What Adam Curry is reading

Jimmy Savile sex abuse claims made by former hospital patients
  Link to Article
  Source: The Guardian World News
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:35
  Stoke Mandeville hospital and Leeds General Infirmary, where Jimmy Savile worked for charity, are the centre of the latest allegations of child abuse with claims the former TV star molested patients at both hospitals.
  An ex-patient at a third hospital, Broadmoor, claimed Savile groped her while she watched TV.
  A former nurse at the Leeds hospital where Savile worked as a porter, said he molested a brain-damaged hospital patient. June Thornton was recovering from an operation at Leeds General Infirmary when she says she saw Savile abuse the young girl.
  "She had brain damage, and Jimmy Savile came in and kissed her," she told Sky News.
  "He started kissing her neck, running his hands up and down her arms, and then started to molest her. Because I was laid flat on my back, there was nothing I could do."
  Leeds General Infirmary said it had received two complaints after allegations that Savile sexually assaulted teenage girls became public 10 days ago.
  It added it was "shocked" by the claims and would co-operate with police.
  The Metropolitan police said its investigation into allegations against Savile would include hospitals where he had volunteered.
  Savile, who once worked as a porter at Leeds, had a long-association with the LGI which included him volunteering during the 1960s and 1970s and undertaking charity work until his death in October last year.
  Stoke Mandeville, which is still basking in the glory of its association with the Paralympics, was dealt a blow today after claims that Jimmy Savile went on ward rounds to find children to abuse.
  The hospital, which pioneered rehabilitation for patients with severe spinal injuries and laid the foundation for the games, is facing a growing number of allegations that the former TV presenter groped young patients where he worked as a volunteer fundraiser.
  Nurses at the hospital are reported to have dreaded his visits because of his behaviour, and would tell children to stay in bed and pretend to be asleep when he came round.
  Rebecca Owen, a former patient at Stoke Mandeville, told BBC News she overheard nurses talking in a way that suggested he also targeted them.
  "It was an air of resignation that you had to put up with. There was some sort of ironic chatter between the nurses about who would be the lucky one to go off to his room.
  "And then, as one of the nurses was leaving or passing by my bed, she leant over and said, 'the best you can do is stay in bed until he's gone and pretend to be asleep'," Owen said.
  A second former patient Laura from Evesham in Worcestershire told BBC Radio 5 how Savile would do "ward rounds" and take children to a private room he had.
  "I just remember people saying 'I wonder which one of us would be the 'chosen one' to go to his 'little room'. I remember the nurses tucking me in saying. 'The best thing you can do is stay in bed, don't ask to be put in your wheelchair today and pretend to be asleep.'"
  Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, which runs the hospital, said it was shocked to hear the allegations and said it never received any complaints about Savile.
  A statement from the trust said: "We are unaware of any record or reports of inappropriate behaviour of this nature during Jimmy's work with the trust.
  "We can confirm that the police have contacted us this week as part of their assessment exercise and we are co-operating with them fully."
  Alison Pink told the Sun that BBC star thrust his hand up her night gown while she was watching TV with other girls at Broadmoor. "I tried to squirm, but he held my wrist with his hands. I felt absolutely disgusting afterwards '' like I had been used as a piece of meat for his sexual gratification."
  The latest allegations come as the investigations into claims of abuse stretching over four decades widened with nine police forces now joining the Operation Yewtree investigation being headed by the Met in London and the NSPCC.
  Greater Manchester and Tayside police became the latest forces to receive complaints of abuse by Savile. "As part of an investigation being headed by the Metropolitan police service into allegations of sexual abuse made against the late James Savile, Greater Manchester police has, to date, recorded two separate complaints. These are historic complaints dating back to the 1960s," GMP said in a statement, while the Tayside police said "a disclosure has been made to Tayside police regarding an historical incident that happened in the Liverpool area. Full details will be provided to the Metropolitan police, and support is being offered to the woman concerned."
  As the scandal of Savile's alleged abuse of children in his BBC dressing room, at hospitals and schools continues to grow, calls have been made for the BBC to review its guidelines on child protection.
  Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, called the allegations against Savile a "cesspit", and said he wanted to ensure the corporation's policies were "fit for purpose".
  He denied however there was a "corporate cover-up" over the decision to drop the Newsnight investigation into claims Savile had abused young girls while working on Top of the Pops.
  The former Conservative cabinet minster confirmed it was to hire an outsider to help the Met, which on Tuesday revealed it was investing four decades of alleged abuse.
  Patten said he believed it would be a good idea for BBC director general George Entwistle to make a prominent primetime apology on behalf of the BBC once the claims have been unravelled.
