Rand Wants Spotlight, Ron Approves, Says Rand Staffer

Update 3 July 17:

OK. Apparently Ron Paul’s staff/campaign people are making statements at odds (deliberately? accidentally?) with what Ron Paul’s saying. Not the first time, either. Weird.

Here’s a link confirming that Romney did deny Paul a place to speak at Tampa.

Update 1: I noticed a link at LRC saying that Ron Paul would not be allowed to speak at Tampa, because Romney is terrified of him..but clicking it on it send me to an article at Jeff Berwick’s Dollar Vigilante (Berwick seems to be a Casey friend) talking about an anarcho-capitalist meet with Murphy, Woods, Casey and others. I couldn’t find anything about it at all about Romney preventing Paul from speaking, or anything about Paul on it at all. Maybe it’s a wrong link?

Update 2 (July 15) OK. I just noticed this, where it’s Ron Paul who’s claiming that Romney is too terrified to let him speak.  Maybe, but then why was he so soft on Romney for the last six months?

Sorry. All of this sounds like good marketing to me….including the Berwick stuff…directed at college age kids.

ORIGINAL POST

A report at Business Insider says the Rand endorsement shows he wants star status  in the GOP and a serious shot at the Presidency in 2016:

“For more pragmatic Paulites, however, the surprise endorsement was a shrewd political ploy that puts the younger Paul front and center in the national spotlight, and positions him as a leading figure in the Republican Party, with his eyes set on 2016.

James Milliman, Sen. Paul’s state director, explained the logic to a group of Young Republicans in Louisville, Ky., last week:

“As a practical matter, you have to endorse a candidate before the convention — Romney is going to get the nomination, no doubt about that at all, so it behooves everyone to have Sen. Paul to endorse him before the convention,” Milliman said. “It could enable Sen. Paul to have a prime speaking role at the convention, and his dad to have a prime speaking role at the convention. I think those things factored in.”

The remarks — the Paul team’s most candid comments yet regarding the endorsement — appear to suggest that the younger Paul is more concerned with attaining star status within the GOP than with retaining his father’s army of diehard fans.

Even more interestingly, the same report  quotes Milliman, Rand Paul’s state director, as saying that Ron Paul is OK with the endorsement.

“Rand would not have done this without his dad’s okay,” Milliman told the Louisville Young Republicans. “So if his dad is fine with it, I think everybody else will be fine with it.”

That’s not what Lew Rockwell has been saying.

So who’s right?

Gender Wars: A Word To The Wise

Comment at A Voice Of Men.com

“If men were all that into how women look, why does she think that 99,9% of the men on the planet will shy away from the question: ‘Does this dress make my ass look fat?’
Besides the trouble you might get into if you actually dared answer the question truthfully, I find it really hard to believe that men give a rat’s ass to begin with. On a very basic level men will look at a woman and go:
‘Is she young and fertile?’
‘Yes.’
‘Ok, she will do.’
All you have to do is look at all the fat, bleached and self-centered women out there, that are some man’s wife, to prove this point.

If women spend half the amount of time they spend in front of the mirror, trivializing over petty details about their looks, on actually having sex with us, and doing something serious about what’s going on on the inside, there would be no shortage in men loving them.”

Comment:

Blog comments are often more enlightening than the blogs themselves. Digging around for more information about the crime of battery-acid throwing, common in some parts of Asia including India, I came across a masculinist blog, on which I found this gem of a comment.

I call it a gem, because although it’s ill-tempered and unfair (we women do spend time on fixing our “insides”), it manages to say more in one paragraph, intentionally and unintentionally, than many an essay in ten.

A truth that is uncomfortable to many women is that sex is more important to men than it is to women (we’re talking averages and generalities).

Despite all the media hype, beyond a few attributes signifying youth and health (which are both important for fertility),  a high level of beauty is simply not needed for male sexual and emotional engagement, as even men readily admit.

(See here and here and even here (Naomi Wolf: “The Beauty Myth,” Anchor, 1992), although Wolf’s other contentions are controversial and not something I want to bring into this blog post.

Then, what is important for male sexual engagement?

Evidently, the opposite of female self-involvement.

That would be a woman’s awareness of the needs, thoughts, and feelings of people around her.

Something your neighborhood padre would be happy to celebrate.

Women concerned about the raging gender-wars should chew on that.

Maybe Shakespeare was onto something, after all.

Desi Divas: Dr. Vijayanthimala Bali

Celebrated Tamil and Hindi film actress, classical dancer/singer/choreographer, and research scholar,  wife of Dr. Bali of Chennai, twice elected to the Lok Sabha (Lower house of Indian parliament) and appointed to the Rajya Sabha (upper house), Dr. Vyjayanthimala  Bali(VIE-juh-yun-thee-mah-lah Bah-lee). [born, August 13, 1936]

Since the Western media doesn’t educate so much as propagandize in favor of western state interests, and  in service of those interests misrepresents the cultures that get in its way as inferior or degraded, I decided that I would add a category to my blog – desi beauties  – to celebrate beautiful brilliant women who exemplify the best Indian tradition.

