CIA Underwear Bombers?

Last month the US learned of an attack Al-Qaida's Yemen branch had been planning to unleash aboard a US plane. The US was fortunate enough to hear the news before the attack, and due to informants working with CIA and Saudi intelligence the attack was stopped and it turned out that the very men Al-Qaida relied on carrying out the attack were the informants.

 The Bomb that was supposed to detonate aboard a plane was to be hidden in a passenger's underwear. This bomb was also an upgrade from the bomb discovered on an airplane over Detroit in 2009 which failed to detonate.  Unlike the bomb from 2009, this bomb had no metal and used a chemical as a detonator. Although intelligence knew of the bomb prior of its use in this case, officials say that the bomb would have been seen anyway when the passenger stepped into the full body scanner. After the operation was over and this new bomb found, security in US airport  stayed the same.

After hearing about this attack being foiled, I still feel worried about our security. Sure the scanner would have found it but, this new bomb shows that Al-Qaida is getting smarter with their bombs and although they took a defeat on this one, no one knows what the future holds.

My question to you is, do you feel safe getting on an airplane today? After reading about this, will you be focusing on all passengers scratching their back sides? Do you think the US should tighten security in airports even though it could cause airline companies to crash due to price increases?

Full Article: http://news.yahoo.com/officials-al-qaida-bomber-cia-informant-221800669--finance.html;_ylt=Ajob.MBnY1IX.0WkIPEGCMWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtc2llbDJxBG1pdANKdW1ib3Ryb24gRlAEcGtnAzhhYzFiYmM1LTU3N2ItMzgyNi1iMzA0LWVlNDM2YzBjOGM4MARwb3MDMgRzZWMDanVtYm90cm9uBHZlcgNjMTVkNDE5MC05OTYwLTExZTEtYjdjMy0yY2Y1ZTU3ZDQwNjI-;_ylg=X3oDMTFlamZvM2ZlBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

Elections in France

The News in France this week is that there is to be a runoff election between the incumbent president Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist challenger Francois Hollande.  Many are predicting this could be the end for Sarkozy, polls seem to indicate Hollande is slightly ahead of Sarkozy.  If elected Hollande will be France’s first socialist president in 17 years.  

Sarkozy has attempted to reclaim votes by appealing to France’s right wing voters by discussing issues such as restriction on immigration.  Hollande has been arguing for his policy to tax earnings over 1million Euros at 75%.  Hollande has also proposed, as a response to the financial crisis, to separate retail and investment banks.

 

Both Candidate clearly have opposite view when it comes to the economy and reform.  Sarkozy’s popularity has fluctuated in the past years, he came under criticism for raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 in 2010, yet he also was praised for being both vocal and active against Gaddafi by using NATO to fight Libya’s former leader.  So who will win? Many seem to think it will be Hollande on the platform of socialist reform.  Other’s think Sarkozy could win by a very thin margin.  What do you guys think is the future for France?

Here are the candidates policies on the French Economy 

Very Expensive Art

Yesterday Edvard Munch’s iconic pastel painting, The Scream sold at a Sotheby’s Auction for 119.9 million dollars.  This makes it one of very few artworks to sell for over 100 million dollars.  The painting was bought by a telephone bidder of an unknown origin.  

The Scream is also one of four versions created by Munch but what makes this one special is that Munch wrote a poem about  this one. 

Other artwork that rivals The Scream in price includes Picasso’s Boy With a Pipe for 104 million, Alberto Giacometti, Walking Man I at 104.3million, and  Cezanne’s, the Card Players as the most expensive at 

254million.

In last the last couple of year’s paintings, sculptures and other forms of art have been exceeding their auction estimates and selling at very high prices relatively quickly.  It would however be foolish to assume that the Art world hasn’t been affected by the recession.  While there may be a select few buyers out there willing to spend their hard earned millions, museums and art galleries could be struggling to attract visitors.  So I pose the questions; Is Art Recession Proof? Can Art act as a long term investment? Is the market for high end luxury good going to see a decline? 

HELP!! I'M BEING BRAINWAS--- No killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants..

You heard it here first, folks! The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already begun research into "finding ways to generate versions of events that could be used in attempts to persuade people not to support the enemy." If you were wondering who the "enemy" is and who the "people" are, your guess is as good as mine... I wasn't suspicious at first, but after reading the almost 10 references to mind control, I knew something was up. Still not convinced? Skeptics click here.

In actuality, DARPA is funding a project called Narrative Networks which is essentially the study of "why are we grabbed by some stories and not others." In theory, research into the effects of narratives on the human mind could help reduce conflict in places like Afghanistan. This idea was tested by a study that took Palestinians and Israelis, and asked them to write about the difficulties caused by the ongoing conflicts that they were facing.  What was the end result? The study showed that "attitudes of the Palestinians towards the Israelis improved more when they were allowed to tell their stories, rather than listening, whereas Israelis' attitudes about Palestinians improved more after they listened to Palestinians describing their experiences."  Now why does this program matter? The U.S government already spends more than a billion dollars a year trying to convince foreign audiences of its benevolence. That is a hefty bill to pay, especially when considering that the "research is starting to show that what might be most effective would be the ear of America." In other words, we should begin to let foreigners tell us their stories.