  He said on Wednesday: "The BBC has in place child protection policies, processes, guidance for us by all staff on and off the premises and independents making programmes for the BBC.
  "We've asked the director general to assure us that those policies are up to date and fit for purpose, that they're effective in protecting minors and underage children.
  "We've also said that we want to be satisfied on the arrangements in place for dealing with sexual harassment, bullying and whistleblowing and we want to be sure that those guidelines that do exist are gold standard and up to date and comply with current best practice."
  His comments came hours after Savile's headstone was removed from a cemetery in Scarborough and taken away out of "respect to public opinion". The £4,000 granite memorial was smashed up to be used as landfill at the request of Savile's family.
  The grave, in which Savile was buried at an angle so he could "see" Scarborough castle and the sea, will remain unmarked for the foreseeable future.
  Savile died almost a year ago but his activities have come to light following a number of interviews with alleged victims for a TV documentary.
  There had been criticism that the BBC ditched an investigation on its Newsnight programme late last year because it would have run counter to other celebratory shows about the once popular presenter.
  But Lord Patten on Wednesday reiterated that the editor of Newsnight was "not leaned on", and no BBC executives intervened.
  He also said he was not aware of any allegations against other BBC stars.
  Earlier this week Entwistle made an apology to Savile's victims during an interview on Radio 4's Today programme and said there would be an inquiry to follow the police investigation.
  Culture secretary Maria Miller said the BBC had "serious allegations" to answer about the way women had been treated in the workplace.
  "I think Lord Patten's right to say if, at the end of that criminal investigation, there is a need to do more, then the BBC should be asking those questions," she told BBC2's Newsnight.
  "There are some serious allegations, not only about the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, but also some of the institutional problems around the way that women have been treated in the workplace, and I think they are serious issues for any organisation."
  Miller said her "heart goes out to all of those that have been affected" by Savile's alleged behaviour and said it was important there was a "thorough and swift investigation".
  ' To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
  ' To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.
Horizon Event
  Link to Article
  Source: Lame Cherry
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:34
  Something is bothering me and it bothers me, because it is fresh and I do not know the answer.
  When something happens once, it is an event of note. When it happens twice, it is a pattern and that is what caused my radar to go up.
  I have numerous people in my extended family as my Mother and I abide in a seclusion that I would have more secluded with the Tiger Lily.In the past week, two of my female cousins happened to phone my Mom and wanted to talk about things. The content as far as I could tell was nothing which matched, but it was a form of "need" they both had to just speak to my Mom that puzzles me as to what was really taking place.
  For two women out of the blue to be moved to phone with a need to talk, is something unsettled and my question is what is it these women are picking up that they would feel so disturbed in their different localities to reach out and need the solace of my Mom.
  In animals one hears of them sensing things before earthquakes or even tragic events. I know that some people sense a great deal of things, and most ignore what they do feel or are shown.
  In inquiring of this just now of God in the ephod, I asked if they were feeling a national event for foreboding, and the answer came back strongly yes. In fact, it started with what I always call 'wed to it' meaning when that die is cast the combinations are joined to the outcome being certain.
  For women to be unsettled and reaching out to matron leadership in searching for answers and comfort is something which appears a need to get things in order before something comes to pass.
  As this is fresh and I do not know of what this is or what it is eluding to, it troubles me on this late September day. The problem is I have no signs that I have noticed or God has pointed out to me. Not like this record American drought the Spirit directed me to in that orange harvest moon in December of 2011. It was not the war I suspected, but it was one of the Four Horsemen in the first.My area had record good crops without excess moisture. I know the locals will not realize their fortune was due to me, and will not share their wealth and for that it will be taken away too.
  In inquiring again, the event is near. In follow up, it seems to be a national event, but this event will affect them personally........which would mean all would feel it's effects in being grieved.
  The above on inquire appears correct. It is backed by power in the combinations and it finishes in sequence strong.
  I dislike being distracted in things being a Prophet as to all it entails, as I have much more important things to order in finances. I know now a horizon event is out there which is not in focal point as it is being felt and not seen.No signs in nature, but something troubling felt.
  agtG 330YYY
Is John Perkins een arrogante hypocriete zak?
