The engine transmission system has its own power supply separate from those systems, and could remain intact and functional.  It would keep on doing so until the aircraft shut down or the engines ran out of fuel.

If a pilot has a bad situation and is keeping the plane flying as a priority, then that pilot is determining if the plane can continue flying.  With an in-flight emergency being handled a pilot can then change the course, again.  That follows Occam's razor.  What does not follow is the pilot then succumbing to the situation right after that.  The question of it being reasonable that a pilot could misjudge his own capability to the point of not realizing how bad the situation had become after, perhaps, 5 to 10 minutes of dealing with it, is startling.  Human error does occur, yes, and cannot be discounted and may even be the case for Flight 370.  If so that is unfortunate.  That last flight change, to wind up in the Indian Ocean means that there was some capacity to not only Aviate but Navigate.

The South China Sea is a region of shipping that is heavily trafficked, what with Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia nearby, and destinations of Japan and China to the east and India and the Middle East to the west.  A pilot having any doubt about his viability as a pilot has a perfectly satisfactory option of ditching in the South China Sea.  It may seem heroic to try and not to succumb to fumes from a smoldering fire, but to Navigate and think you can do that and not know for a certainty means you have had time to address the situation.  While ditching may be a bad option, it is less worse than calculating your ability to Navigate while having a heavily trafficked area to ditch in.  It is not just the pilot's life, but that of everyone on board that is at stake.

There are circumstance where, perhaps, the ability to control engine speed has been taken out by a fire, leaving the jets to continue on without changes.  A crash into the sea is not a good way to ditch an aircraft, true, and if you cannot have that under your control then you have few options left as a pilot as you no longer control the airspeed of the plane.  That is a serious problem when it comes to Aviate.  There are options of what to do next, but they start to fall in the realm of changing angle of attack, changing elevation and trying to stall the engines out.  A bad situation but better than crashing into terrain or water at speed.

Thus, by Occam's razor, we get in-flight emergency and then gross misjudgment of the situation.

Is there another way to explain this scenario?

Of course: The Joker scenario.

Someone on-board planned to use the aircraft to give a wild suicide ride, and then crash the aircraft.  Some people do just want to see the world burn.  This is a viable option and requires little else beyond madness, which is just as likely as an emergency, a veteran pilot making gross misjudgments  and then succumbing to a situation he thought he could handle.  Even though a viable option, it is one that requires the intent of a man or woman gone mad to do it.  Thus it is less likely than the one by Occam's razor.

At this point it is possible to say that Occam's razor has resulted in a non-simple explanation that requires some types of problems coming together in a single instance that is unlikely.  If this razor is not cutting to a solution, is there another?

Yes, there is, and anyone examining military history will know it pretty well.  A main attribute for this goes to Napoleon, but it has shown up in various forms from various individuals over time. It is Hanlon's razor:  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

For this instance is stupidity indicated?

Piloting an aircraft and making navigational changes indicates some level of gross competence and skill in these tasks.  These are not stupid acts, but ones with intent behind them.  Their results may be stupid and dumbfounding, yes, but they are done with competence, reason and foresight: they are not acts of a stupid individual.  Deranged, maybe, but not stupid.

When you cross of stupidity with Hanlon's razor you are left with: malice.

With malice you now have a crime of intent.  There is a methodology to examining criminal cases, and while the well known Method, Motive and Opportunity tend to come to mind first, they assume you know who is doing it.  Without who you do not get to MMO.  From that you step back to the 5 W's and 1 H:

Who

What

Where

Why

When

How

For Flight 370 we can definitively say What, Where and When up to the point of the second course change.  In fact that goes all the way back to the first course change, as they are the same thing: the aircraft losing contact and changing course between ATCs.

That leaves us with Who, Why and How.

A smoldering fire from cargo may not be by malice, but fills in each of those: the shipper, the cargo and a rare instance of fire.  Mind you the shipping container was rated for fire containment, but that could have failed.  The flight crew is just trying to deal with the situation in this instance, and are not active participants in the problem save for being unable to deal with it.

Going Joker answers these, also: an experienced or even novice pilot with some ability to fly the aircraft, they were deranged and took it over by some means.  Not pleasant to think about, but can't be discounted.

Terrorism?  This is two pronged as it may or may not involve active flight crew participation.  This broadly includes large scale criminal organizations, terror organizations or hostile governments doing something covertly.

Without participation you get a hostile take-over of the aircraft.  This would mean the debris in the Indian Ocean is from something else if the take-over was successful and the plane went on to a destination unknown.  Now isn't that a frightening prospect?  A large cargo vessel goes down and no one notices it.

Still remaining on the hostile takeover fork, it is possible that the take-over went seriously awry.  That can get the flight to the Indian Ocean.  It can also get it crashing into a mountainside or under triple canopy jungle or in some other waterway.  That could leave the debris from Flight 370 in the Indian Ocean or, again with the horror of finding a ship went down without notice.

On this fork the How is a terror take-over.  The Who would be unknown as would the Why.

With the crew or even just a single member of it, taking the aircraft over, you get the same bifurcation as with the hostile take-over and with the same results, save that How is the member of the crew, Who is the organization behind him/her, and Why is unknown.

There are, perhaps, only a couple of organizations and maybe one government that might try this.  None of them are China since they are the destination of the flight and it would be most easy to redirect a flight to a secure airfield and seize it, and it might be days or even weeks until someone noticed as this is China, after all, a big place with a tight lipped government.  With that said, with so many passengers being Chinese Nationals, any organization attempting to seize the flight would also know that they would get the wrath of China.  Possibly a nuclear tipped wrath, at that.

Who would tempt that?

