Slashdot Mirror

Wow, nice spin job. Did you get those words from your handlers in St. Petersburg?

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and supporting terrorists therein, Russia hasn't been able to produce helicopters because the engines came from Ukraine. Even though Russia now claims it can produce the parts, it's only for a limited type of aircraft.

Same for their icebreaker. It was supposed to be launched this year, but because of the sanctions, and the testing for the turbines being in Ukraine, the launch has been put off until 2019. If even then.

Ukraine has been exporting more agricultural products since it got out from under the boot heel of Russia. Hardly a recipe for "inedible". Speaking of which, is Putin still destroying food being imported into Russia while shelves go bare just to make a statement?

At least we know what the Russian talking points on Ukraine are. Anything to distract from Russian regions which are running out of money, not to mention Russia itself. Then again, when Russian workers aren't getting paid for months, that tells you all you need to know.

Considering Ukraine is working with Western companies and actively seeking out advice on how to upgrade its industry and make it more efficient, that speaks volumes about its leadership. Compare that to Russia where Putin steals people's property and gives it to his oligarch buddies, or siphons off millions for his personal use, then whines how it's someone else's fault Russia is in such a sorry state of affairs.

They certainly have something besides oil: lots of sun and lots of space. The middle east is investing in solar power.

Clipping service? In September of 2015 when no one thought Bernie or Trump had any chance George Friedman predicted the rise of both: "The Crisis of the Well-Crafted Candidate" -- boy did that title capture the fate of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and eventually Hillary Clinton.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekl...

Being able to see the future that others can't is a sign of understanding reality better than others.

The money trail is "hidden" in plain sight. Just like in Men in Black...

https://www.stratfor.com/about... From his bio: AREAS OF EXPERTISE Global Geopolitics Intelligence Gathering and Analysis International Affairs Geopolitical Forecasting Modern and Historical Warfare U.S. Foreign Policy so not necessarily stuff the slashdot community would be interested in, but every article he writes is fascinating and FULL of great information

Honk Kong has an extradition treaty with the US,

Yes. With political exemptions.

And no, I don't know whether those exemptions will apply. His options are limited - while Russia and China (as distinct from HK) might grant him protection it'd probably be dependant upon him providing information as part of his commitment to the arrangement. I suspect his laptop is clean, brain not so much.

Ecuador is out as joining Assange is putting all your eggs in an unstable basket (Ecuador has the third largest oil reserves in SA - how long before they are "liberated"?). And Iceland while willing would prove difficult to access and the security is debatable as:- it's run by a right-wing government; the economy is weak; while not members of NATO they do have a joint military treaty with the US and the continuing ability to gain access to Iceland and it's communications; Iceland would welcome the US back; Snowden ain't Fisher (and leaking NSA secrets ain't breaking a (minor) economic sanction).

Maybe you've heard wrong?

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth

. . . According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States. . . .more

Maybe you've heard wrong?

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth

. . . According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States. . . .more

"Mexican guns" are actually generally bought in the US due our relatively lax gun laws

Accurate, but misleading.

One of the largest threats to global warming (for America at least) is the continued lowering of water levels for the Mississippi River. Historians can correct or amend me here, but empires rise and fall on the strength of their rivers. The US is no different, and should the Mississippi fail then there will be serious strategic and economic threats to the security and health of the nation.

Not good.

Not a rumour; it actually happened.

The porosity of your borders is more of an issue for the countries around you, they are being infected by this stupidity. Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.

With the Canadians I can buy this.. but the Mexicans? It's a bit more complicated than that.

Anything can be achieved, you just lack the strength of will to do anything about it.

Strength of will to do what? Self defense is a fundamental human right.

Let me guess: you're either a Canuck or a Eurocunt.

And if you prevent the police from acting on this, then how are they supposed to detect a dirty bomb, for example? Not a nuclear weapon, which is still a bit far-fetched...but a dirty bomb, made with medical isotopes, for example. It has been tried before, and it'd be a nasty piece of work if one were detonated.

The dirty bomb thing has been blown way out of proportion. I know, I'm as shocked as you are. See: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100421_dirty_bombs_revisited_combating_hype

While I certainly wouldn't hire Stratfor to secure any of my servers, do you publish a yearly review of your predictions and mention what you got wrong?