  Link to Article
  Source: ZapLog
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:32
  Velen kennen hier de schrijver en activist John Perkins. Hoewel ik het boek: ''Confessions of an Economic Hit Man'' een goed boek vond met onthullende feiten over hoe vuil de corporatocracy werkt heb ik toch een nare bijsmaak van de persoon John Perkins overgehouden. Ter illustratie heb ik de volgende comment geciteerd en vertaald:
  ''Ik heb net het' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man " van John Perkins uitgelezen. Ik ben het ermee eens dat er enkele interessante historische feiten instaan welke vervolgens overgaan in een heleboel hypocriete hyperbolen. In zijn laatste hoofdstuk legt hij uit wat "je", de lezer kan doen om verandering te brengen. Hij stelt een voor om kleiner te gaan wonen, uw verwarming af te zetten, niet te gaan winkelen, enz... Deze man heeft al 35 + jaar een zeer succesvolle en lucratieve carri¨re gehad en gaat nog steeds door met zijn publicaties. De rest van ons moet zijn carri¨re opgeven. Dit is een zeer triest geval van; "doe zoals ik zeg, niet wat ik doe". Dit doet denken aan de Hollywood elites die ons vertellen om te leven in kleinere huizen, terwijl hun extravagante huizen de hele wereld vervuilen. Hun huizen verbruiken meer dan wat 50 huishoudens vergelijkbaar met die van mij verbruiken. Ongelooflijk! Ik lees graag allerlei perspectieven, maar in dit geval maakt de hypocrisie het onwerkelijk.''
  Ik moet toegeven dat ik het laatste hoofdstuk uit bovengenoemd boek ook tamelijk overtrokken vond.Lees ook zijn website: http://www.johnperkins.org/
  De man reist de wereld rond om ''feel good speeches'' te geven volgens mij. Ook heeft hij de ''Lennon-Ono prijs voor de vrede 2012'' gewonnen.
  Annotaties:
Suprise tax cut for low-paid Italians. (Euronews video)
  Link to Article
  Source: WT news feed
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:31
  It is a rare boost for struggling households in the eurozone's third largest economy that has been in recession for a year.
  The unexpected tax cut was balanced with a rise in VAT and a series of spending cuts in a combined package worth 11.6 billion euros in all.
  Monti said: ''We wanted to give a clear signal that when there are good signs of stabilisation in the national budget you can afford some moderate relief on income tax.''
  Monti added that the tax break shows that his severe austerity measures were beginning to bear fruit.
  Parliamentary elections are due in Italy next year.
  JavaScript is required in order to view this article's accompanying video
US supreme court finalizes gift of immunity to the telecom giants.
  Link to Article
  Source: WT news feed
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:26
  So pervasive and reliable is the rule of elite immunity - even in the face of the most egregious crimes - that one finds extreme examples on a weekly basis. Six weeks ago, the Obama justice department forever precluded the possibility of criminal accountability for Bush torturers by refusing to bring charges in the only two remaining torture cases, ones involving the deaths of the detainee-victims by torture.
  The Obama campaign is now running a new campaign ad against Mitt Romney that rails against a litany of Wall Street "criminals" and "gluttons of greed", but as David Dayen astutely notes, those examples were all imprisoned during the Bush era because the Obama administration has prosecuted no significant Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial collapse and thus have none of their own examples to highlight:
  "So the Obama campaign could not fill a list of three Wall Street criminals that the Obama Justice Department actually sent to jail. Heck, they couldn't fill a list of one!
  "This is despite Eric Holder telling students at Columbia University in February of this year that his Justice Department's record of success on fighting financial fraud crimes 'has been nothing less than historic.' But not historic enough that his boss could point to, well, one Wall Street criminal behind bars as a result of DoJ's actions.
  That's painfully telling. Nobody from Bank of America or Wells Fargo or Citigroup or JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs or Bear Stearns or Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or even Countrywide or Ameriquest was available to stand in as a 'glutton of greed' in this advertisement. Literally no major figure responsible for the financial crisis has gone to jail. So the campaign has to use two CEOs from a decade-old accounting scandal, and a garden-variety Ponzi schemer."
  And now, the US supreme court just consecrated one of the most corrupt acts of the US government over the past decade: its vesting of retroactive legal immunity in the nation's telecom giants after they had been caught red-handed violating multiple US eavesdropping laws. Just as the Obama DOJ forever precluded any legal accountability for Bush-era torturers, the supreme court on Tuesday forever precluded any legal accountability for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and other telecoms for their crucial participation in the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program (the Obama DOJ, needless to say, supported the position of the telecoms).
  When the New York Times revealed on 16 December 2005 that the Bush administration was spying on the telephone calls and emails of American citizens without the warrants required by the criminal law, it exposed lawbreaking not only by government officials but also by the nation's largest telecoms. Multiple laws were in place at the time imposing both criminal and civil liability on telecoms for enabling government spying on the communications of their customers without warrants or other legal authority, and that is exactly what these telecoms did. One former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, publicly described how AT&T had even built a separate room with no purpose but to permit the National Security Agency unfettered access to all of its customers' communications.
