From Democracy Now, we learn more about the connection between Saudi Arabia and 9/11. Why wasn't this information widely available 10 years ago?
According to recent news reports, a wealthy young Saudi couple fled their home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, just a week or so before 9/11, leaving behind three cars and nearly all of their possessions. The FBI was tipped off about the couple but never passed the information on to the September 11 Commission, even though phone records showed the couple had ties to Mohamed Atta and at least 10 other al-Qaeda suspects.
Former Senator Bob Graham described the news as, quote, "the most important thing about 9/11 to surface in the last seven or eight years." Graham said, "The key umbrella question is: What was the full extent of Saudi involvement prior to 9/11 and why did the U.S. administration cover this up?"
I've followed the writings of Investment Advisor Dan Solin for several years. After reading a half-dozen of his articles, he might start to sound like a guy who only sings one song, but it seems to be a damned good song. Solin constantly rails at investment "experts" claim that they can actively manage your investments efficiently because they can "time the market"--they claim that they can figure out when and what to buy, such that you will make good returns on your investments.
The problem, as Solin once again indicates in his latest article, is these experts who advocate active-management of funds are shams and charlatans because high-fee actively managed investment funds almost never beat low-fee passively-managed index funds. In fact, almost all of these investment "experts" who set up think tanks, newsletters and websites end up out of business. Solin repeatedly tells us what the problem is and what to do about it: "Well-advised investors hold a globally diversified portfolio of low management fee stock and bond index funds in an asset allocation suitable for them." Repeat as necessary. The evidence is clear that actively-managed plans consistently fail to beat the market as a whole (only 5% of actively managed funds will equal their benchmark index each year) and they cost a lot more money in management fees than index funds. Passive funds run by Vanguard charge only .41% per year on average. Actively managed funds typically charge 1% more than passive funds, and this difference can add up to huge numbers of dollars over the life of an investor.
[caption id="attachment_19627" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Vtupinamba at Dreamstime.com (with permission)"][/caption]
According to Vanguard, for the 10 years leading up to 2007, the majority of actively-managed U.S. stock funds underperformed the index they were seeking to outperform. For instance, 84% of actively-managed U.S. large blend funds underperformed their index, and 68% of actively-managed U.S. small value funds underperformed, as well. The case is even worse for actively-managed bond funds. In that case, almost 95% of actively-managed bond funds underperformed their indexes for the 10 years leading up to 2007.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted the retention of two actively managed funds in the defined contribution plan violated Kraft's duty of prudence. They claimed the plan administrators in this plan should have followed the lead of the trustees in the defined benefit plan and dumped all actively managed funds.
In a stunning decision, Judge Ruben Castillo agreed to let this issue proceed to a jury trial. He held that, based on the conclusion of the Investment Committee for the defined benefit plan to drop all actively managed funds, a jury could conclude that the decision of the plan administrator and consultants to the defined contribution plan to retain two actively managed funds was a breach of fiduciary duty.
This decision should be a wake-up call to all trustees and plan administrators of retirement plans. Either they should pay attention to the data and replace actively managed funds with index funds, or risk the possibility of being liable for the shortfall.
If American power is in decline, so is the relative status of oil in the global energy equation. In the 2000 edition of its International Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy confidently foresaw ever-expanding oil production in Africa, Alaska, the Persian Gulf area, and the Gulf of Mexico, among other areas. It predicted, in fact, that world oil output would reach 97 million barrels per day in 2010 and a staggering 115 million barrels in 2020. EIA number-crunchers concluded as well that oil would long retain its position as the world’s leading source of energy. Its 38% share of the global energy supply, they said, would remain unchanged.
What a difference a decade makes. By 2010, a new understanding about the natural limits of oil production had sunk in at the EIA and its experts were predicting a disappointingly modest petroleum future. In that year, world oil output had reached just 82 million barrels per day, a stunning 15 million less than expected.
What's the solution?
[T]he United States needs to move quickly to reduce its reliance on oil and increase the availability of other energy sources, especially renewable ones that pose no threat to the environment. This is not merely a matter of reducing our reliance on imported oil, as some have suggested. As long as oil remains our preeminent source of energy, we will be painfully vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the global oil market, wherever problems may arise. Only by embracing forms of energy immune to international disruption and capable of promoting investment at home can the foundations be laid for future economic progress. Of course, this is easy enough to write, but with Washington in the grip of near-total political paralysis, it appears that continuing American decline, possibly of a precipitous sort, could be in the cards.
For a lot more on this problem of peak oil, check out some of Brynn Jacobs' writings at this website, including this article.
You've got to give a lot of credit to the people at LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). This organization consists of law enforcement officers who have come to the stark realization that the "war on drugs" is more destructive than the drugs themselves. That means that the law enforcement officers now agree with 76% of Americans who "have come to realize that the war on drugs is a failure" (Zogby International (October 2008)). How many law enforcement officers agree that the war on drugs is a failure?
LEAP is made up of current and former police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents, corrections officials, military officers and others who fought on the front lines of the “war on drugs” and who know firsthand that prohibition only worsens drug addiction and illicit drug market violence. Including our civilian supporters, LEAP represents more than 40,000 people in more than 80 countries.
LEAP has now released a short brochure titled "Ending the Drug War: a Dream Deferred." The focus is the hypocrisy of Barack Obama. Consider this comparison of how the war on drugs was treated by the man who started it, Richard Nixon, with the way it is being treated by Barack Obama (the following quote is from LEAP's "Ending the Drug War"):
While the Nixon administration’s public messaging carefully stressed punishment, it directed resources primarily toward public health. Today, the Obama administration’s press releases emphasize public health while its funding requests are actually weighted toward punishment.
The LEAP report quite reasonably insists that actions speak louder than words, and follows the budget dollars Mr. Obama has allocated toward the use of illegal drugs versus the number of dollars used for treatment and counseling. When one considers these numbers, one can see that the Obama administration is putting a high priority on punishment, and deemphasizing treatment. When one follows the same budget dollars, one can also see that the United States is pouring gasoline on the drug war fire in Mexico:
One of the ugliest signs of the failure of the war on drugs is the wildly escalating rate of illegal drug trade murders in Mexico. Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against drug cartels shortly after taking office in late 2006, nearly 40,000 people have been killed in attacks that the media calls “drug violence,” but which are in fact the predictable turf battles that accompany the policy of prohibition. The tally of dead of course includes cartel members themselves, but an alarming number of the fallen are police officers and civilian bystanders as well as some U.S. citizens.
(See page 9 of LEAP's well-documented report). 40,000 dead people is a lot of blood on the streets to "protect" Americans from drugs that they want to use at a time when most illegal drugs have legal equivalent available with a prescription through your local drugstore (and see here), or available without a prescription at your local tavern.
The source of the hypocrisy of Barack Obama is his admission that criminally prosecuting illegal drug users is not effective and his complementary admission that he thinks of drugs as "more of a public health problem."
OK, Mr. President. If you feel that way, why have you acted the opposite? Instead of calling it "the war on drugs," it's time to call it what it is: Prohibition. And prohibition has been proven to not work.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
