blast from the past!!!

Derivatives: Risky Business

Source: THE NATION, Date: December 25, 1995 Title: “Golden Fleece” Author: Arthur E. Rowse

SSU Censored Researchers: Brant Herman, Mark Lowenthal

According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report last year, the face value of worldwide trades involving derivatives—a high-risk type of financial contract whose value is derived from the performance of an underlying asset or market indicator (such as a price or interest rate)—was estimated to be $34.5 trillion. Due to both the amounts involved and the global reach of corporate investors, the economic systems of the world could be severely impaired should these financial entities fail. And an economic failure related to the scope and fragility of derivatives could result in a federal bailout reminiscent of the savings and loan fiasco.

Derivatives are limited to large financial players due to several reasons. First, only those with large sums of money can become involved. Second, due to the leveraged nature of these packages, the financial rewards can be huge when successful, but dangerous if not. Furthermore (and again, due to the leveraged nature), losses in the marketplace can be covered by future investments—creating a house of cards which could tumble at any time. The bankruptcy of Orange County, California a few years ago was directly related to their losses in the derivative market.

The danger in derivatives also stems from the fact that they are leveraged in both directions, up and down. They amount to huge bets stacked against the bettor, often with both buyer and seller inclined to cover losses with even bigger bets.

Yet despite the obvious risk derivatives pose, they are still widely used by corporations, mutual funds, and others wanting to hedge their interest and currency bets. Those who traditionally lose the most in the event of a derivatives failure are small investors, wage earners, pensioners, and taxpayers—people who are not even privy to the derivative market.

The GAO is indeed quite worried about the fragility of derivative investments, especially since the concentration of derivatives is in the hands of only fifteen U.S. companies intricately linked to foreign markets. “The sudden failure or abrupt withdrawal from trading of any of these large dealers,” warned the watchdog agency, “could cause liquidity problems in the markets and could also pose risks to the others, including federally insured banks and the financial system as a whole.”

gotta love "conspiracy theories"




http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-derivatives-risky-business/

REAGAN'S ATTACKS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES: A PRELUDE TO WAR?

Under the rubric of fighting terrorism, President Ronald Reagan proposed serious threats to our civil liberties in 1984 which were ignored by the media. The little-known threats were contained in four anti-terrorist bills sponsored by the president. Under the guise of fighting sabotage and assassination, the bills would criminalize domestic opposition to U.S. intervention in the Third World and authorize FBI investigations of legal political activity. The most threatening of the bills is called the Prohibition Against the Training or Support of Terrorist Organizations Act of 1984, (H.R.5613 & S.2626), a loosely worded, vague document which makes American citizens liable to criminal penalties for exercising their constitutional rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment. The most damaging portions of the proposed Act were offensive to a few senators and representatives who sent the legislation back to the administration demanding that certain portions be clarified. They included:

-- The Secretary of State would have unilateral power to determine that a group or government is "terrorist," based on their "acts or likely acts;" forbids anyone charged under it from arguing that any organization or government on the list was wrongly included; -- Make it a crime to act in concert with, train, or serve in any organization designated by the Secretary of State to be an intelligence agency or armed force of any foreign government, faction, or international terrorist group; -- Prohibit any logistical, mechanical, maintenance or similar support services to the armed forces, or any intelligence agency, or their agents, of any foreign government, faction or international terrorist group designated as such by the Secretary of State.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1984/1984-story2.htm

17. OLIVER NORTH'S SECRET PLAN TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW

While caught up in exposing Fawn Hall's hairstyle, Ollie North's heroic gap-toothed smile, and the soap opera ambience of the Congressional Contragate hearings, most of America's media ignored the chilling constitutional issue of Oliver North's secret plan to declare martial law.

But Alfonso Chardy, of THE MIAMI HERALD, was not deluded by North's charisma nor frightened by North's earlier warning to him not to investigate the National Security Council's (NSC) connection to the Nicaraguan resistance.

Unfortunately, Chardy's extraordinary disclosures about North went unexplored and unreported by other major media.

On July 5, 1987, Chardy reported over the KNT News Wire that Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North helped draft a plan in 1984 to impose martial law in the United States in event of an emergency.

According to Chardy, the secret plan called for suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the little-known Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments, and the declaration of martial law in the event of such a crisis as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad.