  What was most remarkable about those telecom laws is that - in the wake of the mid-1970s Church Committee investigation finding that the government abused its spying powers to punish and monitor dissidents - those laws were expressly written to prevent telecoms from participating in illegal government spying. They were written with the full participation of telecom lawyers to ensure that the companies' obligations were crystal clear. And most amazingly of all, the laws already contained broad immunity clauses to ensure that telecoms could never be punished for "good faith" violations, but rather only for deliberate, knowing violations of the law.
  When civil liberties groups sued the telecoms on behalf of their customers whose communications had been illegally accessed by the government, federal courts began ruling against the telecoms, holding that the immunity they already had under the law would be unavailable to them, because the allegations against them amounted to knowing, deliberate violations of the law. As one federal judge put it in refusing to dismiss a lawsuit against AT&T: "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."
  But in the US, large and powerful actors must not be and are not subject to the rule of law. So telecoms hired former government officials from both parties to lobby for them and poured money into the coffers of key Democratic Senators such as Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (who became the chief advocate of telecom immunity).
  In 2008, the industry obtained an extraordinary act of Congress that gave them the gift of retroactive immunity from all criminal and civil liability for their participation in the illegal eavesdropping programs aimed at Americans on US soil. The immunity was enacted by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, with the support of leading Democrats including Barack Obama, who had promised - when seeking his party's nomination - to filibuster any bill that contained retroactive telecom immunity.
  Immediately after this immunity was vested, groups which had been suing the telecoms and had their lawsuits terminated by the law, such as Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU, challenged the constitutionality of this immunity. They argued, among other things, that retroactive telecom immunity "violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution" (by having Congress rather than courts resolve cases in favor of telecoms and by allowing executive branch officials full discretion as to which telecoms should be immunized), and "robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law" (by retroactively barring them from seeking justice in court for the violations of their legal rights).
  Federal courts, needless to say, rejected these claims, dismissed the lawsuits against the telecoms, and upheld the validity of telecom immunity. It was these decisions that the supreme court on Tuesday refused to review, thus forever shielding lawbreaking telecoms from any legal accountability. Thus, the same tribunal that regularly consigns ordinary, powerless Americans to prison for decades for even trivial offenses yet again acts to protect the most powerful actors from any consequences for serious crimes: that is the US justice system in a nutshell.
  As usual, it is not only the executive branch, Congress and courts which enable this elite immunity, but also the nation's establishment media, which obscures and distorts these issues with flagrantly misleading claims. Yesterday, for instance, CNN purported to report on the supreme court's decision, and told its readers that what "civil libertarians" were objecting to was eavesdropping on "potential terrorists" [my emphasis]:
  "The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a law that allows the Justice Department to stop suits against telecommunications companies for participating in wiretaps of potential terrorists.
  "The ruling was a key setback for civil libertarians challenging the broader powers of government since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States to use electronic surveillance to track potential threats in the name of national security. . . .
  "In this case, Verizon Communications, Sprint Nextel, and AT&T were accused of privacy violations by assisting the government with intelligence gathering following the hijack attacks on New York and Washington."
  This is all patently misleading. Nobody has ever objected to eavesdropping on "potential terrorists"; nobody objects to the "use [of] electronic surveillance to track potential threats in the name of national security"; and certainly nobody claims there are "privacy violations" from eavesdropping on terrorists.
  The issue is and always has been illegality, not eavesdropping. The objection is not to government eavesdropping itself, but to government eavesdropping in violation of the law, by spying without the court warrants required by that law, a law that made it a felony - punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense - to eavesdrop on Americans without first obtaining permission from a court. Moreover, the problem is not that government spying took place against "potential terrorists" but that the communications of all Americans were swept up.
  George Bush tried to distort objections to his illegal eavesdropping program into objections to "eavesdropping on the terrorists", and here we have CNN in its headline and lede perpetuating that same claim. The CNN article does eventually note that "the law had previously required the government to justify a national security interest before any phone calls and emails originating in another country could be monitored", that "a federal judge had to sign any search warrant" and that "Bush secretly suspended that requirement following the attacks" (Bush did not "secretly suspend that requirement but rather "secretly broke the law": presidents do not have the power to "suspend laws": that's called "breaking the law").
  Despite those caveats, the CNN headline and the lede of the article give the clear impression that the objections are to eavesdropping on terrorists, something no sane or rational person could oppose:
  So congratulations are once again in order for AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and the other national telecom giants. In a country that imprisons more of its ordinary citizens than any other on the planet by far, and that imposes more unforgiving punishments than any other western nation, our most powerful corporate actors once again find total impunity even for the most serious of lawbreaking.