Criminal organizations can get what they need much more cheaply, and there is little indication of individuals worth kidnapping for any reason.  It is cheaper and easier to kidnap the poor, those remotely located or the unwary for nefarious reasons than it is to take a plane full of people and do... well... what, anyway?  No good reason comes to mind, so while Method and Opportunity can be filled in, Motive or Why gets these types of organizations scratched off the list.

Of the Nations that might try this, possibly only the Magic Kingdom of Mr. Kim might be insane enough to do something like this.  However power hungry and egotistical the ruler is, however, he isn't crazy and not a Joker type.  At least so far as we can puzzle out.  Besides the Motive or Why leaves a gaping hole in the idea of NoKo being behind this.

Terrorists usually don't take an aircraft and do nothing with it, claim no responsibility and generally remain silent about it.  They might buy an aircraft, as bin Laden did in the early '90s in Africa, but hijack one and claim nothing and do nothing with it?  Unless there was something like new bioweapons in with the people or cargo, the rationale even behind the most fantasy based of organizations remains out of the realm of possibility.  The Why part remains unanswered.

Anything left?

A death cult.  AUM once operated in the USSR/Russia and was able to brainwash some KGB/FSB agents before the group dispersed.  Note most went back to Japan, but not all of them did.  AUM had this wonderful idea of liberating people's souls to a better life by killing them now.  In fact that was such a good act in their line of reasoning at the time, that mass-murder was a really great idea.  After being brainwashed with drug, sex and rock'n'roll, the followers had to be convinced that as enlightened individuals they had to save themselves to continue on with the good work.  They might not leave any notes, any causation and generally not want to attract attention to themselves carrying on the good works.  Tends to get people put in jail and deprogrammed, and then put on trial.  So a death cult could fill in Who, Why and How is via the terrorism paths.  Do note that AUM had many competent individuals within its organization and the entire operation ran a chain of computer repair stores in Japan which was their main money-maker for the founder of the cult.  The founder has reformed, of course, but the individuals who were once with it and disappeared when it dispersed, are probably not reformed.

In general the simplest explanation remains the best, and I'm expecting that the debris is from Flight 370.

If it isn't, and its not just something dropped off by a dead circulation spot in the Indian Ocean like the large debris field in the northern Pacific, then things turn nasty.  Perhaps incompetent and nasty.  Or competent and nasty.  And do note that debris is yielded from multiple possible paths, as well.  Only the in-flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder can finally dispel the speculative paths and leave us with what is left.

Evidence is needed to sort this out and remove the suppositional and to fill in the blanks. 

Journolist and antitrust

From The Daily Caller, 21 JUL 2010 article by Jonathan Strong quoting Journolist members:

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”

And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

From 15 USC 1:

Sec. 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

From 15 USC 2:

Sec. 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

From The Daily Caller, 20 JUL 2010 article by Jonathan Strong quoting Journolist members on what to do about Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

[..]

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

[..]

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

[..]

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

[..]

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

From The Daily Caller, 21 JUL 2010 article excerpting Journolist postings:

Jonathan Zasloff – UCLA law professor

From The Daily Caller, 21 JUL 2010 article by Jonathan Strong on Journolist reaction to the election of Obama as President:

Nov. 7

LAURA ROZEN: People we no longer have to listen to: would it be unwise to start a thread of people we are grateful we no longer have to listen to? If not, I’ll start off: Michael Rubin.

MICHAEL COHEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Mark Penn and Bob Shrum. Anyone who uses the expression “Real America.” We should send there ass to Gitmo!

JESSE TAYLOR, PANDAGON.NET: Michael Barone?  Please?

LAURA ROZEN: Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich (afraid it’s not true), Drill Here Drill Now, And David Addington, John Yoo, we’ll see you in court?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, THE NEW YORKER: As a side note, does anyone know what prompted Michael Barone to go insane?

MATT DUSS: LEDEEN.

SPENCER ACKERMAN: Let’s just throw Ledeen against a wall. Or, pace Dr. Alterman, throw him through a plate glass window. I’ll bet a little spot of violence would shut him right the fuck up, as with most bullies.

JOE KLEIN, TIME: Pete Wehner…these sort of things always end badly.

ERIC ALTERMAN, AUTHOR, WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA: Fucking Nascar retards…

From Instapundit, 22 JUL 2010, commenting on Journolist and its activities:

When competitors collude this way, it’s also an antitrust violation.

Why yes, yes it is.

Two scandals, one theme

There are two recent scandals that have very similar themes to them, and their parallels are interesting.

Phase I : The Start

First is the Madoff Ponzi Scheme started by a then young and up-and-coming investor who demonstrated some knowledge of the market and decent returns. He decided on a methodology of using secret sets of data for market forecasting and putting out graphs that showed a steady return on investment, year on year, if you just invested with him. A few inside members of his family and financial coterie knew that was nearly impossible to do, yet he was able to show the payouts. If the market went up, he went up steadily and if the market went down, he went up steadily: Bernie Madoff obviously had a secret way to know just which companies to invest in to yield that steady return on investment. He could show graphs of market sectors and show how his earnings correlated with some, but not all, market segments and that by the investing system he had, he could show that his services could obviously steady out market fluctuations and do better than just track the market.

Second are the individuals who put out a paper in the mid-1990's that demonstrated that a group of trees in Siberia were following 'instrument' readings and that there was a steady amount of 'global warming' witnessed elsewhere, too. Indeed they could show that carbon dioxide was a 'secret ingredient' to global warming and that the trees tracked that perfectly and were good measures for temperatures. They then had a select sub-set of trees that were claimed to be representative of the whole and tracked the whole very well and were useful as indicators for whole forests. That secret sub-set of trees wasn't put out, and its data held outside of greater review by the scientific community. Whenever questions of temperature fluctuations arose, they could point to the predictive 'hockey stick' graph that proved that the entire system was warming year on year, regardless of fluctuations. Not all indicators could be explained away by this, of course, but the claim was that they had 'other factors' and 'weren't indicative' of the whole planetary climate. By using a secret subset of data and special interpretations, those pushing global warming claimed that their methodology was superior to any others.