North helped draft the plan to impose martial law while serving as the NSC's liaison to FEMA. Chardy reported that an administration official said the contingency plan was written as part of an executive order or legislative package that Reagan would sign and hold within NSC until such time as a severe crisis arose. "It is not known whether Reagan signed the plan," Chardy added.

The plan was extraordinary enough to even frighten then-Attorney General William French Smith into protesting to Robert McFarlane, North's NSC boss at the time, that FEMA was establishing itself as an "emergency czar" and "exceeding its proper function as a coordinating agency for emergency preparedness."

This secret plan to declare martial law in the event of internal dissent or national opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad took on an added dimension as citizens gathered to protest the nation's intervention in Honduras in March, 1988.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1987/1987-story17.htm

24. THE UNEXPLORED STORY BEHIND THE HINCKLEY ASSASSINATION
ATTEMPT

On the afternoon of March 30, 1981, 25-year-old John Hinckley Jr. fired six Devastator bullets at Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

For more than two months, there was endless speculation as to why this lonely young drifter would attempt to assassinate the President. But the speculation ended in June when Nevada Senator Paul Laxalt told reporters that authorities had established a motive in the attempted assassination. Then after a series of "leaks" from anonymous sources, the waiting public was told that Hinckley "did it for" Jodie Foster, an actress who was attending Yale University at the time.

Following are some facts which the American public wasn't told:

-- The day after the assassination attempt, Scott Hinckley, John's older brother, was scheduled to have dinner at the home of Neil Bush, son of Vice President George Bush;

-- The Bush/Hinckley family connection goes back more than ten years, encompassing joint oil ventures and campaign contributions;

-- Hours before the assassination attempt, the Hinckley oil business, headquartered in Denver, learned that federal investigators had uncovered evidence of major pricing violations on crude oil sold by the Hinckley company and was warned that it might be fined a penalty of $2 million;

-- While in custody, John Hinckley wrote letters saying that he was part of a conspiracy;

-- The only piece of evidence supporting Hinckley's alleged infatuation with actress Jodie Foster as a motive for the assassination attempt was a letter that was never seen by the press or public.

This extraordinary information is the result of a well-documented research effort by Nathaniel Blumberg, a journalist, professor, lecturer, and a former Dean of the University of Montana School of Journalism as well as a Rhodes Scholar. Blumberg attributes the censorship of the information to a conspiracy on the part of the Department of Justice and other agencies in the executive branch of government to control the release of information concerning the attempted assassination; to the failure of both the Bush and Hinckley families to answer questions of legitimate public interest; and to the American press for failing to ask the questions that should have been asked rather than following the Jodie Foster red herring which was more sensational but less relevant to the attempted assassination.

Blumberg says he does not mean to say definitely that there was a conspiracy to elevate Vice President Bush to the presidency; however, he does document how the American public was systematically deprived of pertinent information about a variety of "extraordinary coincidences" connected with the events of March 30, 1981.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1984/1984-story24.htm

2. AMERICANS "BUGGED" BY SUPER-SECRET COURT

There is a super-secret spy court in Washington, D.C., which is unknown to most Americans but probably well-known to the Soviet Union. It passes judgment on intelligence agency requests to spy on Americans in this country.

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created in 1976 following the Watergate era when "national security" was invoked to justify excessive domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens. It was charged with preventing such constitutional abuses.

The court, located in a lead-enclosed vault (to prevent it from being bugged) on the sixth floor of the Justice Department (not far from the Department's Freedom of Information Act reading room), is unlike any other court in this country.

It isn't listed as an official government operation; it doesn't appear in the Government Organization Manual; it is not mentioned in the United States Court Directory.

The court's decisions are never published; at the end of each year, it issues a two-sentence annual report. The first lists the number of applications, the second shows the number approved.

The court's record is remarkable. Through 1981, it heard a total of 962 requests. It has issued 962 orders allowing electronic surveillance. Not one has been denied.

The secrecy surrounding the court is exceptional and if not ominous for a free society, at least comical.

One spokesman for the Justice Department acknowledged that the court exists but refused to say where.

"By now, most people are feeling a little bit silly about trying to preserve the secrecy of that arrangement," said one senior department official, "Obviously, the Soviet Union knows about it, and it's kind of silly to try to keep it a secret, but nobody can talk about it for the record."