It's kind of funny how the "Stratfor is a joke" meme took hold. It just seems to slide past the critical thinking filter on some people. How many of you have read any Stratfor articles? You can read them for free right now right here, so give it a try. The only thing stopping you is fear of being proven wrong.

Classic right wing spin? Like Reconciliation an Unlikely Outcome of Ivorian Elections?

From TFA:

A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year.

I think it costs around $100-200 per year, about the same as the Economist. As a reader of both, and much more, Stratfor is an excellent source of original, well-written analysis that you can't find elsewhere. Certainly calling them a private CIA is an exaggeration (I imagine their budget is a little smaller too), and certainly they have flaws (their obsession with geopolitical analysis, for example), but they are worth reading.

If you have a strong interest in international affairs, try them; currently their services are free:
http://stratfor.com/analysis
http://stratfor.com/situation-report

For example, here is an excellent explanation (now slightly out of date) of the groups resisting Assad in Syria:
http://stratfor.com/analysis/syria-opposition-struggles-gain-foreign-support

From TFA:

A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year.

I think it costs around $100-200 per year, about the same as the Economist. As a reader of both, and much more, Stratfor is an excellent source of original, well-written analysis that you can't find elsewhere. Certainly calling them a private CIA is an exaggeration (I imagine their budget is a little smaller too), and certainly they have flaws (their obsession with geopolitical analysis, for example), but they are worth reading.

If you have a strong interest in international affairs, try them; currently their services are free:
http://stratfor.com/analysis
http://stratfor.com/situation-report

For example, here is an excellent explanation (now slightly out of date) of the groups resisting Assad in Syria:
http://stratfor.com/analysis/syria-opposition-struggles-gain-foreign-support

From TFA:

A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year.

I think it costs around $100-200 per year, about the same as the Economist. As a reader of both, and much more, Stratfor is an excellent source of original, well-written analysis that you can't find elsewhere. Certainly calling them a private CIA is an exaggeration (I imagine their budget is a little smaller too), and certainly they have flaws (their obsession with geopolitical analysis, for example), but they are worth reading.

If you have a strong interest in international affairs, try them; currently their services are free:
http://stratfor.com/analysis
http://stratfor.com/situation-report

For example, here is an excellent explanation (now slightly out of date) of the groups resisting Assad in Syria:
http://stratfor.com/analysis/syria-opposition-struggles-gain-foreign-support

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090902_aqap_paradigm_shifts_and_lessons_learned?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090916&utm_content=text

After al-Asiri entered a small room to speak with Prince Mohammed, he activated a small improvised explosive device (IED) he had been carrying inside his anal cavity. The resulting explosion ripped al-Asiri to shreds but only lightly injured the shocked prince

You need to do some research about the realities of Israel's geopolitical situation.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110530-israels-borders-and-national-security?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110531&utm_content=readmore&elq=6521bd09197a40ca98499beb42c07023

Israel can't develop its own arms and it NEEDS US support to maintain it's current geography and military plans.

It would be nice if the location of his #2 was discovered and exploited.

From Stratfor:

It [al Qaeda] clearly foresaw the possibility that one of its apex leaders could be taken out and planned accordingly. This means keeping bin Laden and his deputy, Egyptian physician Ayman al-Zawahiri, in different locations and having a succession plan. There is also very little question that al-Zawahiri is firmly in command of the core group. Even prior to bin Laden's death, many analysts considered al-Zawahiri to be the man in charge of most of the operational aspects of the al Qaeda group - the "chief executive officer," with bin Laden being more of a figurehead or "chairman of the board."

Stratfor published a fairly comprehensive article on this subject. The following link looks like a registration wall, but my understanding is that they'll just put the article in your inbox.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101008_china_and_future_rare_earth_elements&h=a37a5

I concur with several comments here. I'm not saying this BECAUSE it is in Israel. It's unreliable--period. Last year they claimed a huge fleet of destroyers was in the Indian Ocean that did not exist. More reliable sites such as strafor http://www.stratfor.com/ do not use debka and consider it a source of disinformation at best.

