williambanzai7's picture




According to Reuters, tomorrow, JP Morgan's Board will consider releasing an internal report that faults CEO Jamie Dimon's oversight of a division that lost more than $6.2 billion in botched trades.

The office of the Comptroller of Currency may wrist slap the Bank as early as today for lax anti-money laundering controls.

Separately, JP Morgan agreed in a deal announced last week to pay $2 billion on top of $5.29 billion assessed last year, to settle mortgage abuse charges.

A few more stinky bad apples, right Jamie?



As is usual in today's Klepto-Crony-Fraudocratic-Ponzi-Plutopian world, no criminal charges are contemplated and the swindling CEO midget at the top of JP Madoff's wonderful magnificent perpetually ponzi klepto crony pyramid has absolutely nothing to be worried about with regard to the safety and security of his fat assed TBTF throne of fraud.

What kind of a world is this you ought justifiable ask?


JAMIE MADOFF--What Kind of World?



"For remember, we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House -- and where even those brought to "justice" never even have to admit any wrongdoing, let alone be labeled "felons."

In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a "felon." For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million-dollar trial in April -- his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge.

And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it."

Lawrence Lessig



Swartz was ahead of his time 
A victim cut-down in his prime
His criminal deed
To help those in need?
I no longer understand "crime"

The Limerick King


R.I.P. Aaron Swartz...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Burticus's picture

Somewhere in the process you will make a choice.  You do not have the choice not to make a choice.  You will make it.  Doing nothing is also a choice.  What choice will you have?  I am an amateur on the subject. Alexander Solzhenitsyn is an expert.  As he explains in "The Gulag Archipelago":

"During an arrest, you think since you are not guilty, how can they arrest you?  Why should you run away?  And how can you resist right then?  After all, you'll only make your situation worse; you will make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!  We did not love freedom enough.  Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."

WTFUD's picture

WB7 like many others i have enjoyed free of charge your work over a period of time! However, i take issue with your lack ever of a positive slant on the plethera of subjects/ thought/ ideas covered therein ;
have you mentioned for example that yemeni funeral directors returns are up 722% over 18 months? ( mind you house premiums in many suburbs have rocketed, non metaphorically speaking)

williambanzai7's picture

Yes indeed, these are bullish times for camel hearse operators!

diogeneslaertius's picture

painfully obvious case history is painfully obvious

ground to dust by mere exigency or openly slain for articulately opposing the NWO drive to borg beehive us (Internet 2.0 etc.) and then shuffled into the limelight with a noose around your neck and fingerprints on your ankles


you will submit and you will conform if you are a viable football for the system

or you will perish - they Hate us, its that simple.


RIP Aaron

we will miss you buddy, you did great and we will all try to make you proud - rest now sir, your fight is over.

Non nobis, Domine


ShakaZulu's picture

My 3 cents.  The revolution will begin one day late when they finally come for YOU.  This is just another dead guy in a long line of dead guys (and girls) who have perished in support of TPTB.  Not that he supported them mind you, but he died for what THEY saw as a need in order to support their regime.

What kind of world, bonz?  Can it ever get any clearer that NOBODY means NOTHING to these people?  We are all less than zero to them.

Population Control Beeches.  RIP M. Drudge (u r nexxt).

Zer0head's picture
Swartz was offered six months in prison, lawyer says


During plea talks held in the months before his death, federal prosecutors told Aaron Swartz and his attorney that the computer prodigy must spend six months behind bars and plead guilty to 13 federal crimes in order to resolve the criminal case short of a trial.

Swartz’s lead defense attorney, Elliot Peters, said today that both he and Swartz rejected the plea deal offered by the office of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, and instead were pushing for a trial where federal prosecutors would have been forced to publicly justify their pursuit of Swartz.



tip e. canoe's picture

wow, pleading guilty to only 13 crimes?  

what an offer! (/sarc in case it's not obvious)

from the comment section of that link:

Adam was trying to change the law. The publishing/recording industry has incrementally tied up copyright to the point where we are all hog tied -- creators and consumers. If Adam had taken a "legal" route he would have been buried in paperwork for his lifetime. If you want to call Robin Hood a thief too, I guess that's your right, but I disagree.

putaipan's picture

i'm no geek, but this sure looks like something swartz's unique voice in cyberactvism was going to be needed-


janus's picture

Dear Mr. Swartz,


in my time, in my time/

i wil roll roll roll/

...momma, momma/

many worlds i've known/

since i first left home.


so sad.  nevah-evah give up, bruthahs.  this world is not 'their' world; this world is for the taking -- for those that would have it.

i want mine,


dolph9's picture

Aaron Swartz will be remembered.