  Relating to all of this, I had what I considered to be a quite revealing Twitter exchange this morning with the New York Times' Matthew Rosenberg, who covers Afghanistan for that paper. Rosenberg intervened in a discussion of US drones in Pakistan by vehementlydenouncing the Pakistani government for "outright, unabashed lies", and then arguing: "it's problematic to base analysis off statements from [a government] that repeatedly misleads in public."
  When I asked him whether he would apply those same notes of skepticism to the US government, he repeatedly refused to answer, both in response to my question and those from others. He just kept insisting that the issue was irrelevant. But how could it possibly be that Pakistan's propensity to lie is relevant to the drone debate, but the US government's propensity to do so is irrelevant? That's particularly striking given the clear documentation that top US government officials have lied about US drones. I have posted all the relevant Twitter comments here.
  Apparently, like so many US journalists, Rosenberg is quite willing and eager to publicly denounce foreign government leaders as liars and to insist that their statements on drones must be taken with great skepticism, but - as an American reporter working for a US newspaper writing about US policy - he refuses to say the same about his own government (he did eventually say that all government claims should be treated with skepticism). Rosenberg has actually done some good journalism, but that double standard perfectly captures the role many establishment journalism plays in the US.
DHS to start testing drones over US for 'public safety'
  Link to Article
  Source: WT news feed
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:25
  The Global Hawk, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in flight. (AFP Photo)
  Don't be surprised if you catch a federal fleet of sneaky spy drones soaring over your head in the near future, but don't be too terrified '-- it's all in the name of public safety.
  The US Department of Homeland Security is asking the makers of small unmanned aerial vehicles to submit their crafts for consideration as the agency ramps up the construction of a full-fledged surveillance state across America. The DHS plans to soon conduct drone tests over the Fort Sill, Oklahoma US Army base, and they're already soliciting spy planes from the private sector so they can select what kind of UAV to use.
  According to a request for information published on the Federal Business Opportunities website recently, the DHS is determined to begin drone tests over the military base soon and is seeking submissions from drone makers that don't mind making a few bucks by having their products put into the US airspace to conduct sweeping surveillance.
  The Borders and Maritime Security Division of the DHS ''will conduct flight testing and evaluation of airborne sensors and small unmanned aerial systems,'' the request reads, and now invites vendors to submit drones to be tested ''under a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world operation scenarios.''
  The solicitation says that drones will be evaluated to see how well they perform law enforcement operations and conduct search and rescue missions, but once a craft is handed over to the DHS then the details will be put under lock and key. Specifically, the call for work says, "the information within each test report will be classified as For Official Use Only, and will not be shared with the general public."
  Given that the department has already addressed the issue of acquiring drones to give the DHS a better eye of domestic doings, though, those law enforcement operations in question could very well transcend away from legitimate uses and quickly cause civil liberty concerns from coast-to-coast.
  Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told a House Committee panel in July that the DHS was ''looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster'' and the next piece of the puzzle is already being put into place. With their latest solicitation, the DHS acknowledges that it is specifically testing a ''Robotic Aircraft For Public Safety,'' but the components necessary to be considered suggest that any drone adopted by the agency will be brought in for sweeping surveillance.
  The solicitation request requires that all drones be equipped with Electro-Optical/Infra-Red sensors, as well as the technology to sniff out certain chemicals from thousands of feet from above. The UAV must also have an integrated laser designator, can be hand-launched by a single person and must be able to be remotely managed by a pilot with only one day of training.
  The Federal Aviation Administration is working towards putting the finishing touches on rules and regulations for widespread domestic drone use, and the agency expects as many as 30,000 UAVs will be in America's airspace by the decade's end.
'Brain-eating' amoeba kills 10 in Pakistan: officials.
  Link to Article
  Source: WT news feed
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:15
  Authorities in Pakistan's largest city have launched an urgent investigation after a rare water-borne "brain-eating" amoeba killed 10 people in four months, officials said Tuesday.
  The water company and health officials monitoring water in Karachi, home to 18 million people, have been ordered to trace the source of the Naegleria fowleri outbreak.
  Saghir Ahmed, health minister of southern Sindh province of which Karachi is capital, said the drinking supply, swimming places and facilities used for the ritual ablutions Muslims must perform before prayers were all under investigation.
  "There is no reason to panic and citizens should stay calm and take precautions," Ahmed said.
  "It is a water-borne infection and we are thoroughly inquiring about its arrival and spread here."
  Shakeel Malick, a health ministry official, said the amoeba had caused 10 deaths so far this year. He said there have been cases in the past, but so few that detailed numbers were not recorded.