Phase II: The Deception

Madoff flouted the regulatory schema, and even was able to win popular approval for his work from regulators who would over-look minor problems and even recommend that he address Congress on financial matters. That ability to ride out the internet bubble surely showed that he had some great way to beat the averages. Yet, even by the late 1990's, a market analyst and mathematician was showing that the financial numbers that Madoff published could not be right: they were based on market factors that demonstrated volatility and he was inflating numbers beyond what the market return would allow him to do. Even with that regulators would not examine the Madoff Empire, and he still had the ears of those in the halls of power in DC and easily continued his 'market beating scheme' for years, gulling people with his lovely numbers that were not sustainable when analyzed. Yet he convinced regulators who investigated that all was on the up-and-up and that his books were in order. Really!

Critics of global warming started to notice that there was a non-correlation between graph data actual data, that there was something badly askew from what those publishing the data purported and what the data showed. Yet, by then, those pushing the line of alarmist global warming had already won over the minds of politicians and power brokers, and used their power to stifle the opposition. They would use their names at prestigious venues to continue showing that their numbers were 'right' and that they were, indeed, on the up-and-up. As other global data sets acted in non-accordance with the hypothesis of 'global warming' those pushing it then resorted to culling data, showing incomplete data sets and purporting that they were the whole thing. Yet when publications came in to ask 'where is the data' and 'how do we know its verifiable', the supporters would show their sub-sets and show that their books were in order. Really!

Phase III: The Cat Let Out of the Bag is a Beast

The day came during an economic downturn when a number of investors in the Madoff Scheme needed their money. One or two Madoff could handle, but when heavy investors started to ask for their money, they got subterfuge, excuses, and partial payouts. Something was up and when those representing the individuals holding funds in the Madoff Scheme examined the record, they found the financial and mathematical analyst that had, for years, been showing that there was something seriously wrong with what Madoff was doing. Even with that regulators were put off, but not permanently, and as the number of customers grew, the hue and cry increased and Madoff finally had to do something. When the numbers started to come out the Ponzi Scheme was revealed, and it was massive, the largest ever seen.

The day came when a number of skeptics and journals started to demand the original datasets on tree rings, as later evaluation of the actual forests and trees revealed a non-correlation between long published data and the current data. Graphs had been broken down, analyzed and shown to have some data sets grafted on to others, and yet other sets 'adjusted' by yet other sets of data, all which tended to skew the results being shown. The day came when those holding the data had to respond, publish a paper and also release the data set to a third party. When that data got out, others started to raise questions on methodology and measuring practices, and if the original researchers had considered that there were systemic errors in data sets they used. Still the supporters used their contacts to put off such hard questions, and when governmental requests for information came in, the researchers stalled or claimed to have 'lost the data'. Finally, one day, the data sets that had been used for multiple papers were released, along with the documentation on what was being presented, what held back and why. The scheme to distort the numbers so as to get certain ends out of the political system, be it mere grants and contracts or larger payoffs via industrial regulation changes, were revealed to be a huge fraud in the scientific arena, far surpassing Lysenkoism and the Piltdown Man scandal. Truly no one had ever seen such a distortion of science before.

As I have always said: you must show me the numbers, that is the actual, real data, on global warming for me to even consider it as a hypothesis. Now the numbers are coming out and just like with Madoff, they don't add up.

Phase IV for Madoff was trial(s) and imprisonment for fraud.

Phase IV for 'global warming' is just starting and those involved in it will continue to use anything in their means to put of a day of reckoning. The reason there will be no Cophenhagen Treaty on Global Warming, is that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark that global warming activists have brought with them.

What is it called when government tells business what to do?

Yeah.

From the WSJ 28 APR 2009:

Mr. Lewis has told investigators for New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that in December Mr. Paulson threatened him not to cancel a deal to buy Merrill Lynch. BofA had discovered billions of dollars in undisclosed Merrill losses, and Mr. Lewis was considering invoking his rights under a material adverse condition clause to kill the merger. But Washington decided that America's financial system couldn't withstand a Merrill failure, and that BofA had to risk its own solvency to save it. So then-Treasury Secretary Paulson, who says he was acting at the direction of Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, told Mr. Lewis that the feds would fire him and his board if they didn't complete the deal.

Mr. Paulson told Mr. Lewis that the government would provide cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help BofA swallow Merrill. But since the government didn't want to reveal this new federal investment until after the merger closed, Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke rejected Mr. Lewis's request to get their commitment in writing.

"We do not want a disclosable event," Mr. Lewis says Mr. Paulson told him. "We do not want a public disclosure." Imagine what would happen to a CEO who said that.

After getting the approval of his board, Mr. Lewis executed the Paulson-Bernanke order without informing his shareholders of the material events taking place at Merrill. The merger closed on January 1. But investors and taxpayers had to wait weeks to learn that the government had invested another $20 billion plus loan portfolio insurance in BofA, and that Merrill had lost a staggering $15 billion in the last three months of 2008.

This was the second time in three months that Washington had forced Bank of America to take federal money. In his testimony to the New York AG's office, Mr. Lewis noted that an earlier TARP investment in his bank had a "dilutive effect" on existing shareholders and was not requested by BofA. "We had not sought any funds. We were taking 15 [billion dollars] at the request of Hank [Paulson] and others," Mr. Lewis testified.