Folks, let us all learn something from this.  And no, I'm not saying this as a member of the "establishment" or a troll or anything like that.  The following is my honest opinion.

The system cannot be taken on directly.  Try it, and you will fail.  You will become Aaron Swartz.  The one and only way the system can be taken on is to starve it.

That's it, that's the only way.  Starve the system of your labor and your money, and this thing comes crashing down.  Verily.

The solution is withdrawal...non participation.  That is the only fucking thing that will work.

Aaron Swartz realized this too late and then the only way he could withdraw was the obvious one, which he took.

tip e. canoe's picture

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.  To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - buckminster fuller

withdrawal is necessary yes, but one must constantly be aware of the trapdoor leading into the abyss that is hidden in the vestibule.

Cynthia's picture

The sad fact is that we are running very low on people that dare to speak out against the ever-spreading culture of control and intimidation from our so-called Governments. I have nothing like the understanding Aaron had of the world, but the situation depresses me. If the battle for control of the internet is lost, one way or another we are all screwed, so it is time for each person to do what they can to respect and carry on the work this man did.

bunnyswanson's picture

Boycotts work.  If an organized with full participation focused on placing a garotte around the profits of a major industry (TV - CNN.  Fuel - Exxon stations.  Food - General Mills.  Cigarettes Marlboro.  Liquor - Coors beer.  For instance.  This works if you can do it.

williambanzai7's picture

Given the nature of my works I have spent a fair amount of time studying our copyright laws and notions of "fair use" as well as the woefully ambiguous case law.

For those of you who are interested, I recommend this book as a start: http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

I read Lessig's first book, long before I began my second life as an artist. Little did I know...

The rule of thumb: Subvert the meaning of the image.

tip e. canoe's picture

"A very small piece of the victory on Fed openness belongs to Aaron."

"he wanted a financial system not dominated by Bob Rubin"

for those 2 reasons alone, everyone that supports the efforts of tyler & co., regardless of their political ideology, should be paying their respects.  

diogeneslaertius's picture

try to roll on the banksters and its pop pop

double tapped and hung out to dry on the 12 o'clock news like a freak after burning the midnight oil from every end for EVERYONE'S benefit

is that you john wayne? is this me?

JohnFrodo's picture

Nothing to do with sexual orientation but the Killing of Georgie by Rod Stewart comes to mine.

RIP another brilliant flame put out by the suited man.

sgt_doom's picture

Aaron Swartz, R.I.P.

There is nothing more sad, more disheartening, than the death of a decent person.

I didn't know Aaron Swartz, although I had communicated with him online on several occasions; a highly intelligent young man with a prodigious mind and noble spirit.

Aaron evidently reached the decision, to spare his family and friends future pain, he would forfeit his own life; in ancient Rome they referred to it as "Falling on one's sword."

Yet another fatality of Obama's War On Whistleblowers, the dramatic extension and expansion from the Bush administration.

Today, Gov. Don Siegelman sits in a penitentiary, his only "crime" was wishing to increase educational access for the many; an authentic democrat, so very rare today.

Today, an Iraqi immigrant, Shakir Hamoodi, who sent small sums of money to his close relatives back home for medical and food emergencies, also sits in a penitentiary, yet another humanist, or "criminal" in America?

Today, a brave CIA whistleblower of the criminal and barbaric torture taking place, John Kiriakou, faces two years in jail, thanks to Obama and life in the land of the lawless.

Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning, Gov. Don Siegelman, Shakir Hamoodi, John Kiriakou and others, too many others, a roster of the best of America, wasted lives in others pursuit of never-ending corruption.

A bizarre BBC report the other day --- and bizarre is the only accurate description for both BBC and their news report --- ran an attack piece on WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, nonsensically juxtaposed against the newspaper strike in China!

They --- the BBC and Australian news --- once again perpetrated lies of "sexual assault of two women" against Assange?

Having read all the legal documents, in both English and Swedish, I observed NO verification of such lies, only that Sofia Wilen, the younger woman who first approached Julian Assange, wanted nothing to do with such false allegations, and that the government-affiliated Anna Ardin (one of her many aliases), appears to have been the driving force in stirring up such vicious stories!  (When the publicity became too much for Anna Ardin, she was spirited off to Israel, where a member of the Bonnier family was ambassador at that time.)


The one common factor, known to Americans, which is evident in both the attacks on Wikileaks/Assange and the illegitimate and amoral incarceration of Gov. Siegelman, is Karl Rove.