  The amoeba causes primary amoebic meningitis, a disease with a fatality rate of over 99 percent, said Faisal Mehmood, an expert in infectious diseases.
  Naegleria fowleri is found in warm fresh water and usually infects people when contaminated water enters the body through the nose. The amoeba passes through the nasal membranes and destroys brain tissues.
  The ablutions Muslims must perform before praying involve rinsing inside the nose and Ahmed said people should use boiled water for the purpose while the outbreak was going on.
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) said nine cases had been confirmed and one more was suspected. It is working with Pakistani officials to investigate the cases and work out steps to prevent further infections.
  "We are visiting houses of the victims and profiling their history," Musa Khan, WHO's head of disease early warning system in Pakistan, told AFP.
  Misbahuddin Farid, who heads the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, said chlorine concentration was being increased in reservoirs and supply stations as a precaution.
  A health ministry statement referring to recent lab tests said 22 per cent of 913 samples drawn from water supply sources in the last three months were found to be non-chlorinated.
Security fear sees Firefox pulled
  Link to Article
  Source: BBC News - Home
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:14
  11 October 2012Last updated at06:27 ETThe latest version of Mozilla's Firefox browser has been taken offline after a security vulnerability was discovered.
  Users who had upgraded to version 16 were advised to downgrade to the previous safe release until Firefox developers released a fix.
  The vulnerability allowed "a malicious site to potentially determine which websites users have visited", Mozilla said.
  The non-profit company said that only a "limited number of users are affected".
  The download had been taken offline within a day of its initial release, the organisation's UK spokesman said.
  Some users were upgraded automatically to the new version, but are now being advised to uninstall the updates.
  Automatically upgradedIn a blog post, Mozilla's director of security assurance Michael Coates said a fix was being worked on and should be expected on Thursday.
  "At this time we have no indication that this vulnerability is currently being exploited in the wild," he added.
  "Firefox 16 has been temporarily removed from the current installer page and users will automatically be upgraded to the new version as soon as it becomes available.
  "As a precaution, users can downgrade to version 15.0.1 by following these instructions. Alternatively, users can wait until our patches are issued and automatically applied to address the vulnerability."
  Firefox was one of the three leading web browsers, with more than 450 million users worldwide, Mozilla said.
  Microsoft's Internet Explorer and relative newcomer Google Chrome are its key competitors.
  In recent months, various figures suggested Chrome had overtaken Firefox's market share, pushing the Mozilla Foundation's flagship product into third place in the browser race.
Reality Check: What is the Petro-dollar and why is China trying to destroy it? (FOX19 video)
  Link to Article
  Source: WT news feed
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:13
  Reality Check: Is your personal property really your property?Reality Check: Is your personal property really your property?Updated:Thursday, October 11 2012 6:20 AM EDT2012-10-11 10:20:46 GMT
  If you buy a CD or a book it is now your property to use, throw away and re-sell, right? Maybe not. This fall the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could change that. Meaning you couldn'tFull Story >If you buy a CD or a book it is now your property to use, throw away and re-sell, right?Maybe not.
  Full Story >Reality Check: What is the Petro-dollar and why is China trying to destroy it?Reality Check: What is the Petro-dollar and why is China trying to destroy it?Updated:Wednesday, October 10 2012 6:19 AM EDT2012-10-10 10:19:09 GMT
  There is a lot of talk from Presidential candidates about how to get America's economy moving again. But something virtually no politician is talking about is something called the petro-dollar. Tonight,Full Story >There is a lot of talk from Presidential candidates about how to get America's economy moving again. But something virtually no politician is talking about is something called the petro-dollar.Full Story >Reality Check: The real number behind Romney and Obama's deficit debate answersReality Check: The real number behind Romney and Obama's deficit debate answersUpdated:Friday, October 5 2012 6:17 AM EDT2012-10-05 10:17:34 GMT
  With Presidential debate number one now behind us we are going to look at the candidates answers or lack thereof to one of the most important questions asked during their debate. As President of the UnitedFull Story >With Presidential debate number one now behind us we are going to look at the candidates answers or lack thereof to one of the most important questions asked during their debate.Full Story >Reality Check: Who Is Really Behind The Presidential Debates?Reality Check: Who Is Really Behind The Presidential Debates?Updated:Wednesday, October 3 2012 10:59 PM EDT2012-10-04 02:59:52 GMT
  We carried it live as President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney held the first of their three presidential debates. But one local teacher was surprised to find out with her students recently that theseFull Story >We carried it live as President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney held the first of their three presidential debates.Full Story >Reality Check: Do actions speak louder than words with President Obama and the NDAA?Reality Check: Do actions speak louder than words with President Obama and the NDAA?Updated:Friday, September 28 2012 6:40 AM EDT2012-09-28 10:40:31 GMT
  Over the past few weeks we have shared with you Ben's one on one interview with President Obama when he visited Ohio. Tonight, we are going to break down the fourth and final question of that interview.Full Story >Over the past few weeks we have shared with you Ben's one on one interview with President Obama when he visited Ohio.Full Story >(FOX19) -There is a lot of talk from Presidential candidates about how to get America's economy moving again. But something virtually no politician is talking about is something called the petro-dollar.