PsyWar: COINTELPRO Infiltration Of Dissidents

From the War at Home Archive:

“False Media Stories: COINTELPRO documents expose frequent collusion between news media personnel and the FBI to publish false and distorted material at the Bureau’s behest. The FBI routinely leaked derogatory information to its collaborators in the news media. It also created newspaper and magazine articles and television “documentaries” which the media knowingly or unknowingly carried as their own. Copies were sent anonymously or under bogus letterhead to activists’ financial backers, employers, business associates, families, neighbors, church officials, school administrators, landlords, and whomever else might cause them trouble.

One FBI media fabrication claimed that Jean Seberg, a white film star active in anti-racist causes, was pregnant by a prominent Black leader. The Bureau leaked the story anonymously to columnist Joyce Haber and also had it passed to her by a “friendly” source in the Los Angeles Times editorial staff. The item appeared without attribution in Haber’s nationally syndicated column of May 19, 1970. Seberg’s husband has sued the FBI as responsible for her resulting stillbirth, nervous breakdown, and suicide.

Bogus Leaflets, Pamphlets, and Other Publications: COINTELPRO documents show that the FBI routinely put out phony leaflets, posters, pamphlets, newspapers, and other publications in the name of movement groups. The purpose was to discredit the groups and turn them against one another.

FBI cartoon leaflets were used to divide and disrupt the main national anti-war coalition of the late 1960s. Similar fliers were circulated in 1968 and 1969 in the name of the Black Panthers and the United Slaves (US), a rival Black nationalist group based in Southern California. The phony Panther/US leaflets, together with other covert operations, were credited with subverting a fragile truce between the two groups and igniting an explosion of internecine violence that left four Panthers dead, many more wounded, and a once-flourishing regional Black movement decimated.

Another major COINTELPRO operation involved a children’s coloring book which the Black Panther Party had rejected as anti-white and gratuitously violent. The FBI revised the coloring book to make it even more offensive. Its field offices then distributed thousands of copies anonymously or under phony organizational letterheads. Many backers of the Party’s program of free breakfasts for children withdrew their support after the FBI conned them into believing that the bogus coloring book was being used in the program.

Forged Correspondence: Former employees have confirmed that the FBI has the capacity to produce state-of-the-art forgery. This capacity was used under COINTELPRO to create snitch jackets and bogus communications that exacerbated differences among activists and disrupted their work.

One such forgery intimidated civil rights worker Muhammed Kenyatta (Donald Jackson), causing him to abandon promising projects in Jackson, Mississippi. Kenyatta had foundation grants to form Black economic cooperatives and open a “Black and Proud School” for dropouts. He was also a student organizer at nearby Tougaloo College. In the winter of 1969, after an extended campaign of FBI and police harassment, Kenyatta received a letter, purportedly from the Tougaloo College Defense Committee, which “directed” that he cease his political activities immediately. If he did not “heed our diplomatic and well-thought-out warning,” the committee would consider taking measures “which would have a more direct effect and which would not be as cordial as this note.” Kenyatta and his wife left. Only years later did they learn it was not Tougaloo students, but FBI covert operators who had driven them out.

Later in 1969, FBI agents fabricated a letter to the mainly white organizers of a proposed Washington, D.C. anti-war rally demanding that they pay the local Black community a $20,000 “security bond.” This attempted extortion was composed in the name of the local Black United Front (BUF) and signed with the forged signature of its leader. FBI informers inside the BUF then tried to get the group to back such a demand, and Bureau contacts in the media made sure the story received wide publicity.

The Senate Intelligence Committee uncovered a series of FBI letters sent to top Panther leaders throughout 1970 in the name of Connie Mathews, an intermediary between the Black Panther Party’s national office and Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, in exile in Algeria. These exquisite forgeries were prepared on pilfered stationery in Panther vernacular expertly simulated by the FBI’s Washington, D.C. laboratory. Each was forwarded to an FBI Legal Attache at a U.S. Embassy in a foreign country that Mathews was due to travel through and then posted at just the right time “in such a manner that it cannot be traced to the Bureau.” The FBI enhanced the eerie authenticity of these fabrications by lacing them with esoteric personal tidbits culled from electronic surveillance of Panther homes and offices. Combined with other forgeries, anonymous letters and phone calls, and the covert intervention of FBI and police infiltrators, the Mathews correspondence succeeded in inflaming intra-party mistrust and rivalry until it erupted into the bitter public split that shattered the organization in the winter of 1971.

Anonymous Letters and Telephone Calls: During the 1960s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from the FBI. Some were unsigned, while others bore bogus names or purported to come from unidentified activists in phony or actual organizations.