Rove appears again and again in the background, as the puppet master pulling the strings to take out Gov. Siegelman, and was financed in his multiple trips to Sweden, around the beginning of the WikiLeaks' episode, financed by the Bonnier family, one of the media giant families of Europe and among the top ten media corporations in existence.  (Virtually everyone on the Swedish side who has been attacking Julian Assange is financially connected to the Bonnier family:  the attorneys, Anna Ardin, the Bonnier-employed reporters, the Justice Minister, etc., the only exception would be Sofia Wilen, the young lady who quickly distanced herself from the horrendously unfolding events.)

Aaron Swartz, both believed in, and fought for, free speech and freedom of the press, an incredibly shrinking freedom which has been all but co-opted by the ruling oligarchs through their corporations today --- does anyone really know who owns AT&T, after all?

Recently, some technically astute friends ran a series of tests, and observed that the most heavily censored sites:  Huffington Post, boingboing.net, Naked Capitalism, The Guardian, etc., are considered to be some of the more "liberal" sites on the 'net --- nothing could be further from the truth!

The most heavily censored English-speaking countries on the Web?  Canada, the UK and the USA.

Most despicably, network neutrality appears as dead as Aaron Swartz --- and we should all mourn the passing of both noble personages.

In Memoriam

Aaron Swartz

November 8, 1986 – January 11, 2013



Notes and Sources


"Kiriakou was a CIA veteran who played a role in the agency's capture of the al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded by government interrogators and eventually revealed information that led to the arrest of the "dirty bomb" plotter Jose Padilla and exposed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed as the mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks. Accounts conflict over whether the waterboarding was helpful in getting intelligence from Zubaydah."

. . . .

"The CIA director, David Petraeus, sent a memo to agency employees noting Kiriakou's conviction, saying: "It marks an important victory for our agency, for our intelligence community, and for our country. Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that protect our fellow officers and enable American intelligence agencies to operate with the requisite degree of secrecy."

(Tell that to the wifey, Davey boy! --- sgt_doom)







WezTheJuic's picture


Thank-you William and Limerick.


NoTTD's picture

Thank God David Gregory, journalist, did not have to suffer the fate of Aaron Swartz, commoner.  Society dodged a bullet there.

the grateful unemployed's picture

sponge bob, hedge pants

Skateboarder's picture

Best friend Patrick Sachs? Squidward can stay the same lol.

combatsnoopy's picture

What if Adam Swartz  had a gun?


What if Adam Swartz had a gun? 

I know the kid was cockier than I, why suffer when you don't have to?  Why would rope hanging be his mode of choice when there are easier options to do it? 

I've dealt with depression before, the attractive point of suicide is to escape troubles. If he was "depressed", why would he opt to inflict pain on himself if there were easier ways.  That pain part prevents us "pussies" for not doing it already. 

Why wouldn't the articulate prodigy not leave a note or even a code for anyone else when he "decided to do it"? 


If anyone wants to know, I don't think he was alone when he died.


wackyquacker's picture

There is a wierdly provocative transition from depression to suicide. It is a razor edge thin fine line. Circumstances conspire to offer all kinds of enticements. But a moment and it is done. Anyone seriously contemplating suicide has a plan. Mr. Swartz had one. Pain has nothing to do with it. I am so sorry for his loved ones.

monad's picture

What if he had Australian citizenship?

mess nonster's picture

Right on. If Swartz had been holding a gun, there is no way he could have tied a rope around his neck with one hand. Of course, if he had been holding a rope, there is no way he could have contorted himself in such a way as to shoot himself in the back of the head.


Edicius is how we spell it when someone does it for us. Where's Jack (K) when you need him?

stiler's picture

JUSTICE = just us

MortimerDuke's picture

OK so apparently this thread is anti-property rights.  How progressive of you all!  Kudos for "rising above" the material existence which seems to afflict the rest of us.  Is that really what you wish to express?  That we should martyr a thief?  Or is your real beef that intellectual property is a bit of a joke and the government overstepped its bounds and common sense?  I can get behind the latter, but the former seems a bit too bolshevik for my taste.

blindman's picture

i don't mean to be against anything or for anything
at this moment but one thing or two ...
what is property? and
what are rights?
and says who?
what constitutes a violation of some one's
property rights if they can be connected and
defined and what is the proper remediation if
this can all be justly sorted out.
in a nut shell, is some one's property rights and
my potential intrusion thereof remedied by the
elimination of my right to live in "liberty",
whatever that means?
and who can claim ownership of a word< the word<
a symbol or collection of symbols, and if this can
be accomplished should we all not be in debt, eternal,
and crushed under this historic weight?
only man could conceive that an idea or collection of
sounds or words is "property", good for and
good luck to him. it has taken a large marketing
budget to arouse and collect from that market. i don't
think it is progressive but realistic to accept that
the sharing of ideas is not the stuff of punishable
maybe i found the wrong bar with bad directions?
i think there was a play like this .... a tragedy,
the horror, le miserables ..?
" ..Upton Sinclair remarked that Hugo set forth the purpose of Les Misérables, "one of the half-dozen greatest novels of the world," in the Preface:[2]

So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age—the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of women by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night—are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless." ...