  Tonight, we'll tell you what it is and why China is pro-actively working to destroy it.
  This is a Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.
  View a document that further explains the petro-dollar here.
  Copyright 2012 WXIX. All rights reserved.
With Tapes, Authorities Build Criminal Cases Over JPMorgan Loss
  Link to Article
  Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:12
  Federal authorities are using taped phone conversations to build criminal cases related to the multibillion-dollar trading loss at JPMorgan Chase, focusing on calls in which employees openly discussed how to value the troubled bets in a favorable way.
  Investigators are looking into the actions of four people who previously worked for the team based in London responsible for the $6 billion loss, according to officials briefed on the case. The Federal Bureau of Investigation could make some arrests in the next several months, said one person who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was ongoing.
  The phone recordings, which were turned over to authorities by JPMorgan, have helped focus the investigation, the officials said. Authorities are poring over thousands of conversations, in English and French. They are also relying on notes that employees took during staff meetings, instant messages circulated among traders and e-mails sent within the group.
  Authorities are examining how some traders in the chief investment office influenced market prices as their bets began to sour. Investigators are also looking into whether records were falsified to hide the problems from executives in New York. Based on those records, JPMorgan submitted inaccurate financial statements to regulators, another area of focus for investigators.
  The scope of the inquiry suggests that the problems were isolated to a handful of executives and traders in an overseas division, and did not reflect a fundamental weakness with the bank's culture and leadership. The investigation does not appear to touch the upper echelons of the executive suite, notably Ina Drew who oversaw the chief investment office. The findings could insulate JPMorgan and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, from further fallout.
  Five months into the investigation, attention is centered on four people: Javier Martin-Artajo, a manager who oversaw the trading strategy from the bank's London offices; Bruno Iksil, the trader known as the London Whale for placing the outsize bet; Achilles Macris, the executive in charge of the international chief investment office; and a low-level trader, Julien Grout, who worked for Mr. Iksil and was responsible for marking the trading book.
  The people briefed on the matter said the investigation was in the early stages, and federal prosecutors in Manhattan had not made a decision about whether to file charges. None of the current or former employees have been accused of wrongdoing.
  If they decide to bring charges, prosecutors will face significant challenges. Financial cases are notoriously difficult to prove in court. The intricacies of Wall Street, which are often central to such matters, can be difficult to explain to jurors. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, authorities have brought few cases against individual employees.
  Complicating matters, some of the JPMorgan employees are from France, which does not extradite its citizens. Mr. Iksil has already returned home to France after leaving the bank, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Mr. Grout, also a French citizen, has been suspended from the bank but remains in London, said another person briefed on the situation.
  Prosecutors would also have to prove that employees intentionally masked losses by mispricing the positions. It is a high bar. In some derivatives markets, traders are allowed to estimate the value of their positions because actual prices may not be readily available.
  Some people close to the investigation say the significance of the mismarked positions may be overstated since they represented a tiny fraction of the overall trades. They also cautioned that authorities could easily take an incriminating sentence from a single phone call out of context, and that many conversations took place in person at the London office.
  "Mr. Martin-Artajo is confident that when a complete and fair reconstruction of these complex events is completed, he will be cleared of any wrongdoing," his lawyer, Greg Campbell, said in a statement. "There was no direct or indirect attempt by him at any time to conceal losses."
  Lawyers for Mr. Macris and Mr. Grout declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Iksil did not respond to requests for comment. Spokesmen for the United States attorney's office in New York, the F.B.I. in Manhattan and JPMorgan declined to comment.
  The trading loss could get further scrutiny on Friday when JPMorgan is set to report third-quarter earnings. Since the blowup was first disclosed in May, the losses have increased to about $6 billion, from $2 billion.
  As the bank continues to unwind the bet, investigators have held multiple meetings with lawyers representing people ensnared by the matter. Authorities plan to interview Mr. Macris this month in his native Greece, according to people briefed on the matter. Such discussions could provide a more detailed account of the employees' actions and alter the course of the investigation. Some of the former employees could also cooperate with authorities.
  JPMorgan is also under investigation by civil regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is examining whether the bank misled investors about the severity of the losses. British authorities have also recently opened inquiries into the matter, according to the officials.