Many of these bogus communications promoted racial divisions and fears, often by exploiting and exacerbating tensions between Jewish and Black activists. One such FBI-concocted letter went to SDS members who had joined Black students protesting New York University’s discharge of a Black teacher in 1969. The supposed author, an unnamed “SDS member,” urged whites to break ranks and abandon the Black students because of alleged anti-Semitic slurs by the fired teacher and his supporters.

Other anonymous letters and phone calls falsely accused movement leaders of collaboration with the authorities, corruption, or sexual affairs with other activists’ mates. The letter on the next page was used to provoke “a lasting distrust” between a Black civil rights leader and his wife. Its FBI authors hoped that his “concern over what to do about it” would “detract from his time spent in the plots and plans of his organization.” As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman active in civil rights and anti-war work filed for divorce soon after receiving the FBI-authored letter reproduced on page 50.

Still other anonymous FBI communications were designed to intimidate dissidents, disrupt coalitions, and provoke violence. Calls to Stokely Carmichael’s mother warning of a fictitious Black Panther murder plot drove him to leave the country in September 1968. Similar anonymous FBI telephone threats to SNCC leader James Forman were instrumental in thwarting efforts to bring the two groups together.

The Chicago FBI made effective use of anonymous letters to sabotage the Panthers efforts to build alliances with previously apolitical Black street gangs. The most extensive of these operations involved the Black P. Stone Nation, or “Blackstone Rangers,” a powerful confederation of several thousand local Black youth. Early in 1969, as FBI and police infiltrators in the Rangers spread rumors of an impending Panther attack, the Bureau sent Ranger chief Jeff Fort an incendiary note signed “a black brother you don’t know.” Fort’s supposed friend warned that “The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there’s supposed to be a hit out for you.” Another FBI-concocted anonymous “black man” then informed Chicago Panther leader Fred Hampton of a Ranger plot “to get you out of the way.” These fabrications squelched promising talks between the two groups and enabled Chicago Panther security chief William O’Neal, an FBI-paid provocateur, to instigate a series of armed confrontations from which the Panthers barely managed to escape without serious casualties.

Pressure Through Employers, Landlords, and Others: FBI records reveal repeated maneuvers to generate pressure on dissidents from their parents, children, spouses, landlords, employers, college administrators, church superiors, welfare agencies, credit bureaus, and the like. Anonymous letters and telephone calls were often used to this end. Confidential official communications were effective in bringing to bear the Bureau’s immense power and authority.

Agents’ reports indicate that such FBI intervention denied Martin Luther King, Jr., and other 1960s activists any number of foundation grants and public speaking engagements. It also deprived alternative newspapers of their printers, suppliers, and distributors and cost them crucial advertising revenues when major record companies were persuaded to take their business elsewhere. Similar government manipulation may underlie steps recently taken by some insurance companies to cancel policies held by churches giving sanctuary to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala.

Tampering With Mail and Telephone Service: The FBI and CIA routinely used mail covers (the recording of names and addresses) and electronic surveillance in order to spy on 1960s movements. The CIA alone admitted to photographing the outside of 2.7 million pieces of first-class mail during the 1960s and to opening almost 215,000. Government agencies also tampered with mail, altering, delaying, or “disappearing” it. Activists were quick to blame one another, and infiltrators easily exploited the situation to exacerbate their tensions.

Dissidents’ telephone communications often were similarly obstructed. The SDS Regional Office in Washington, D.C., for instance, mysteriously lost its phone service the week preceding virtually every national anti-war demonstration in the late 1960s.

Disinformation to Prevent or Disrupt Movement Meetings and Activities: A favorite COINTELPRO tactic uncovered by Senate investigators was to advertise a non-existent political event, or to misinform people of the time and place of an actual one. They reported a variety of disruptive FBI “dirty tricks” designed to cast blame on the organizers of movement events.”

Comment

Some of my experiences of internet harassment over the past five years sound a lot like this stuff. But in my case, I’m pretty sure that the people involved were private individuals, who maybe used some of their government connections or authority. At some point, one ex-CIA official [ a guy who had a history of out-of-control behavior and had had run-ins with the law] was actually writing nasty stuff on this blog, and may have been behind a few other things.

But the rest was private. Which suggests that between corporations (correction: criminal corporations) and  government (correction: unconstitutional governments), there’s not much to choose.

Anyway, this kind of history of government infiltration of activist groups  should make people very wary about their communications. The email in your inbox can be forged and your own name could be tacked onto things you never wrote.  With all the powers at their disposal, if the government decided to frame someone, they would be able to get or create all kinds of incriminating stuff.

That’s why I don’t buy the Gupta verdict at all. With five years of investigation by two different outfits, with thousands of wire-taps, they only got him talking to Raj once? And even then, there was nothing illegal in that conversation….

