Left-Handed Leftist

2009-11-12T12:03:00.000-08:00

YOU ALREADY PAID YOUR MORTGAGE

My cartoon website, eggsistense.com, has been hacked again, so I'm posting my latest cartoon (from a month or two ago) here (CLICK TO ENLARGE):

2009-06-04T23:06:00.000-07:00

EGGS IS TENSE #22: Trespassing In Her Own Home, or, The Battering Ram

2009-04-12T18:35:00.000-07:00

GOLDMAN SACHS RULES THE WORLD?

It certainly would seem so, given the fact that Goldman is suing this blogger, a former Goldman employee who now says the company is evil and should cease to exist. Articles at the blog have titles like:

Does Goldman Sachs Control the U.S. Government?

Did Goldman Sachs Manipulate World Oil Prices?

Does Goldman Sachs Manipulate the Stock Market?

And so on...check out the site before the lawyers shut him down...

2009-04-03T20:09:00.000-07:00

EGGS IS TENSE #21: GEITHNER WON'T STOP DIGGING

2009-04-03T20:05:00.000-07:00

NO ONE LIVES WITHIN THEIR MEANS

A post of mine from the Hattiesburg American forum:

OGH said:

"The ones not to blame [for the current depression] are the [sic] those that lived within their means, contributed to charities, and paid the bills."

Is there anyone who lives within their means? It's not really possible to live within one's means, if by that OGH means not spending more than one makes. Or does "living within one's means" mean not having any debts? If so, no one in America "lives within their means" because our money IS debt.

Again I'll say this: average annual inflation has never decreased since 1956. That's one way of putting it--another is this: average annual inflation has only decreased in 10 non-consecutive years since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The last year in which average annual inflation was negative was 1955.

Inflation is a hidden tax on our labor that well all must pay and do not get any exemptions from. During the economic expansion from 2001-2007, most people's incomes just barely outdid inflation. Inflation created by all the fake, digital, worthless fiat currency that banks are allowed to create at our expense are the reason no one lives within their means. The savings rate of our citizenry has dipped into the negative numbers since 2005, personal debt is at record highs, and so on. No one is living within their means.

The bailout is now up to $12.8 trillion--almost as much as the $14 trillion 2008 GDP of the U.S. According to Bloomberg, that's over $42,000 now contributed by every person in America to keep this rapacious system going.

We all are to blame for this economic mess, then, in OGH's mind, because none of us lives within our means. And I'd agree with that statement, but only because the majority of us refuse to wake up and do something about getting rid of the parasitical Federal Reserve and its member banks.

Krugman is Wrong

2009-03-30T18:32:00.001-07:00

The act of "creating financial structures" IS less valid than making a physical good. As Lincoln said:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Bonddad tries to argue that securitization helped people by making more credit available. Ultimately, credit is unhelpful to an individual because it is debt. If inflation weren't so high and the U.S. still had good-paying jobs producing physical goods, people wouldn't need credit.

But average annual inflation has never decreased since 1956. Inflation is of course a hidden tax on the worker, and it is caused by the presence of too much money in the system. Which of course is caused by things like securitization, which is a product of the fractional reserve banking system.

Don't be fooled--securitization may help the little guy a little bit in the very short run--i.e., he gets a house or a degree--but the grossly inflated prices of things ensure that the little guy is tangled up in debt for literally most if not all his life.

The real beneficiaries of securitization are/have been the big financial institutions, who can create money literally out of nothing and treat liabilities as assets in a way that the little guy is not allowed to do.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

2009-03-30T10:19:00.000-07:00

MISSISSIPPI IS A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY

From my post on the Hattiesburg American forum:

Extrano, are you implying that Mississippi doesn't have "dilapidated towns" or "crumbling infrastructure" or "crime and corruption" in government?

If so, you're dreaming. This state is a hellhole. And yes, I live here and pay taxes here and all the rest. So I'm allowed to say that. But even someone who doesn't live here or pay taxes here is allowed to say that. There is objective, independently verifiable evidence to point to the conclusion that Mississippi is, like I said, a hellhole.

Just go check out the "American Community Survey" at the Census Bureau website:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTSelectServlet?ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_

Here are the facts:

Mississippi is dead last (or near it) in:

-Median household income
-Median Family Income (In 2007 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)
-Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High School (Includes Equivalency)
-Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelor's Degree (next to last place)
-Employment/Population Ratio for the Population 16 to 64 Years Old (next to last place)

Mississippi is first (or in the Top 10) in:

-Percent of grandparents responsible for grandchildren (3rd place)
-Percent of People 65 Years and Over Below Poverty Level
-Percent of Children Under 18 Years Below Poverty Level
-Percent of People Below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months (For Whom Poverty Status is Determined)
-Percent of Related Children Under 18 Years Below Poverty Level
-Percent of People 21 to 64 Years Old With a Disability (2nd place)
-Infant Mortality (2005 figure from this link: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank17.html)

Why Not Bank CEOs?

2009-03-30T09:49:00.001-07:00

The reason car company CEOs are required to step down and not bank CEOs?

Because the country is now owned and run by the banks. This was sealed by the forced passage of the October 2008 Banker Takeover Bill, otherwise known as the TARP, or bailout. It's as simple as that.