  The investigations center on the chief investment office in London.
  The group was created to invest JPMorgan's own money and offset potential losses across the bank's disparate businesses. For example, Mr. Iksil bought and sold derivative contracts - financial instruments tied to the value of corporate bonds and other investments - in an effort to protect the bank from market fluctuations.
  By early 2012, the London team increased its risk. In response to adverse moves in the markets and regulatory changes, the group made a series of aggressive derivatives trades, betting on the strength of companies like American Airlines.
  As these bets started to sour, the London team decided to double down instead of getting out, according to the bank. From late 2011 to March 2012, the bank's net exposure to such contracts more than doubled to nearly $150 billion. Authorities are examining whether the large positions improperly influenced market prices.
  The phone calls, which are taped as part of JPMorgan's routine practices, suggest that traders tried to limit the losses, according to people briefed on the matter. In some phone recordings, Mr. Martin-Artajo encouraged Mr. Iksil to record the value of certain trades in an optimistic fashion, the people said. Their boss, Mr. Macris, was also involved in valuation discussions, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
  The chief investment office was also trying to downplay the potential risk. Some employees told top JPMorgan executives that the situation was "manageable" and that the position might even produce a slight gain in the second quarter of 2012.
  But the estimates proved inaccurate. This summer, JPMorgan restated its first-quarter earnings downward by $459 million, conceding errors in the valuations.
  At the time, the bank said that the traders in the chief investment office "generally" valued the holdings within a reasonable range. But JPMorgan also pointed to the potential for deeper problems.
  "The restatement is really based upon recent facts that we've uncovered regarding the C.I.O. traders' intent as they were marking the book," Douglas L. Braunstein, the bank's chief financial officer, said at the time, according to a transcript. "As a result, we questioned the integrity of those trader marks."
  More From NY Times
White House throws Hillary under the 2012 bus [VIDEO]
  Link to Article
  Sat, 13 Oct 2012 05:34
  The White House is throwing Hillary Clinton under the 2012 election bus.
  Top officials have already claimed the nation's intelligence agencies did not alert the White House to the growing danger facing the State Department's facility in Benghazi, Libya, which was destroyed Sept. 11 by a jihadi attack on the 11th anniversary of the atrocities in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
  The claim was repeated Oct. 11 by Vice President Joe Biden during the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky. ''We weren't told they wanted more security,'' he announced.
  Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser for communications, extended the claim Oct. 11 by telling told Foreign Policy magazine that neither Biden nor President Barack Obama knew of the growing danger.
  ''Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time,'' Rhodes said, according to Foreign policy.
  ''These kinds of issues are handling in the State Department by security officials,'' White House spokesman Jay Carney said during Friday's press briefing.
  Security matters ''are decided at the State Department,'' he said, amid tough questioning from Fox News Channel's Ed Henry.
  The White House's statements leaves Hillary Clinton on the hook, because she runs the Department of State.
  The widening breach between Clinton and the team of Obama and Biden comes as the president is being outpolled by Gov. Mitt Romney.
  Both Biden and Clinton would likely be front-runners to compete for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2016, should they decide to run.
  Clinton has cooperated with a congressional inquiry by allowing senior State Department officials to attend a Wednesday hearing gaveled by Rep. Darrell Issa, the GOP chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  The witnesses boosted media coverage of the administration's policy, but were forced to answer Issa's questions about the department's reasons for rejecting multiple requests for extra security at the Benghazi site.
  They also described their efforts to reduce security at the facility from five U.S. guards to three U.S. guards.
  Two whistle-blowers gave testimony at the hearing to describe the department's opposition to extra security.
  ''For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building,'' Eric Nordstrom, the department's chief security officer for the region, told Issa's hearing.
  Republicans have argued that the lack of security at the Benghazi facility was caused by the administration's desire to downplay the risks of Obama's 2009 outreach policy to Islamist groups in the Middle East.
  The policy has prompted the administration to support Islamist groups in several countries, including Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Tunisia and Libya.
  But Islamist parties such as the multinational Muslim Brotherhood, have close personal and ideological ties to jihadi groups.
  For example, al-Qaida is now led by an Egyptian, Ayman Al-Zawahari. On Sept. 11, his brother led a protest at the U.S Embassy in Cairo. The protesters rioted, burned the embassy's flag and hoisted the black jihadi flag on the embassy's wall, while the government's police declined to intervene.
  Zawahiri's brother was jailed by Egypt's former government, and was released by the new administration-backed Islamist government.
  Numerous reports say the attack on the Benghazi facility was led by a Libyan affiliate of the multinational al-Qaida group.