Ron Paul Implosion: End The Fed To Technology Revolution…

The Pauls have lost all credibility with me.

Read their latest missive, blogged at EPJ

And reported here at Forbes: “Ron Paul Takes Up Internet Freedom with New Technology Revolution.”

They’ve abandoned the financial battle.

I guess the financial coup of 2008, completed in 2010, is now sealed and cordoned off from prosecution. Last month, as if to confirm that, the White Queen (the City)  took down the Black Knight (Gupta) that had infiltrated the highest ranks of her court, while the White Bishop (Lloyd Doing-God’s Work Blankfein) was witness for the prosecution.

“End the Fed,” which  Rand Paul converted to” Audit the Fed,” is over.

The Pauls have now skipped forward to their new, new project –  the  “Technology Revolution.”

I  never thought that much of “End the Fed,” because, as I’ve blogged previously, the elites can manufacture money from other places besides the Fed, like the BIS and the reconstituted IMF.

But, apparently,  End the Fed doesn’t even work as a popular slogan any more.

So, what do I think about the new campaign?

I think it will be about as effective as their “End the Fed” campaign, which is to say, not effective at all.

See my comment at The Daily Bell in 2010:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/23/10 11:55 AM
Daily Bell: “But by pursuing his strategy, he has made his opponents look like fools and perhaps altered the course of history.”

Lila: Let’s hope. Personally, I agree with Doug Casey on this:
“As a lone voice, his father was a breath of fresh, more principled air, but he didn’t change anything at all that I can see”

(Doug Casey on Presidents, LRC)

But it will be a great platform for the Pauls to sell books, promote ideas and launch political careers for their family members.

I only hope it won’t be done on the backs of idealistic young people. There were many who put change they could hardly spare in a tough economy into the Paul’s war chest.

The new campaign, which dubs itself  “The Internet Versus The Machine” is obviously a rebranding campaign to move young people away from what Forbes calls “the archaic” (they mean arcane) issues of finance.

Instead, the Pauls will focus on the hip world of the net.

Forbes:

“Young people have been a driving force in the Paul campaign, and the focus on internet freedom should only bolster that support.”

I’m going to call foul on that.

Their new “campaign” is in support of the Technology Revolution on the Internet?

Last I looked the tech revolution has been around for a while, getting on quite well without the Pauls.

One part of  the new project is going to be defending big business from attempts by consumers to scrutinize their data collection.

I kid you not. Here is Buzzfeed on the subject.

“The Pauls also take a stand for the growing industry known (and widely criticized) as “big data.”

They deride the notion that “private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of ‘protecting consumers,’ at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.”

So does this mean that Ron Paul is going to be fighting to prevent European governments or NGOs  like EFF or Asian governments from scrutinizing Google’s data collection practices?

Remember that I just blogged that Google’s CEO Larry Page should be arrested for privacy violations and espionage against foreign governments?

I was being satirical about US surveillance of foreign CEO’s and money-managers.

For instance, in the Galleon -Gupta cases, the government used wire-taps whose authorization was obtained pre-textually in violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

I don’t recall that the Pauls said a word about that, although the Galleon insider case has dominated the financial media for a couple of years now, and is directly tied via Rajaratnam’s funding of Tamil charities to  issues like terrorist money-laundering  with which Paul adviser Bruce Fein – once employed by an alleged front group for the Tamil Tigers –  is intimately connected.

A recent Washington Post article described how the military is outsourcing surveillance in Africa to private contractors (with little accountability, significant cost over-runs, and little to show for the expense).

Densely populated China and India are both locked in battles with the West for access to resources and agricultural lands.  Indian and Chinese companies compete with American and European countries on the African continent.  China and India have also complained about American corporate espionage.  American companies in turn complain about IP theft from the Indians and Chinese.  Meanwhile the US government itself is involved in IP theft through its pervasive global surveillance.  Where does data collection for corporations end and espionage for the state begin, anyway? Where does the government end and the private sector begin, when private companies are outsourced arms of the government and the government is the enforcement arm of the companies?

Ron Paul is not oblivious to the complexities of all this. He is far too shrewd.

Rajat Gupta’s conviction shows evidence in my opinion of being a  set up by the government, with some arm-twisting from Goldman Sachs. Likely it was an important blow in the  covert psy war against India, an ostensible US ally, about which I blogged here (“Coconut Imperialism”and here, “Educating the Gentoos In India”)

The obvious response from foreign governments (such as India) would be to treat American CEO’s the same way and wire-tap them.

So, is it just coincidental that the Pauls suddenly abandon their financial campaign (which never involved a word against Goldman Sachs), and suddenly rush to head off any animosity toward Google?

On their silence on G Sachs, here is a comment I made (one among many) below the same Daily Bell article:

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 11/23/10 11:40 AM

@Pisano.