The government strong-armed Bank of America with threats, intimidation and then wanted that held secret from the public so that Bank of America would absorb the insolvent and money-losing Merrill organization.  By what authority did Paulson and Bernanke have to do that?  It is NOT an area where the Constitution gives any power to Congress or the President.  Not one single word on forcing private institutions taking government funds with threats if they don't.

And that wasn't even the first time that happened.

The article ends with:

The political class has spent the last few months blaming bankers for everything that has gone wrong in the financial system, and no doubt many banks have earned public scorn. But Washington has been complicit every step of the way, from the Fed's easy money to the nurturing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and since last autumn with regulatory and Congressional panic that is making financial repair that much harder. The men who nearly ruined Bank of America have some explaining to do.

Then there is this from Larry Kudlow at National Review Online, 27 APR 2009:

What is going on in this country? The government is about to take over GM in a plan that completely screws private bondholders and favors the unions. Get this: The GM bondholders own $27 billion and they’re getting 10 percent of the common stock in an expected exchange. And the UAW owns $10 billion of the bonds and they’re getting 40 percent of the stock. Huh? Did I miss something here? And Uncle Sam will have a controlling share of the stock with something close to 50 percent ownership. And no bankruptcy judge. So this is a political restructuring run by the White House, not a rule-of-law bankruptcy-court reorganization.

Meanwhile, top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett opened the door wide on CNN yesterday to bank nationalization and CEO firings. Unfortunately, my take that the economic stress tests are a political stalking horse for more government ownership, more government control of the banks, and more government disruption of shareholder rights and normal corporate governance looks to be coming true.

Then there’s today’s huge New York Times story about Tim Geithner. It starts on the front page and goes on and on for thousands of words. Yes, he missed early signs of the crisis. But he was altogether too cozy with the New York banks, especially Citibank — and Robert Rubin along with Sandy Weill. In fact, at one point Weill asked Geithner to be Citi’s new CEO. And Geithner joined the board of a Weill-run non-profit to help inner-city high-school students. There were numerous lunches and dinners with Rubin and Weill and other Wall Street luminaries.

[..]

No, the Times article doesn’t mention Geithner’s failure to pay back taxes until just before he was nominated for Treasury secretary. But it seems that at this point in history we need a strong, credible, and independent TARP and bank regulator.

Actually, at this point, I don't want any government involvement in the banks AT ALL.  See that Bank of America problem?  Now imagine that the government DOES nationalize it and a few others... and decides that secret meetings are the way to go.  Just like they have ALREADY done with public funds.

Over at Bloomberg on 27 APR 2009, Jonathan Weil sums up the banking insanity with the following:

It would be nice to think that SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro might call for a sincere, thorough investigation. But there’s nothing in her professional background that suggests she has the spine or the nerve to take on a major financial institution, much less a former Treasury secretary or the sitting Fed chairman.

We probably won’t get any searching inquiries out of the banking industry’s elected overseers in Congress. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd took V.I.P. loans from Countrywide Financial Corp., now a subsidiary of Bank of America. His counterpart in the House, Barney Frank, declared last July that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “not in danger of going under,” about two months before they did.

That leaves you and me, the American public, with the uncomfortable realization that we are slipping toward a state of lawlessness in this country, all in the name of saving our financial system by creating even bigger banks out of combinations of banks that were dangerously too big already. This doesn’t inspire confidence. It destroys it.

We can have our freedom. Or we can have our systemically failure-prone financial institutions. We probably can’t have both.

Yes, Chris Dodd's old friends at Countrywide got to be part of Bank of America, not that he had any interest in them due to the special interest loans he has gotten from them.  Heaven forbid that he be seen as CORRUPT from taking loans that you and I couldn't get from a bank that is part of his OVERSIGHT duties.

And Barney Frank is famous at the top of the housing bubble saying that its not a bubble and that everything will be peachy, really, and that economics will always prop up loans to people who can't repay them... just like the legislation he fostered said it would do.  And that Fannie and Freddie weren't giving ENOUGH money backed by the federal government out.  Which is OUR money backing them.  Don't mind all the lovely lobbying and money donated to his campaigns by these government authorized institutions... no don't mind the possibility for corruption there, where brown-nosing sycophants to politicians get plumb jobs for lots of money as payback for past support.  That could never look BAD, now, could it?

No, that just couldn't ever happen.

I mean those Hamiltonians are really upset that such 'limited' work of the government turns into State direction of corporations and banks via intimidation, threats and promises of plumb jobs for supporting them.  I mean no BAD could ever come of Teddy Roosevelt's 'expansive' view of powers for those in office, now, could it?

Hamilton, himself, always saw the US as needing a restricted monarchy with an aristocratic elite to guide it... yes, he did step away from that, but the warnings were stark and clear at the time of the Founding of the Constitution.  It has taken over two centuries to so corrupt the process, so water down the restrictions that our very liberty is now at stake against our government.  This will not last long.  A government directing businesses will fail.  Either internally by lack of support and bearing new citizens into a Nannystate, as seen in modern Europe, or via corruption on a massive scale, as seen in the USSR, or by slow decohesion of government and attempting to prop up 'preferred' businesses by bad loans as seen in Japan, South Korea, and now China and the USA.

The authoritarian and, indeed, despotic stances taken by those in 'regulatory' positions is clear: they are anti-democratic, anti-liberty and seek to suppress vital information that the public demands for open and above-board operations in its government.  State secrets to protect the Nation flow out like water, and we are now far less protected than before.  Information that shows support for expansive government control is kept secret, thus extending that control.  And with that the corruption spreads further as politicians feast upon the public treasury for their own supporters and then require more payments to feed their appetites as an aristocracy always does.