Does ANYONE actually believe the USA can illegally invade another country, kill hundreds of thousands of people and manage to hide it.... yet would just stop at a simple rape allegation?? Uh, no! It has been widely covered that the US government is actively trying to destroy credibility of wikileaks,

I'll quote Stratfor, who are quoting the International Institute for Strategic Studies:

It may seem counterintuitive, but following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the casualties from militancy in the country declined considerably. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies Armed Conflict Database, the fatalities due to armed conflict in Afghanistan fell from an estimated 10,000 a year prior to the invasion to 4,000 in 2002 and 1,000 by 2004. Even as the Taliban began to regroup in 2005 and the number of fatalities began to move upward, by 2009 (the last year for which the institute offers data) the total was only 7,140, still well-under the pre-invasion death tolls (though admittedly far greater than at the ebb of the insurgency in 2004).

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100901_militancy_us_drawdown_afghanistan

So yeah, the US invasion actually helped the Afghan people. Fewer people are dying now than before the US invasion.

Secondly, Birgitta Jonsdottir actually appears to want to help the organisation WikiLeaks more than harm it. In seperating any bad PR Assange may attract from this case from Wikileaks, Wikileaks retains more public credibility. Why should any case (real or fabricated) damage Wikileaks itself. It's not Wikileaks which is being investigated but Assange.

Iran is not the crazy state that you hear about in the media. You can pretty much discount much of the mainstream media for actual assessments. For better analysis you want to read the financial news or paid risk analysis groups like Stratfor whose customers aren't after entertainment but actual assessments for their business and therefore have a critical incentive to deliver accurate information.

Doesn't mean we wont see military action however. Israel has a tactical advantage in being thought willing to make a unilateral strike against Iran, so whether or not they are, or whether they are merely bluffing, we cannot know. We can know that the US government considers it a real risk however, due to the frantic running around they've done trying to defuse the situation, sign up countries to support non-military options such as sanctions, trying to negotiate extra time in place of Israel's demands and, tellingly, media blitzes on how dastardly Iran is just in case they really do get sucked into a war by Israel.

It really does seem that only a balance of military power will reign in Israel's behaviour. Which is a terrible inditement of the Israeli government. The main concern is that Israel may attempt to prevent this happening.

The bomb was smallish. Thanks to the internet we know that an object the size of a grenade will fit with some work, and with a friction igniter (German potato masher and other grenades had these) iit could be detonated by a pull string.

Booty bomb:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090902_aqap_paradigm_shifts_and_lessons_learned

Classic pull fuse:
http://www.inert-ord.net/gerimp/eggs/41204.jpg

Omit all metal, make a plastic case that looks like a convincing turd, and a considerable amount of ordnance could be carried.

"(anybody want to invent a pants-mouted bomb detonated by urine?) "

Bombs can be stuffed up the arse for transport, and thanks to the internet we know a grenade-sized object can fit with some work.
This fellow didn't get close enough, but someone will:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090902_aqap_paradigm_shifts_and_lessons_learned

"Unlike al-Awfi, al-Asiri was not a genuine repentant -- he was a human Trojan horse. After al-Asiri entered a small room to speak with Prince Mohammed, he activated a small improvised explosive device (IED) he had been carrying inside his anal cavity. The resulting explosion ripped al-Asiri to shreds but only lightly injured the shocked prince -- the target of al-Asiri's unsuccessful assassination attempt.

While the assassination proved unsuccessful, AQAP had been able to shift the operational paradigm in a manner that allowed them to achieve tactical surprise. The surprise was complete and the Saudis did not see the attack coming -- the operation could have succeeded had it been better executed. "

It would be quite easy to make a bomb that fit into a functioning laptop and passed X-ray. Not all the cells in a multi-cell battery need to be batteries,and wiring changes need not be obvious.

Terrorists are a creative bunch:

A "booty bomb" might fail to pass X-ray depending on shape, but an inventive maker could easily shape it to not look out of place as the OSS did with explosives that looked like lumps of coal during WWII. Thanks to the internet we know that smuggling grenade-sized objects this way is practical albeit nasty.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090902_aqap_paradigm_shifts_and_lessons_learned

I found this assessment by intelligence company STRATFOR very informative.

Don't be afraid of the Phoenix Police. Be afraid of the imposters.