The question remains... if "you could somehow reliably change peoples’ minds so that they didn’t want to kill anymore, should that be done?" So, what do you think, yeah you!? Would this violate our rights or would it be an acceptable price to pay? Do you think this type of research should be endorsed by the government?

You can find the article here.

Oasis in Tunisia

In the third episode of Julian Assange’s talk show, The World Tomorrow, Assange interviewed the new president of Tunisia, Moncef Marzouki.  They discussed a variety of subjects ranging from the Arab Spring and its implications, to the two men’s struggle in solitary confinement.  

During the interview Moncef talked about is attitude towards secret services in Arab countries and his plans to reform Tunisia’s.  As a victim of “psychological torture” Moncef has proposed to end all forms of unlawful interrogation techniques or techniques and strategies that would violate or even be a consideration for the violation of human rights.  A human rights activist himself, Moncef also spoke of greater transparency in governments and their organizations like the secret police.  

As I watched the interview I found Moncef to be a very captivating speaker whose thoughts and opinion carry great value.  When asked about what he would do with those that unlawfully imprisoned him Moncef responded that he is willing to let the issue go and focus his attentions on progress and reform in Tunisia.  Moncef made an interesting comment regarding his decision to not support the opposition in Syria.  However he noted that he does not necessarily support Bashar al-Assad either, his belief is that there should be a similar power transfer to the one that was in Yemen, in which the president signed over power and an election was held. 

The interview concluded with Moncef stating that he will struggle to balance his position as head of state and obligation as a human rights activist but that there is a future for democracy in Tunisia.  So what’s next for Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria?  Can these countries form stable democracies and advance the needs of their peoples?  Will the ideas and revolutions change the world tomorrow?

Taliban Attack Shortly After Obama's Visit

Less than two hours after President Obama left the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul, after the agreement made between the United States and Afghanistan, the Taliban attacked the capital. They targeted " a foreigners' housing compound with a suicide car bomb and militants disguised as women in an assault that killed at least seven people." The attack ended with all the attackers being kill.

This attack demonstrates the difficulty that American troops face in Afghanistan. Although the agreement calls for the removal of American forces, this attack makes it seem like our troops might have to stay a little longer if one of the mostly heavily guarded places in Afghanistan got attacked by the Taliban. Even so, this attack shows that the Taliban won't go down without a fight. How ever long that may last, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Gingrich Finally Admits Defeat

Even though we all saw this coming, Newt Gingrich has finally stated that he is ending his Presidential campaign. It seems like a long time coming but Gingrich did leave us with things to talk about during his campaign. We all definitely saw his ups and downs. The most recent news being that his campaign was in major debt.

With the end of his campaign, Gingrich has tepidly given his support to candidate Mitt Romney stating that, "I'm asked sometimes, Is Mitt Romney conservative? And my answer is simple: Compared to Barack Obama? This is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan. This is a choice between Mitt Romney and the most radical leftist president in history." Gingrich has finally tipped his hat to Romney. Even though Gingrich is officially out of the race, I will miss the interesting conversations that he brought up. How about you guys? Will you miss his antics or are you glad he is finally gone?

Last Days of Rupert Murdoch

Earlier this week a Parliamentary committee found that that media mogul superstar Rupert Murdoch was “not a fit person” to be in charge of the mega news corporation that he is.  The report found that Murdoch was not exercising CEO level responsibility when dealing with the phone hacking scandal. 

As a refresher for those who didn’t follow the News of the World Phone Hacking Scandal, what happened was that the British Tabloid Paper News of The World had some of its reporters hacking the voice messages of MPs, celebrities and even families of dead soldiers.  When it finally got out that the News of the World had hacked the messages, they covered it up in part by paying people of.  This led to cases against the Tabloid Paper and a select committee finding the heads of News of The World guilty of “collective amnesia.”

News of The World shut down, but Rupert Murdoch continues as chairman of News Corporation which owns Fox as well as the Wall Street Journal.  So could this be the end of Rupert Murdoch’s career in news?  It seems unlikely to that things will change; Murdoch is a very powerful figure head in the News media world and his son James Murdoch is also involved in the business. 

Most are in agreement that News of The World was in the wrong for their invasions of privacy, the inquiry being conducted into Murdoch is aiming to find out just how much did he know as well as probe to look for answers into corporate responsibility and accountability.  

New Afgan Pact: Will it Last?

Today President Obama traveled to Afghanistan to sign an agreement with Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai. This marks a supposed transition in the war while committing the U.S. to another decade of economic and military aid. The agreement outlines and 10-year plan where in 2014 most American forces will be withdrawn from the country. However it "provides for the possibility of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014, for the purposes of training Afghan forces and targeting the remnants of al Qaeda." American forced are going to rely on Afghan sites, instead of creating permanent bases in Afghanistan, to fight remaining al Qaeda forces.

The agreement on no permanent bases in Afghanistan comes with a price. "U.S. negotiators secured assurances from Afghan officials that the nation would do more to combat pervasive corruption, which remains one of the most serious challenges to long-term stability in Afghanistan."

Although this agreement seems like a really good idea, the reality of the situation doesn't seem promising. American forces will still be in Afghanistan for another 10 year, and most likely longer because in my opinion, al Qaeda isn't going to go away anytime soon. So what do you guys think? It is a step in the right direction or just a good idea that won't work?