What is it called when government tells businesses what to do, decides if you get to have any private property or any information at all when government is at work?

That is very simple, and yet so many have loaded this concept down that few dare speak it.

It is called: Fascism.

Plain and simple... not with a little moustache.  And everything done to centralize power, be it health care or some 'mandatory volunteerism' or a 'civilian protection force' that will be the size of DoD or deciding how much of GDP should be put into R&D... these are not hallmarks of a Free Land.  Just the opposite.

Americans are founded against such despotism, have fought against it and instinctively recognize the poison, no matter how much sugar surrounds it.

Conspiracy, so simple a Leftist can do it

My thanks to Serendip for giving a pointer to an article by Mohammad Alireza at Iranian on 18 SEP 2007: What will you do after America destroys Iran?

One thing that seems to be pretty well endemic across the Middle East is conspiracy-mania! The joys of everything being a part of some larger conspiracy, if only you could figure it out and if you CAN'T then you make one up. In the more authoritarian and dictatorial societies this is an outgrowth of trying to explain the whimsies of such regimes and give them any context whatsoever. Unfortunately that means that something simple, such as someone in the power structure not particularly liking you for some reason and having you, as an individual or family, harassed gets pinned on various things. If your cousin does something vaguely wrong and illegal, but that most folks get away with and *he* gets thrown in jail, then *you* will pin that on... well, lets see, the list usually starts: the United States, Israel, Europe, the oil companies, a minor deific being, economics, a religious conspiracy out to get you, a power conspiracy out to get you, or, indeed, any conspiracy at all.

And it if is actually just some minor functionary harassing you anonymously via the power structure of the State?

Ah, yes, if you try to say *that* and actually hold anyone in power accountable, then you will be visiting your brother in jail or possibly just find out where all those 'disappeared' people go to. Must be UFOs! It's a conspiracy!

Now, when you are a Leftist and have roots in the Middle East, then the absolute conspiracy realm starts to knock out all the 'lesser conspiracies' as they just aren't powerful enough to get you. That means that all local activities by local powers-that-be are put aside because you really don't want to talk about them and if you blame them... well, see above. Instead you can start blaming the Global Conspiracies of various sorts because they are so awesome in power that NO ONE can resist them!

With that in mind lets start in on Mr. Alireza's op-ed:

TEHRAN, Iran
-- What’s the connection between; the theft of the 2000 Gore-Bush
election, Cheney’s secret meeting with oil executives, September 11th
2001, the invasion of Iraq, and plans for destroying Iran’s military
defenses and setting it’s economy back 50 years?

The connection is Peak Oil.

Yes, there you have the latest in grand conspiracy theories by the Western Left showing up to bolster the conspiracy theories of the paranoid Middle East. Hey! Who said the Left couldn't learn anything? They certainly picked up conspiracy-mania from the Middle East damned quickly. This is the 'Neo-Con hijack Amerika truth behind 9/11 no blood for oil' conspiracy at work!

This is what happens when you *think* that America is a 'one-man, one-vote' democracy while, instead, we have a representative democracy of equal parts in the House via population and equal State representation in the Senate. In the year 2000 the election did NOT go to the person with the most votes, but went to the person who was able to craft a majority of the district based representation system in the Electoral College to win. Of course, if you think America has one sort of system while it actually has another, you will see a conspiracy at work. In the end this great and grand conspiracy came down to 500 or so voters in Florida, as the rest of Nation had left neither candidate with an outright majority as went Florida so went the Nation. And Florida itself was highly divided in its vote. So instead of actually knowing a bit about the Electoral College, representative democracy and the district based distribution in the Electoral College we get, instead: A Conspiracy!

A conspiracy of the willfully uneducated, apparently.

Good going to the Western Left! The US hadn't even suffered 9/11, was still undergoing the moribund foreign policy of Bill Clinton that did nothing about terrorism or holding any Nation accountable to anything, and he did not even try to enforce the laws of the land to protect the Nation. From that and the lax attitude of the 1990's and the strange notion that 'history had ended', why no one could see a dime's worth of difference between a lack-luster Vice President and a Texas Governor who's main claim to fame is his family name. And you need a conspiracy for this?

A conspiracy of stupidity, possibly...

Then there is Cheney's 'secret meetings with oil executives'! Tell you what, can we swap that for President Clinton's 'secret meetings with Charlie Trie' and the movement of defense technology to Red China? Because, on the scale of pure nastiness, oil men looking to make money selling oil and individuals looking to undermine the global balance of power directly by giving Red China a leg-up on technology to thwart the US are not even roughly equivalent as the way the world turns. It is about on level with Hillary Clinton's 'secret meetings on health care', which looks to impoverish this Nation, then and now, faster than anything the poor oil men can do. Heck, they just want us to drive more while these others are looking to harm the US directly via empowering a Nation not-so-friendly to the US and, with Ms. Clinton, to do the Soviet equivalent of economics to US health care to make everyone equally sick and poor.

'Secret meetings' are the stuff of conspiracies as they are 'secret'. If VP Cheney was so smart, then how come no real energy legislation has been passed to wipe out all these other forms of fuel and get rid of the percent or so of US energy that comes from 'renewables'? Oh, wait, the stuff was marginal to begin with! So sorry! As to them hampering the expansion of such, well, look no further than Sen. Kennedy and the wind-farm he is blocking and you can get an idea of what sort of problems 'alternative energy sources' have. Can't have that, so it must be a grand conspiracy for economic gain by oil companies... companies also willing to invest in bio-fuels and such as PR just in case anything comes of them.

Call this the conspiracy of the 'economically challenged'.