Why would it distract him?
How hard is it to say, unequivocally, “Goldman Sachs and several other banks, are involved in corrupt actions and should be investigated and prosecuted.”

There. Back to “business.”

He certainly had no problem drawing a hard line over relatively trivial things like a monument to Rosa Parks. If he was really afraid of distraction, why would he make a fuss over something like that, and then on something crucial, suddenly go silent?

Why doesn’t he state clearly – “9-11 needs to be investigated. There is credible evidence that there was some kind of conspiracy involving intelligence agencies, US and foreign.”

I like Ron Paul and want to believe the best of him.

But this excuse doesn’t hold water for two seconds.”

This looks like more material to add to the mounting evidence (see  here) that Paul fronts for financial interests.

Perhaps he cannot avoid doing it, as I’ve said.

But there’s no need to be suckered into what could well be a counter-attack against foreign governments who defend themselves against espionage by Google/Facebook/Hotmail/Skype/TOR and the rest of the government-corporate spy sector, by couching the issue as a defense of the private sector.

That explanation also takes care of Paul’s pandering to the left.

The financial world (which controls the media) is left-leaning, in contrast to non-financial businesses.  Paul’s recent moves make quite a bit of sense when understood that way.  He acts to co-opt the brand of libertarianism appropriately called the Marxism of the right by deploying what seem to be ideologically inflexible positions in the service of  larger imperial goals.

So, I have to ask. Will the two Pauls now be collecting money from young people to defend multi-billion dollar multinationals like Google from scrutiny by the governments on which they spy?

I mean, if you phrased that in the appropriately anti-state way, there will be enough libertarian lemmings who’ll rush to defend Google, I’m sure.

This theory might explain why the financial media, usually so vocal in defense of insider-trading, when it’s done by Michael Milken or Ivan Boesky, is suddenly so quiet  about South Asian insider-trading not a tenth as bad.

Does it also explain why large parts of the alternative press  have had nothing but praise for Julian Assange, another front for western financial interests? And why the Pauls have promoted Assange?

Talk about Trojan horses.

Big corporations cannot be analyzed separately from government.

When the state outsources its spying to corporations, for someone to argue that the state should not limit corporate surveillance because it’s engaged in surveillance itself is confused, at best, and downright misleading, at worst.

Especially when it comes from seasoned politicians like the Pauls.

Parts of the government are scrutinizing the private sector. Often they’re right to.

Other parts of government are much worse than the private sector when it comes to privacy violation.

Those parts of the government are often most incestuously allied with corporations. This is the corporate-state or intel-industrial complex that produces programs like Echelon.

So it’s quite bizarre for the Pauls to claim that Microsoft (or Google or Apple) are pure private-sector entities, when they gain market share directly because of concrete government actions on their behalf and because of endemic and pervasive state-created judicial/legal/financial corruption.

One more thing.  Microsoft wasn’t prescient at all about the net, as the Pauls claim in their new manifesto.

It was way behind. Gates himself admitted it.

There is, finally, another reason why the Pauls may have turned their attention to protecting Big Data,

It looks like Big Data is bankrolling him.

Here’s Reason’s Brian Doherty, making the point:

“With Peter Thiel, founder of the controversial “big data” company Panantir, having made a $2.6 million investment in the (somewhat feckless in the end) superPAC “Endorse Liberty” during campaign season, perhaps the Paul machine sees this as a cause that can energize both grassroots and big money.”

And that’s all  I want to say now about this turn of events until I learn a bit more what is really going on.

But, if you were waiting to see Ron Paul libertarianism implode, it happened this week.

Blogging Skirmishes, Donkeys, and Chomsky’s Taxes..

Some weird things have been happening to my blog….minor, but worth recounting.

First. A week or two ago, my blog was suspended because of a huge amount of spam that got sent my way.  That happened just after my first posts questioning the Gupta trial verdict. Not to worry, I told myself, can happen to any blog. Of course, in five years, it’s never before happened to my blog….

Second.  A video that I had posted on my blog was deleted….I didn’t delete it. Then that video shows up posted on a friend’s blog. The exact same thing happened last year, with another video that I didn’t delete either, which someone deleted from my blog.

OK. Petty harassment.

Third.  I opened my admin panel and found someone else added as a user. I didn’t add the person’s email.  So I deleted it. Next day, another user was added. I deleted it again.

Fourth,  I make a habit of searching my name to check blog comments or follow ups.  When I click the tab BLOGS on the side of the search, the top link these days  is to Veterans Today, where an error notice pops up saying an article apparently written by me has been taken down.  I’ve not written anything for VT since February 2011 and only wrote a few pieces for them, anyway. I asked them whether there was anything with my name on it on their site these days, they said no. So this is a google cache that someone is sending to the top of blog comments, for some reason.