In Phoenix, you stand a good change of being the victim of a home invasion staged by Mexican Army Regulars...

Or Mexicans in Phoenix police drag, fulfilling their contracts...

Or Phoenix Police whose chief and the Phoenix mayor just can't take much criticism.

Try and discredit the reports based on the sources I use. Not working. The incidents did happen. Police officers were calling into local radio shows and confirming the reports.

It seems most home invasions in Phoenix are carried out by those who attack drop houses the 'coyotes' use to stage illegal immigrants on their way to other cities. Taking some hostage and making a quick buck is the motive. Posing as police works very well until the real police show up. then, hope the bad guys run out of bullets, which they often do.

Our mayor, Phil Gordon, is death against enforcing immigration law, as is our former Governor and now head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. It's so bad the Feds are demanding that local law enforcement accept a new policy that pretty much prevents them from enforcing the law. That's the 287(g) program that apparently is too successful.

Sherrif Joe also has tangled with the local alternative paper, which published his and other officials home addresses and apparently violated grand jury statutes. It's only an arcane law when it is applied to you.

Sherrif Joe has his view of law enforcement. It enrages many of the liberal intelligensia around here, who would rather we put the illegals up in the Phoenician and give them a chance.

Me? I back Sherrif Joe, knowing full well he can get carried away. The alternative is to have everything not nailed down stolen by the illegals as they stream through here on their way to a better life.

At least he doesn't PRETEND to be doing his job.

You ought to live here. Then you would grasp a little more of the nuance. Much too easy to take things at face value. 4 years here has taught me that we have a serious illegal immigration problem. How to solve it is unfortunately simple - clean house, starting with the House of Reperesentatives. Our government has too many conflicts of interest, business sees illegals as cheap labor, Democrats see them as new voters, and regular citizens have no one on their side. But I'm not hopeful.

Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.

Bring it on.

You really should study Russian history, from the Russian perspective. For starters, can you tell us, without googling, how many times Russia has been invaded in the past? Invaded, and defeated, it's people enslaved, murdered, and starved? In fact, starvation in Russia is an ever present spectre - America's spendthrift and wasteful habits combined with American attitudes about freedom and liberty would be fatal to the Russian people.

Here's a stratfor link, from which you might browse around, and glean additional intelligence:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090602_geography_recession

I agree and its refreshing to hear some realism on Slashdot. There are some instances of what you describe, but they're quite specialised. For example, there is Stratfor which has a very specific range of news / analysis. It's expensive unfortunately, but it targets businesses and people with financial interests and thus, though lacking in moral perspective, it tends to be accurate and in depth. Fox News, the Daily Mail (UK newspaper) might be targeting the public and therefore can get away with touting their shareholder's bias, but someone selling news to the financial system has to keep fairly accurate or they wont stay in business. (Not saying things like Stratfor don't have a bias, but its an entirely different sort to the mass media).

I would be quite willing to pay a reasonable subscription for a decent news service. As traditional newspaper sales begin failing to support news reporting, I think this will be a requirement.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090622_iranian_election_and_revolution_test is the actual article, if folks would rather read the non-plagiarized version.

I'd mind my own damn business. I'd stop getting news from infotainment ad outlets known as the mainstream media. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090622_iranian_election_and_revolution_test This is a battle between the elite clerical families, the rich over-educated kids in the street (when it's not MKO terrorists, supported by the US ) are fool risking their lives for nothing. Do not encourage them further or their blood will be on your hands.

Well, here is another piece of analysis
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

Georgia made a mistake only in giving in to provocations, which had been ongoing for a very very long time, and the whole thing was clearly preplanned by Russian side. What exactly happened in the night of the 7th, and who started firing rockets, we will probably never know. But what matters is this is not a single isolated event, i.e. the story does not begin with shootings at Tshinvali on last thursday night.

The CIA is changing. Give them time.

The following article explains some of the issues behind the Tribune article
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26366

The agency is ... complicated, and often the left hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Its the nature of the beast it's riding. (well, technically, it's in the belly of the beast, or perhaps the cloaca if you are HQ)

I have no doubt Goss is horrified. He just took over the CIA, and what GS manager would enjoy an outsider showing him a clear look at his department? And Goss hasn't had a chance ot fix things yet. THat is, if that's his goal...with the CIA, who knows?