Then there are the 'Truthers' out to show, once and for all, that skilled engineers and scientists at Popular Mechanics are far smarter and more capable than a bunch of folks wanting to have a conspiracy of the US Government to kill its own people. And, what really gets me, is that 9/11 was, indeed, a conspiracy. Started by Ramzi Binalshibh to make up for his lacks in the 1993 WTC attacks, working with a close friend to get some better ideas, going to his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and then having the plot passed over as a whole slew of ideas to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That, in turn, spun up cells to start casing the US, getting together folks who could guide aircraft after a hijacking, funding same, and blending in with US culture. Suddenly 19 men were taking over four aircraft and inflicting nearly 3,000 casualties on US soil. That was not only a 'conspiracy' it was a 'plot' by those using 'predatory warfare' to attack the US without warrant.

Unfortunately that is a KNOWN conspiracy and an UNKNOWN conspiracy always wins over a known one hands-down, each and every single time. And if it can be a nebulous unknown government conspiracy? Well, that is perfect! No need to go through obvious reasons from a known group, like the fact the US isn't Muslim, doesn't practice sharia law, actually believes that each individual is created equal and can figure out their own destiny in life... no need for someone who wants to destroy the Nation because it upholds those things! Far better a conspiracy of some sort to finally prove.... well, I am sure those peddling this would like to prove something, but their own cluelessness is what comes across.

Call this the conspiracy of the clueless.

Then there is the War in Iraq and the 'no blood for oil' folks. I spent some time a couple of posts back dealing with this in The Worst Wars of All, but let me re-cap: under the law of nations the US was absolutely justified in attacking Iraq which would keep its word on no agreements signed during wartime, and continued to threaten Nations and undermine the sanctions on it by stalling. Those are absolutely good and necessary reasons for Nations to pick up a war that went into a cease-fire as one side was showing ZERO commitment to keep its word.

On the 'no blood for oil' side, I will point out that the very first President to make that calculus was President James Earl Carter and the 'Carter Doctrine'. He was and is on the political Left. He put down that the US would fight for its economic interests in the Middle East so as to not be blackmailed. He was willing to send force of arms to back that up. That IS 'blood for oil'. If the Left has a problem with that, they can look in the god damned mirror.

Call that a conspiracy of the unenlightened enlightened.

Then there are the bits about Iran... Apparently those in Iran actually need something to explain some pretty simple things, and if you want to find out who is destroying the Iranian economy, you need throw one stone no further than inside the borders of Iran itself. Yes, I do have some bad news for Iranians: you folks have got an oil problem! The regime in power is so utterly clueless, utterly hateful and utterly destructive, that they are willing to sacrifice the 'cash cow' of Iran, being its oil exports, in order to fund a worldwide network of Transnational Terrorists known as Hezbollah, and to NOT re-invest in their own petroleum infrastructure. One does not need the US to step in and destroy the economy of Iran... so sorry, the regime is doing that just fine on its own.

How else do you explain not being able to meet OPEC oil export quotas for... what is it now.... two years?

How else do you explain not being able to even PAY government employees, like teachers, for six months? Actually with factories closing, unemployment climbing and strikes galore, Iran has a HUGE problem in its industrial sector.

How else do you explain the growing decay of the refineries to produce gasoline, which is now causing shortages to the point where traffic on the streets has noticeably decreased? In Tehran!

Then there are the working conditions as seen by Iran's own workers that they report on, including lack of pay, arrests, torture, harassment... you don't need the United States of America to NOT PAY YOUR OWN PEOPLE! The regime is doing that just fine and dandy on its OWN! Don't try to pre-blame America for the internal lacks of the Iranian regime. That little tail gets pinned absolutely and squarely in one place: the People of Iran.

Actually, that is a problem that Mr. Alireza does not even try to examine, this from a bit later after more multi-conspiracy theoryism:

The warmongers are planning not only on destroying Iran militarily but also economically. Iran is the only obstacle remaining between America and the energy reserves in the Middle East being controlled by the military industrial complex. America is running out of oil and gas and if it does not have a “reliable source” its vital national security will be placed in danger. Wake up people.

Ah, yes, the 'warmongers' of America out to 'destroy Iran militarily' and economically. He gets the Trifecta of : Imperialism, 'military industrial complex', and 'oil'. And since the ME is obsessed about oil, let me drop a load of bricks on that.

The greatest oil reserves around are locked up in tar/oil sands and oil shales which are now economically viable because of the cost of a barrel of oil. Do you know where the greatest reserves of THAT are? The Western US and Canada. Plus the US has had a policy of not drilling on *any* of its continental slope for oil for decades, and China, Mexico and Canada have all seen that there are vast reserves out there that we have not even scratched the surface of. Congress is finally wising up and realizing that depending on foreign oil is not a 'good idea'. The US also gets a lot of petroleum from Mexico... in point of fact the places that depend on Middle Eastern oil are: Europe, China, India and Japan. Iran could be making LOTS more money if they boosted their oil exports, but their decaying petro infrastructure is now making domestic demands hard to meet. Like that gasoline problem there.

One thing that your neighbors in Iraq had to learn, right up front, is that the value of ALL known reserves of oil in Iraq are less than 10% of the US GDP and actually down into tenths of a percent economy wise. Currently that US GDP sits just a bit shy of $13 Trillion. Iran, by comparison, sits at $610 billion, or about 5% that of the US... to put that into perspective, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis GDP by State, a bit smaller than Florida $713 billion and a bit larger than Illinois $589 billion. America has spent more in Iraq than it would ever see, EVER, if it had just gone in and taken the place over. Way cheaper to deal with a tyrant in power to get oil, if only the man could have kept to his wartime agreements... more on that, later. Still, the point is that the US is spending in Iraq, about 1/6 to 1/3 the entire GDP of Iran. Or about 1.5%-2% of entire US economy which is growing, so that makes keeping track of the size of the percentage difficult as it decreases over time.