Fifth. My blog posts show up in searches of Rajat Gupta, usually in the first two pages, sometimes quite high up.  In the last few days when I clicked on them, I found they were all set to private. I haven’t set any of those posts to private.

It’s possible that when updating the entire blog might have gone to private a few times, but why would individual posts change to private without my doing anything?

The posts that changed to private were all controversial ones:

One about Chomsky being for taxes for other people, but not for himself.

One about gold holdings by different countries, showing that India and China have much less than the developed countries and suggesting neo-colonial motives in manipulation of gold and currencies.

One about Goldman knowing all about Galleon and Gupta being a patsy ( a recent one)

Since I blogged, they’ve all been changed back. But I took screen shots,  so it’s not imagination or paranoia.

And a few other things.

I noticed at least one mainstream paper in India responding almost point for point to concerns about the trial I’d raised in my blog.

And then there was the Tahrir Square video on Gurcharan Das’s blog, which, as I said, was on the home page when I blogged it, and then the next day was hidden.

The internet, friends, is not an unalloyed force for good.

No more than TV was.  It is not instant liberation, as naive people like to say it is.

Heartwarming to say things like that. Not terribly true.

Something is good only in proportion to the motives with which it used.

The many well-intended people who use the internet do  make it a force for good.

Unfortunately, the net is also teeming with intelligence operatives, criminals, sting-operations, fakes, frauds,  and  police-state busybodies, who do not ever let really spontaneous interchange take place. They must have a thumb on the scales and rig the deal. They must manage the outcome so it goes in their favor….

Or supports their agenda.

Part of which is to lull people into a false sense of power and security on the net, so they put all their information out there. This is do-it-yourself surveillance. 24/7 and updated by the second.

Radical transparency is the carrot.  The internet kill-switch is the stick.

Either way, the donkey moves forward.

And when one donkey moves forward, so do all the others.

The net appeals to the herd in us.

Internet herds are no less herds because they are electronic. Think about the electronic trading that stampedes the market this way and that.

The internet may liberate us.

Equally, it may enslave us.

Right now it’s 50-50.

These days  I’d say  all bets are off.

Preet Bharara – Overhyped and Toothless

Gary Weiss in Salon

“Yet nowhere in Gabriel Sherman’s well-researched piece in New York is there even one mention of Preet Bharara.

There’s a simple reason for that:  Preet Bharara is not busting Wall Street. He’s not collaring the masters of the meltdown. He’s done nothing to even slightly discomfit Wall Street’s still-ferocious money machine, or has yet to bring to justice the architects, enablers and continuers of the 2008 financial crisis — the bankers who got us into that mess, and the ones who are continuing to extract pain from foreclosed homeowners, in the New York area and beyond.

As a matter of fact, his over-hyped insider-trading prosecutions, the main focus of the Time piece, are doing the Street a favor, by targeting people who actually ripped off Wall Street — individuals like hedge fund managers Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi, who functioned a bit like the goons who used to dope race horses in the old days.

Bharara’s insider trading targets rigged the game for their own profit by illegally misappropriating information, in effect stealing from their employers and other investors, just as the horse-dopers cheated racetracks and other betters. Another analogy, also from the racetracks of old, would be to the scam artists who used to “past-post”: bet on races after they knew the outcome.

That’s how insider trading works. It’s a form of theft and cheating. It’s bad. Bharara was right to prosecute them, just as he has aggressively pursued drug gangs in the outer boroughs. But let’s be clear on something: The big players, the Goldman Sachses, Merrill Lynches, Banks of America and so on, don’t like insider trading any more than Preet Bharara does.

And none of his criminal prosecutions to date — including his recent bust of three high-ranking former Credit Suisse execs, accused of rigging the value of mortgage bonds they held in 2008 — had any connection to the pain being felt by Americans today, which can be directly traced to the misconduct of mortgage bankers and derivatives traders in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The real perps of the financial crisis haven’t been in Bharara’s — or the Justice Department’s — cross hairs for a single moment since Barack Obama took office three years ago. It’s one of the most troublesome failings of his administration.”

Rajat Gupta Trial: The Goldfinger Defense

Goldfinger said: “My friends in Chicago have a saying, Mr. Bond. Once is Happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time, it’s enemy action.

Someone at The New York Times must be reading my blog.

Just as I started weaving my very creative and cogent conspiracy theory about the Gupta case ( my conspiracy theories always turn out to be true, you’ll notice) they trot out this article explaining that Goldman may be paying for Gupta, but they really hate doing it because Gary Naftalis, Gupta’s lawyer, is saying all those mean, mean things about them.

“To say that Goldman Sachs has paid Gupta’s legal bills grudgingly would be an understatement. Not only did Gupta abuse his role as a Goldman director, the jury determined, but Gupta’s lawyers assailed the bank throughout the trial.”

But all that is beside the point. The point is Gupta didn’t win what should have been an easy case. 