By the way, didn't Goss inherit an agency that was once run by George Bush? It would explain a lot.

The CIA has other problems as well. The worse is that it facing some competition from private firms like StratFor(sorta like the US Post Office and Federal Express). It can't be much fun to be a world famous secret agency and having to explain to the Intelligence committee why you are being scooped by some small company in Austin,

For those of you who haven't heard of it, StratFor (http://www.stratfor.com/) is a private intelligence firm, with several hundred thousand customers, that is the CIA for multinationals and private individuals. It is considered somewhat more accurate than the CIA. http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050313/is-stratfo r-credible/

Hmm.. if the CIA is getting rid of people, that means they are hiring. I would like to apply as an intelligence analyst, or maybe an In Tel Q VC... (There is a rumor the easiest way to apply for a job with the CIA is write in on your computer and wait for ADVISE to pick it up. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.htm l).

New Orleans was built were it was and the levees were built along the Mississippi because both are required by the nation. I am not talking about the tourism or oil. The New Orleans port complex is the largest by volume in the US and the fifth largest in the world. We have the levees along the river because the nation needs a navigatable river. Large ocean going ships can go as far as New Orleans and barges take commodites the rest of the way into the entire center of the country. The entire economy of the center of the country from agriculture to steel is predicated on cheep movement of commodites that the river system provides. Thats why the US took responsibility away from Louisiana for flood protection. Unfortunately the corps of engineers has been malfeasant. Publically saying they built the flood walls to cat 3 standards while actually building flood walls that didnt stand up to the cat 1 or 2 that most of New Orleans actually got.
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/ 1133336910287360.xml?nola
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-2/ 1132558719240640.xml?nola
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/library -90/113238581335800.xml?nola

They have lied about the construction techiques they used and futher would release their records on the flood ways citing Homeland Security Concerns! Does that really matter now? In our own investigations using sonar, an independent investigating team has discovered that the steel piling only go to half the depth the corps claims.

Luckly for the US, most of the port system has survived the storm in good order. But how long to do you expect the port workers to continue to work without the support of a city? How long will the work overtime inorder to make up for people who have not come back because they have no place to comeback to and the country does no seem to want them back?

A good article on the importance of New Orleans and the current situation:

http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopol itics_katrina.php

A view as to why.

That's too bad, isn't it? I heard that any prospective project rebuild New Orleans will cost tens of billions of dollars, and take many, many years. $1 billion is a lot of money. You can buy a lot of Ayn Rand books with a billion dollars... Ha ha ha!

Oh, and I want you to read this article, and then forward it to any other idiots who don't want "their" tax dollars(notice how I put quotes around 'their?' Because they have no say in how they get spent! ha ha ha!) being used to rebuild New Orleans. Thank you for your time.
http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopol itics_katrina.php

It's not rhetoric, Goat. It's lament.

Did you know that Stratfor has stated in their position paper that we do NOT have to be in Iraq? That it would make more financial sense to step back to the borders and allow the Sunni-Shite-Kurd war to happen, and then move to secure the Basra area up the Euphrates towards Baghdad after the war exhausts the means of war?

There is nothing holding in place, yet we continue to assign a military designed to conduct war and be offensive to a police action, and the result is we incur needless casualties and get planes and helos shot down daily.

That NASA can't get $1B to launch a mission to fix equipment which is bringing hard science to the table on a daily basis in this context is a joke.

You are a joke for citing useless casualty statistics under Hussein. He was a brutal dictator who oppressed his people. His sons were thugs of the lowest order who used to rape and pillage like Vikings, and were twisted and evil. He gassed Kurds. He gassed Iraqis.

He also kept oil flowing because he needed to, and it didn't cost American lives. You want to face reality? Face that. He was much more useful as he was than what we have going now, which incites Islamic radicals to unify under one banner against the West (not just the U.S.) and destabilizes the relationship with Iran and pushes them toward nuclear acquisition so they won't get invaded.


I'm so sick of the attitude of "what's done is done" that I can't stand it. The fact that you carp the party line that "ok, we're there we need to stay." is so typical of the right. Meanwhile, hard science goes to the back of the bus.