America, because it is a manufacturing nation that utilizes petroleum to leverage the skills of its working and managerial labor force, has more productivity per person than any other nation on this planet. Iran, who's oil reserves are now falling behind those of Iraq, can be a nice source of oil, but Americans prefer that people figure out how to run their own nations. After multiple wars we handed the following back to their Peoples, after WINNING: Germany, Japan, Philippines, Italy, France, South Korea (after saving it, but that war isn't over, either), and now Afghanistan and Iraq. America is the damnedest strangest 'empire' this planet has ever seen: Americans steadfastly *refuse* to take places over and run them, but have this lovely and revolutionary idea that People are able to do these things on their own, given half a chance. That is why we are helping Afghanistan and Iraq to stand up on their own, learn to pay their own way and get an accountable government in place. We prefer to send diplomats with briefcases rather than soldiers with arms, because the soldiers are just way too cheap, as these things go. A damned diplomat can get a trade agreement going that will be far larger in GAIN than any cost in arms and lives.

Of course diplomats also *lose the peace* every so often. So the cheaper means of getting a more expensive solution that wins for the most people has to be done. Really, diplomats are far more lethal than any army ever created. If you want a long, drawn out unjust peace, look no further than Versailles and the treaties just after it! Made an absolute mess of things, and caused more death than any other 'peace treaty' ever signed. That is a problem with an 'unjust peace': it is waged until the affairs between Nations becomes intolerable, and then you see warfare. Saddam was an evil, tyrannical, genocidal dictator with delusions of grandeur and hegemonic aspirations over the Middle East. He finally got so bad that the world had enough of his antics, and had to throw him out of Kuwait... and then have him agree to do things like dismantle his WMD and long range missile systems capability. Not just the artifacts of the actual bombs and missiles: the entire industries behind them, lock, stock and barrel. If he would have done THAT, he would have been able to merrily re-arm, re-stock his ammo, reinforce his armed forces, spread his influence and start to threaten folks more than he did *before* Kuwait.

And the US would have LET HIM DO THAT. He would have demonstrated that no matter how vile he was as an individual, he would be willing to be held to account for his words and agreements.

In this lovely world of ours, it is not intent that you judge people by, but their actions. Intent decides depth of commitment to those actions, but the actions themselves speak far louder than any words can do. The US has had long standing problems with the current regime in Iran, and yes Americans do know the difference between an authoritarian, dictatorial, despotic regime and the poor unfortunates being subjugated by such government. America did not like having her sovereignty violated and its embassy invaded. America did not like being attacked multiple times by Hezbollah at the behest of Iran and Syria, nor having hundreds of our Marines die who had gone to help protect Lebanon from civil war. America did not like the Khobar towers attack aimed at it in Saudi Arabia by Iranian backed Hezbollah there. And Americans are a bit fed up with Iran sending its 'Secret Cells' and Qods forces and Hezbollah into Iraq with Iranian arms and money to kill just about anyone they can set their sights on: not only Americans, but Iraqi men, women and children.

Since 1979 the American People have held in abeyance against Iran, trying to contain the uncontainable that only has a government capable of seeking domination over others to further its own view of the world. America, as a nation amongst nations that understands the law of nations, could do little to confront a regime that sends its illegitimate and predatory fighters into Bosnia, Chechnya, Algeria, Argentina, Lebanon, and the Tri-Border area of South America. We see the level of violence slowly rise as the regime in Iran sets its sights on domination and dominion for its own ends. There is one People responsible for ending this and they have not done a damned thing to do so.

The People of Iran.

Your Revolution was hijacked and then turned on you. The Shah was repressive and authoritarian, and I do wish that prior generations in the US did not look at him as 'our thug' because all such thugs are vile to America. We did not do so, but also realize that the People of Iran were unable to overcome their own internal differences and mount a coherent Revolution that would bring equality and prosperity to all. We mark 28 years of this regime and its next generation in Iran, and things, far from turning around, are getting worse in every particular just INSIDE Iran itself. As this regime now threatens other Peoples and Nations, Mr. Alireza would much prefer that the authoritarian regime goes unopposed by force of arms from the outside.

Very well, Mr. Alireza, then you must stand for the one thing that is required to ensure that other Nations do not see to their own self-protection to curb a regime that is threatening and killing the citizens of many Nations via predatory warfare. America is a Revolutionary Nation and we can point you to the exact words to use and their implications that MUST be followed by ACTIONS:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

America then spent 10% of her citizenry DYING to back those words up and did so. Another 15% fled to other colonies, unwilling to be a part of this new Nation. There is a great and grave cost to liberty and freedom, Mr. Alireza. You are saying that the evils you have are still sufferable to YOU. What about those that want nothing to do with that regime and are having unaccountable and illegitimate warfare brought to them by it? Where is THEIR JUSTICE, Mr. Alireza?

Iran has suffered thousands dying at the hands of this regime, just to its own citizenry. More thousands have died at the hands of Hezbollah in far off lands that this regime seeks dominion over. Just because you do not want war, Mr. Alireza, because you are willing to suffer the blood of more innocents dying to support an authoritarian regime, does not mean that others cannot look to such a vile government and put forth that they have had enough of its killing, its threats and its attempts to dominate other peoples in other lands.