For $30 million bucks, a very high sum even for such a high–profile case, I wouldn’t take anything except a win.

So slamming Goldman means nothing.

People say nasty things about Goldman all day long, and all they’re doing is letting off steam.

I bet the powers-that-be are quite happy for people to let off steam. They get to know what everyone’s thinking without the bother of opinion-polls. And they know if you’re venting on a blog, you’re unlikely to be blowing up a bridge, hacking a military computer, or putting together a legal brief that would really put some of the BigBoyz away.

Stomping around, muttering  and swearing, is a fairly safe thing to do,
unless in your muttering, you’re also puncturing the hot-air balloons floated by the establishment.

[That’s our thankless but quite enjoyable task on this blog. Not that you’ll find any “hero of liberty” here. Heroes should be prepared to die. We’re not even willing to be sued.]

Anyway, back to Naftalis. It’s not the cussing out of Goldman that counts. It’s the evidence supporting the defense.

In the final count, Naftalis wasn’t able to get the evidence through to Rakoff – that’s all that matters and that’s what worries me…and has me worrying that the fix is in.

So The NY Times gets E, for effort, for making the PR case for Goldman so swiftly, but B- for plausibility.

I’ll stick with my Goldman Fix conspiracy for now.

The NYTimes goes on:

“They depicted Goldman as a cesspool of tipsters feeding Rajaratnam inside information. A defense lawyer called Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive who was forced to testify for three days, “cold and callous.”

Lila: Well, dah-links (in my best Zsa-Zsa manner) there were Goldman tipsters running around all over the place. And  it would be human to suspect Lloyd Blankfein didn’t exactly keep a zipped lip from sunrise to sundown, did he?

On prattles the conscience of the nation:

“….The “cold and callous” remark about Mr. Blankfein came from a defense lawyer who said that Mr. Blankfein didn’t remember laying off about 3,000 people during the financial crisis. A spokesman for the bank accused the lawyer of distorting Mr. Blankfein’s testimony.”

Oh dear. This gets more entertaining by the minute.

Where have we heard those words before?

Why, it’s straight out of —

Goldfinger!

Goldfinger, he`s the man, the man with the Midas touch
A spider`s touch
Such a cold finger beckons you to enter his web of sin
But don`t go in
Golden words he will pour in your ear
But his lies can`t disguise what you fear…

...Golden words he will pour in your ear
But his lies can`t disguise what you fear
For a golden girl knows when he`s kissed her
It`s the kiss of death from Mister
Goldfinger, pretty girl, beware of this heart of gold
This heart is cold
He loves only gold
Only gold
He loves gold
He loves only gold
Only gold
He loves gold!!!!!!

With suitable “ed-jessment” for gender…. and agenda…and minus all the hard evidence (wire-taps of actual tips being passed by Goldman tipsters), that’s what the defense amounted to – Goldfinger!

LOL

Of course, it’s not too far from the facts, come to think of it.

We know Lloyd Blankfein came out of  J. Aron, the trading company. As did Gary Cohn. We pointed out what Blankfein’s trading background meant for the firm back in 2006 at Money Week.

Lloyd was originally a gold trader himself.

And both Blankfein and Cohn have been named as the source of Goldman’s problems in the recent past, by managing director Greg Smith, who jumped ship publicly this March.

So a Goldfinger defense actually works (or, rather, it should have worked).

More Lulz..

(To be continued in the next post)

Rajat Gupta: Goldman Footing Legal Bills, Says Anonymous Source

The WTF quotient of this bizarre case shoots up even higher.

Someone from Goldman is leaking anonymously that Gupta’s bills –  to the tune of $30 million and counting – are being footed by Goldman itself. With Procter & Gamble picking up the rest.

Startribune:

Goldman foots bulk of Gupta’s $30M legal bill

For Goldman Sachs, the insider trading case against former board member Rajat Gupta which ended in a conviction Friday, was distracting and embarrassing. It has also been very expensive. Goldman Sachs has paid for the bulk of Gupta’s legal defense, which has cost nearly $30 million, according to two people with direct knowledge of the case who requested anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss it publicly. Procter & Gamble, on whose board Gupta also served, has picked up the balance of the bill. A jury found Gupta guilty of leaking Goldman’s private boardroom discussions to the former hedge fund titan Raj Rajaratnam. He was acquitted on a count related to divulging secrets about P&G. Gupta plans to appeal.”

Comment

[Lila, June 19, 2012. This has since been confirmed as factual and not a rumor or PR]

Hmm. We don’t think too much of anonymous leaking.  Sounds like Goldman PR. The guy is coming off sympathetically, so maybe some one wants to stir up a little bad feeling. Kind of obvious.

They figured they’d axe the guy and everyone would be dancing in the streets and asking for blood. But most people seem to realize that even if Gupta did what he did, insider trading is a small time side-show on Wall Street.  Not the really bad stuff. Most people get that.