RichardP's picture

... who can claim ownership of a word< the word<a symbol or collection of symbols, ...

There exists in the Library of Congress a copyrighted stretch of silence, trapped forever as a recorded work (don't remember the musicians name at the moment).  (If you record a stretch of silence on a record, and no one ever listens to that record, does the silence actually exist?)  If someone can be granted ownership of a stretch of silence, then certainly someone can be granted ownership of a bunch of words, no matter how jumbled or unintelligible that construct may be.

But that is beside the point.  How do those words (free or owned) get from the author to you, should you decided to have them?  The words may or may not be free, but the delivery mechanism never is.  Because words without a delivery mechanism are irrelevant.  The words don't do you any good unless they are delivered to you.  Therefore, since you desire to have the benefit of the words (free or not), you are pursuaded to pay for the delivery mechanism.

Therefore, it is never a question of whether to pay.  Paying is a given.  The question is, whose delivery mechanism shall we pay for.

blindman's picture

i would like to second mr. canoe's sentiment.
@".. The words may or may not be free, but the delivery mechanism never is. Because words without a delivery mechanism are irrelevant. " ..
historically that "mechanism" was people, free or not.
the silence copyright, i heard about that before too.
i had a good music teacher as a youngster who brought
it up and haven't thought about that since then. thank
you. though it is beside the point it would be interesting
if someone incorporated exactly that length of silence into
another music copyright and then see them sued by the original
holder if that entity exists. what a beautiful waste of time!
@"who's delivery mechanism shall we pay for?" ( pay to )?
good question. we must be on well trodden ground this
extensively debated when radios and cassette tapes came on the
scene and anyone could record anything broadcast on the radio.
digitisation capability and capacity have made the thing even
more completely complicated and really, i have no idea what
to say about it. it seems you can look at or hear whatever
you can bring to your senses with the technology you have, you
can share it like wise, you just can't sell it. do i have that
they have a problem with controlling this because we would all
be better off without any of it ! hehe har har ....

tip e. canoe's picture

i would personally choose to pay for the delivery mechanism that provides the maximum returns of my payment to the creators of the original material, whether it be silence, noise or some combination thereof.   if those creators were paid to create using "public money" (as defined & distributed by the FedGuv), i would think it be fair that at the least "some" of the price that i would pay to view their creation through a private delivery mechanism would be funnelled back directly to them for the sake of continuing their research efforts.

RichardP's picture

I agree.  But who is going to force the parasites to funnel some of their "take" back to the the content creators?  If the government does the forcing, the will be accussed of meddling in the market place.

tip e. canoe's picture

maybe several million individual "consumers" starving the parasites and holding out for a more equitable system to be developed?

thanks for expanding the conversation RP.

sgt_doom's picture

I believe that douchetard you are responding to, when said douchetard says "property rights" she/he/it means all the property should be owned by the Rockefeller, Morgan-Schilling (or Rockefeller-Morgan-Avery-Schilling), Mellon, du Pont-Donaldson, and Koch families.

That's what the douchetard believes property rights to mean!

F. Bastiat's picture

Liberty is the absence of coercion. Maximum freedom, or ordered liberty, would best be described as a state of minimized coercion.

FrankDrakman's picture

What a clotpoll you are. Most of that "IP" was paid for by the PUBLIC in terms of grants doled out to the universities in general, and to individual professors in particular. We PAID for it, but somehow we don't own it, and don't even have the right to read it? As I said above, "Heads they win, tails we lose".

Geezuz H. - do you think Einstein, Planck, Bohr, etc. made people pay to read their research? Real scientists don't demand money to see their work; they are working towards greater enlightenment. Now, I can see IP being protected if it actually led to products, but given some of the ridiculous patents granted and upheld in the US, I'd say the system is so badly screwed up, it's not working Same thing, BTW, with copyright, where the endless extensions seem more to benefit a few corporations than the public at large.

The Constitution had a 17 year limit within it to balance out the right of inventors and artists to profit from their work, but then allowed the work to slip into public domain for the greater benefit of society. You want to throw that over just to benefit Disney?

tip e. canoe's picture

yes, it is quite telling that certain defenders of the "Constitution" seem to ignore this clause when it comes to defending "private property".

mcgoverntm's picture

Thank you, MortimerDuke, for a sensible comment; I'm your #3 UP vote.  .