Mr. Alireza I can assure you the fastest way to get help in bringing this regime down is to band together with fellow Iranians, put on clothing and markings to identify yourselves and take up your own force of arms and declare REVOLUTION for the People of Iran and stand by that by saying you and those fighting want no PART in the governing afterwards, that is for the People of Iran to decide free from tyranny. You will get help from the US, its Allies and Friends, we will support you in a Revolution for liberty and freedom in Iran, if you hold yourselves accountable, stand up for your People and put forward that only the People of Iran can govern it, NOT YOU. Revolutionaries who put themselves to account by not creating government but by being held accountable to the government created by their People is DAMNED RARE in this world.

And if you are willing to suffer the depredations of this regime, then do not ask others to suffer it WITH YOU especially if they have been the targets of attacks and repression and 'disappearances' by the regime, at home and abroad.

If you don't want Iran to be attacked then overthrow the damned government YOURSELVES. Because it is the current government of the Nation of Iran and it is horrific. If you don't like it but are unwilling to do the one thing necessary to END IT, then do not complain when other folks with a lower tolerance for violence and repression seek to put an end to it so that THEY can be rid of it.

Only the People of Iran can create a Revolution to save themselves.

And to save you from your fantasy conspiracies.

But that will take time and blood and fighting for an ideal of liberty and freedom.

And doing the one thing to prove those beliefs: fighting to make them real for all the People of Iran.

Dumb Looks Still Free: Its all a Conspiracy, isn't it?

Why, yes, I do give feedback at a site, now and again, and this time I finally realized that I had intended to post this bit in response to a post at Rusted Sky on da troofers! And the good site owner so liked the response he used it to bonus off of it for another post, which means that someone not only read what I put down but *thought* about it!

Amazing this communication business in the 21st century...

In any event the original post was on those seeking conspiracies to get to some sort of 'truth', and I did, indeed, respond to it as I felt that those wanting a conspiracy really... yes, really.... forgot to do just a bit of thinking on *why* such grandiloquent things just don't work too well. As with all my commentary I give it to you as written, no spelling checked, all twisted logic and syntax left in, with only a little smidgen of reformatting when needed:

Needless to say The Great Global Warming Swindle says it best when it points out that money is driving things... again, the planet has been here for a long, long time and methane has been far higher in atmospheric concentrations than it is *now* and we have *not* had runaway global warming. Ditto carbon dioxide. The chances of man-made global warming is about the same chances of me winning a lottery that I did not buy a ticket for... I could *find* the winning ticket on the street, but I wouldn't plan my future on that.

Both methane and carbon dioxide are driven by this thing known as *life*. Carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a *leading* one. Methane from decomposition is an indicator of life: more life, more things dying and more methane as a result. Lower the temps and you lower carbon dioxide and methane. Raise the temps and both raise. The linkage is inverse as they follow temperatures, not *lead* temperatures.

That is how Mr. Gore can get away with putting up two graphs at a distance that seemingly correlate... superimpose them and the white space between them shows up with temperatures leading carbon dioxide. The level of fraud and deceit going on in the global warming activist community is disgraceful as they want to find data to fit their hypothesis. That is *not* science, which requires that hypothesis be *driven* by the data. And when the data changes, so does one need to revise the hypothesis.

Having grown up with my father being an electrical engineer, but he still had to work out the stresses in things like the Sears Tower for the elevator motors he helped design there, and from my own knowledge as a geologist on the forces involved in civil engineering projects, the lack of scientific and engineering background by any 'truther' movement, be it 9/11 or Global Warming or even something like the Kennedy Assassination, is astonishing. People say the damnedest things about engineering with little or no background in it. The structural engineers who *built* the twin towers were amazed that they were still standing after each strike and then realized what was going on and watched in horror as they knew what was coming. Similarly on global warming, politics pushes money... that pushes science and now thousands are employed in global warming who only have a job if they can convince you it is happening. Sort of like the Dept. of Education that *still* has not gotten reading levels up past 1958 where poor Johnny couldn't read.

Even things like the Kennedy Assassination you get a sniper pointing out that it wasn't an expert sniper that did it because he needed more than one shot to get the kill. Doing the physics analysis and looking at firing lines and firing times all points to one firing position, one weapon, one man. You can ask Oswald's *brother* about Lee and he will tell you why he did it... but, no, there must be a 'conspiracy'. Mere skill at being a Marine marksman with high grades and practicing with a known assassin's weapon mean *nothing* to those looking for the truth *out there*. Mere skill and a failed life shouldn't bring down a President, but that is America where *anybody* can do such things.

Basically, when you have to go 'another level deeper' to explain why the data isn't so, you know something is fishy. When nefarious conspiracies get added in, you can feel the hot air. So when you hear about conspiracies in an area like NOLA, you find that everyone wants politics to be the cause... not just a contributing factor with the main cause of subsidence remaining, to this day, unaddressed. For 9/11 you find that the hijackers spent hours in trainers learning how to fly their target aircraft, but spending little on learning take-off and landings. The instructors actually raised flags about that locally, and that got to one FBI office... and was ignored. But that is just bureaucracy, not malice aforethought.

Heading towards conspiracies is a dis-empowering concept: you absolve yourself of having to do anything and, instead, look for those trying to control the world via conspiracies. Thus you do not have to take part in the normal, humdrum and everyday world in which effects can have complex causes and not have easy remedies. My main gripe about such 'truthers' is that if there are groups "running the world" they are doing a damn poor job of it. Pure and outright incompetence, in fact, as any conspiracy or set of same that had so much capability and so much power wouldn't be so idiotic in the things they are purported to do.

But that is just me, and I do think strange thoughts.

And there you have it! Really, if any conspiracy *could* do so well as to keep itself unknown while being 'the real power', then they are DAMNED incompetent at running the rest of the planet.

Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
-Benjamin Franklin