If they would just admit that they are using their "statistical analysis of LexisNexis" and such to support their biases, then they would be have much better marketplace utility.

If you want impartial, look at StratFor, which fancies itself an "intelligence" oultet rather than "news." The difference being that people make decisions about their present and future actions based on intelligence, whereas news is simply to inform your opinion. Therefore intelligence must be impartial to be worth anything.

If you have a look under the sample pages you get a good idea - this is a nice piece, I thought - it has an extra layer of insight into the situation.

They do take a purely self-interested^H^H^H^H objective aproach though. It can sometimes make you go "Hang on..." But it's definitely factual.

It makes a nice Christmas present for someone who's already got all the tin-foil hats they need. :)

This is a little off-topic I admit, but I'll risk the Karma because it might be of interest to a few people here seeing as a lot of /.'s have such strong political views.

I subscribe to Stratfor. It's a paid for service geared towards investors and company strategists and it provides some of the best international and political news you'll ever find. It's cheap enough that I subscribe privately and you can guarentee that it isn't full of propaganda. Why? Because it's used by people with money and whatever news corps tell the masses, the stock market has the right connections to know what's really going down.

Now please don't hammer my karma for trying to be helpful.

"1135 GMT - CHINA: Because of China's military advances, the country now has the ability to launch a surprise attack on Taiwan and keep U.S. forces in the region at bay, a Pentagon report released July 30 said. The report also indicated that China was pursuing a strategy to attack Taiwan. China currently has 450 short-range missiles in the Nanjing Military Region across the Taiwan straits that are capable of attacking Taiwan -- and possibly U.S. targets in the region. The report also said China's military exercises are increasingly focused on a possible clash with the United States. The Pentagon estimates that China's defense budget is $45 billion to $65 billion, as opposed to the $20 billion China announced in 2002."

Don't kid yourself about the "benevolent" intentions of the PRC leadership. Anything that slowly but surely undermines the function of western economies is a good thing as far as the leadership is concerned. They are making a play to be global hegemon, no question. Given the political history of China, I don't think this is a good thing. I don't think they will be able to pull it off, either, but that doesn't mean there won't be hell to pay in the meantime. JMHO

• http://warblogging.com/
• http://agonist.org/
• http://www.alternet.org/
• http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo

Now, run along and play, or we'll have to airdrop you and Chomsky into downtown Gonaives, and you two can try to explain Bakunin and Kropotkin to the natives, and why an absence of rule is a good thing.

The Drudge Report - Hey, he links to the important and interesting stuff in the mainstream media and breaks the stuff they won't report. What's not to like?

Stratfor.com - Great, clean analysis that is hard to find elsewhere. Drawback - has one free article each day on their site; full access requires a subscription of $80-$120. Still cheaper than ignorance or Jane's.

Debka.com - Provides interesting intel on the Middle-East from an Israeli perspective.

Anyone else have any favorite newshound/intel links?

It's bad enough how commentary masquerades as news these days, but the biggest problem is the media quoting unreliable, heavily biased, or strictly speculative sources as fact. Just the other day I saw a segment on CNN on sites you might want to check out for more information, including Stratfor, an interesting but mostly speculative independent analysis group, and the perennial clinton-hating Drudge report.

More significantly, they also cited Debkafile, a right-wing Israeli affiliated rumor/news site with the bad habits of:

1) presenting "facts" that later prove to be false, and then not acknowledging them (i.e. they said terrorists shot down that russian plane, when it was later shown to be an errant ukranian missile - they changed the story but did not admit error)

2) basing their headlines and articles entirely on unnamed "Debkafile sources" which they make out to be deep within the upper eschelons of every government in the world (US and China included).

If you follow the TV news closely, you'll see how "news" is making if from web to TV in record time. This needs to stop.

For anyone that wants better intel than cnn.com on what is going on, a site called stratfor.com exists. It's setup by x-military intel people who know this stuff, they have good info and a daily newsletter that is free and worth singing up for. They also provide their intel services to companys and media, but that cost a bit.

Some links

http://www.stratfor.com/home/sitreps.htm

http://www.stratfor.com/preview/specialproject.h tm

(And no I do not get a commotion for this ad)

Whoops. Here's the site. http://www.stratfor.com/