And the Indian business world didn’t break down and sob with contrition either, which also flummoxed the ruling class. I mean what good is a psyop, if your target holds up his middle finger back at you?

Reuters ran a piece telling the Indian business community to get a better cause.

The Financial Times (pretty much a mouthpiece for the financial establishment) scolded them for showing support for Gupta.

Then it trotted out various Indian chamchas to pontificate about how corrupt Indian business is, which is true but irrelevant, since Indian business culture has nothing to do with what went on here.

Rajat Gupta lived all his life in the West. He graduated  from Harvard Business School, for pete’s sake. The guy is a product of Western business culture. Go wag a finger at Harvard.

They even had one Gurcharan Das – must be a pretty naive guy – to come out with the proper attitude the wogs are supposed to take about all this. Notice that Gurcharan Das has a website that shows him speechifying at Tahrir Square (US Intel-led revolution)and advising Indians not to let a good crisis go to waste

(this is pure globalist-speak).

[June 19: Further conspiracy note: when I got up today and checked, I noticed that the reference to Tahrir Square etc. had been cut out from my blog post, even though I clearly remember saving it.  I must be confused right? But then, when I checked Gurcharan Das’s website this morning, the video on the home page was no longer about Tahrir Square. It had been switched to something else. The Tahrir Square video had got tucked away inside. Hmm-mmm.]

“It’s the classic problem of status anxiety. It’s what we all suffer from in some form,” said Mr Das, who is the author most recently of The Difficulty of Being Good, a book that draws on the philosophical lessons of the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata.

“As head of McKinsey he was associating with CEOs and billionaires earning very large sums. His job was to advise people with a lot of capital, not to be an owner of capital. He got new ambitions.”

You’ll recognize the  “greed” meme which the establishment pushed heavily to explain what happened.

Fool's Gold: How Unrestrained Greed Corrupted a Dream, Shattered Global Markets and Unleashed a Catastrophe

That’s to distract from the rather obvious origins of the financial crisis in government policy abetted by the criminal actions of connected firms, and not in some generic evil capitalist greed curling around Wall Street like a miasma.

Mr Das also highlighted the “glaring” contrast between an erratic and slow-moving Indian legal system that often protects the well-connected, and the swift and harsh punishment handed out by the powerful US courts. “We sometimes catch [people] but we don’t convict,” he said.

“What the US system is saying is that no one is above the law.”

Poor dear Mr. Das. He must have been struck blind and deaf in the past decade if he believes that “in the US system no one is above the law”.

But I guess, even though Das is doing the talking, he’s really a sock puppet, for his masters.

Like this chap, remember him?

But back to Goldman footing Gupta’s bills. Say it’s not just clever PR from Goldman. Say it’s true.

Why would they do that?

Probably because they really wanted Gupta to get off?  If he’s been a corporate wise man all these years, he’s bound to know where some bodies are buried. Lord knows what he’s going to start saying around sentencing time.

[Or maybe they want to make sure the crowd gets someone to pay for all the excesses of the last few decade.  At Forbes, Richard Levick apparently thinks Gupta deserves the harshest sentence possible just because he didn’t make money on the tip, but wanted to become a bigger player..]

Still, I had no idea that criminal defense teams were part of the severance package at these places. Maybe it has to be.

Given what we know about Wall Street culture,  an individually-wrapped securities lawyer is a non-negotiable perk, like stock options, or something.

Or maybe, I wonder if it doesn’t tell us something else.  May be if they’re footing the bill for Gupta, they’re also picking the lawyer. (Naftalis and Bharara are old friends (I originally wrote Rakoff, but I now read that Bharara is a friend of Naftalis, as well, and I can’t find the place I read the reference to Rakoff, so I’ve deleted it))

And maybe if that’s the case, this is even more of a set-up than I thought.

Rajat Gupta: Establishment Trying To Spin Jury’s Unholy Haste

Ha ha. The establishment is trying to put out some good spin to cover up for the haste with which this obviously rotten case was tried and resolved.  Good try, but people are shocked with good reason, they can see the fix is in, and all the slanted articles aren’t going to hide the stink rising from this steaming pile of dung that just got offloaded in Manhattan.

Here’s the Wall Street Journal, spinning like top:

“During the four-week trial of former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. director Rajat Gupta, juror David Klein often glanced in different directions than his fellow jurors.

“When they were intently focused on a witness on the stand, Mr. Klein would be eyeing Mr. Gupta,” said defense trial consultant Julie Blackman.

Mr. Klein, 53 years old, initially voted to acquit Mr. Gupta on all counts, the only holdout among the 12 jurors in the insider-trading case, according to jurors.

In an interview, Mr. Klein said he wanted to approach the case methodically. “The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence that warranted more scrutiny,” he said. “I didn’t think it was something we should rush into.”