A search of media resources revealed only one mention of the court. This was a two-sentence description in a two-page article on the "hidden judiciary" which appeared in U.S. News World Report last November. The article, praising Administrative Law Judges, did not allude to the Court's power to approve surveillance of American citizens.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1982/1982-story2.htm

17. The Great Hughes Heist

The private files and documents of the late Howard Hughes were reported stolen from his supposedly impregnable Hollywood headquarters on June 5, 1974. These files, including thousands of his private papers and verbatim transcripts of telephone calls, could expose illicit connections with the CIA, the Mafia, the White House, and private industry. It is said, for the first time, detailed knowledge of political bribes, financial "favors" to circumvent established government laws, and inner dealings within existing government agencies would become available to the American public. Yet, after more than two years of reportedly inept investigations by various police and governmental agencies and repeated accusations of a cover-up, the documents have not been recovered nor is the American public generally aware of their existence. The recovery and exposure of these papers could reveal to the American people the inner workings and structure of a national and international power elite. The dearth of coverage by the mass media of the burglary of these potentially explosive documents and of the. subsequent investigation qualifies the "Hughes Heist" for consideration as one of the "best censored stories" of 1976.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1976/1976-story17.htm

this one reared ugly head twice now....

20. Cosmetics May Be Hazardous To Your Health

In 1975, American consumers spent $6,728,270,000 on cosmetics and toiletries. And while millions of these consumers were using these cosmetics and toiletries daily, few of them were aware of how hazardous they may be to their health. Author/researcher Chris Welles states "The awful truth is that despite their enticing and beguiling appearance, they may be secretly and quietly destroying us." Sixty percent of the substance enters a person's system and may very possibly be a cause of diseases as serious as cancer. The lack of information on the effects of the chemicals in some of America's most widely used cosmetics is appalling. Heinz Eiermann, of the Food and Drug Administration, says "The trouble is, not only can't I stop it but I often don't even know the product exists. We don't have authority to require anything." Considering the national advertising budget of the cosmetics and toiletries industry, it is not surprising the mass media have done so little to warn the consumer of the potential dangers of the products. Or, as the author of the article puts it, "Why do we have to kill or maim our way to consumer legislation reform?" The widespread use of these products, combined with their potential dangers to the user and the inadequate protection from the FDA, qualifies this story for nomination as a "best censored" story of 1976.

SOURCE: New Times Magazine, June 25, 1976, p 42, "Warning: Cosmetics May Be Hazardous To Your Health," by Chris Welles.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1976/1976-story20.htm

and again this year... yay!!!

US deregulation of toxic substances, such as lead in lipsticks, mercury in electronics, and phthalates (endocrine disruptors) in baby toys, may not only pose disastrous consequences to our health, but also to our economic and political status in the world. International markets are moving toward a European model of insisting on environmental and consumer safety.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/5-europe-blocks-us-toxic-products/

and the best for last...

25. The Swine Flu Snafu

On February 4, 1976, the swine flu scare began when state health authorities, conducting a routine check on a flu outbreak at the Fort Dix, New Jersey, Army base, found they could not identify the virus in some of the blood samples taken from the sick soldiers. Shortly thereafter, a barrage of conflicting information about swine flu and the mass immunization program was launched in the mass media. Early strong support for the immunization program from the administration and health authorities led to a number of people being inoculated. The widely publicized deaths of some of them, along with contradictory reports by other health authorities, led much of the nation to turn away from the inoculations. One outspoken critic of the flu program was J. Anthony Morris, a microbiologist with the Food and Drug Administration and a longtime critic of flu vaccines. He predicted that inoculation might result in hypersensitivity and trigger neurologic illnesses ranging from persistent headaches to encephalitis to paralysis to Guillain-Barre and to death. He was fired from the FDA by Commissioner Alexander Schmidt for "insubordination." Speculation was offered as to whether there was such a disease; whether it represented a grave threat to life, and whether or not the remedy was a greater danger than the illness. One group which was not confused by the conflicting information was the insurance companies who refused coverage to the four manufacturers of the swine flu serum. Federal Insurance Company, principal underwriter for the drug companies, explained to Business Insurance in May, 1976, that it was not convinced that there has been time enough to test the vaccine for side effects. Unfortunately for those who died or suffered paralysis following swine flu inoculations, the media message was not as clear. The swine flu snafu story is being nominated as a "censored" story of 1976 not because it did not receive enough media coverage, but because it received so much conflicting and inadequately-researched coverage, that the public was in the end left uninformed.

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1976/1976-story25.htm

yay grown in government labs since 1976...

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!