Also, car companies actually produce things, i.e. vehicles. The bankers who now openly run the country don't like production--they like producing fake money and getting people into literal debt slavery. Companies that actually produce things are a threat to the bankers, who produce nothing except debt for us and gargantuan profits for themselves.

Why are productive companies a threat? Because they can provide good-paying jobs which people might use some of the proceeds from to actually pay off debts or even worse (in the minds of the bankers), not have to borrow money (read: finance their own indebtedness) at all!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

2009-03-10T22:19:00.000-07:00

WATCHMEN: PRO- OR ANTI-NWO PROPAGANDA?

This was the question debated on the Prison Planet forum. I offered my two cents:

Wow! I'll have to check out the podcast of Alex's comments about the movie. The movie sucked compared to the comic. I have to agree with Roarshock and tonyg--the Rorschach character is the true hero. He's kind of the Alex Jones of the story, now that I think about it. He's real, he doesn't buy into the right/left paradigm, he's hardcore, he wants to get the truth out, etc.

Alex is fond of the saying "Justice be done, though the heavens fall." Rorschach says something similar when he tries to leave Ozymandias' compound to go reveal the truth of Ozy's false flag attack:

Nite Owl: "Rorschach, wait! Where are you going? This is too big to be hard-assed about! We have to compromise..."

Rorschach: "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."

Rorschach also sounds like Alex in the scene right before Dr. Manhattan vaporizes him:

Dr. Manhattan: "Where are you going?"

Rorschach: "Back to Owlship. Back to America. Evil must be punished. People must be told."

Yes, the NWO is present in the book and the movie, in the form of Ozymandias, who is the villain. Ozymandias is shown to be someone who believes that the ends justify the means. In other words, the NWO imagery is included so it can be shown for what it is--evil. The NWO is portrayed as something bad, and in the story, the villain Ozymandias represents the NWO.

For Pete's sake, Ozymandias acts just like the NWO--uses propaganda, murders people who would become whistleblowers, sets up front corporations, plans and executes false flag terror attacks, and so on. There is no mistaking what Ozymandias represents--the evil NWO.

For those concerned about the delivery company and the Pyramid company--those are owned by Ozymandias, the bad guy. Those things are not meant to be portrayed as good.

And yeah, Silk Spectre...hoo boy...

Alex should read the book. The movie is fairly faithful to the book, but the book is much better.

One more thing: Moore uses lines from "All Along The Watchtower," a song Alex obviously likes, in the book. The song is also used in the movie. And for those who say Moore is anti-Christian, he uses Genesis 18:25 as an epigraph in the book: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

2009-03-10T22:16:00.000-07:00

AN ANALOGY TO EXPLAIN THE FRAUDULENT NATURE OF MONEY CREATION BY BANKS

First, the comment that I'm responding to:

Sugar1:
"Sure every bank is in business to make a profit. If you have a business don't you expect to make a profit. I sure wouldn''t call it fraud if you did. Get your head on straight!"

The analogy:

Of course I don't begrudge anyone their profit. But suppose the way I made a profit was by producing sugar pills (i.e., a placebo) that I was allowed by law to sell as a cancer treatment. Suppose that I could just crank out sugar pills with nothing in them but ordinary sugar, but the government allowed me to market them as a cancer treatment with ingredients besides sugar that have been proven to treat cancer. In fact, the government supports my marketing claim that the pills are useful for treating cancer. I wouldn't have to pay for any research on cancer treatments, I wouldn't have to pay to have any medicines developed that actually treat cancer.

Let's further suppose that the government required all cancer patients to buy my pills from me, even though they're just sugar pills, or placebos. And no one else can make these pills but my company. And so I make obscene profits off my simple sugar pills that cost almost nothing to make. Would you find that at all objectionable? Shouldn't you call that fraud, even though it's all nice and "legal?" I should think so.

But that is no different than what is being done with the money supply. The money created by banks is equivalent to my sugar pills--it costs nothing to produce, everyone in the country must use it, and no one else is allowed to produce it. Just like my sugar pills are not in any way a cancer treatment--but the government says it is--money created by banks is not in any way real money, the kind that is derived from labor and productivity. But the government says it is real money and that we must treat it as such. This fake money is fraudulent, then, even though it is legal.

2009-03-10T22:13:00.000-07:00

MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BANKS CREATE MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR

Written today for Hattiesburg American forum:

1. A new bank opens and has no deposits. Bill, the new bank’s first customer, deposits $1,000 in the bank.

2. For some reason, the bank doesn’t receive any other deposits.

3. However, Jane comes in and wants to borrow $1,000 from the new bank.

4. The bank loans Jill $1,000 and opens an account in her name because under current reserve requirements (that went into effect 1/1/09) a bank with deposits of $10.3 million or less does not have to keep any money in reserve.

5. The bank deposits $1,000 in Jill’s new account. The bank is now allowed to say it has $2,000 in deposits, even though Bill is the only customer who has deposited money that originated from outside the bank. Also, if Bill wanted to come in and take out his $1,000, the bank would be obligated to give it to him.

HERE’S WHERE THE FRAUD BEGINS

6. Jim comes in and he also wants a $1,000 loan. The bank says “No problem,” opens an account for Jim, and deposits $1,000 into Jim’s new account.

7. The bank has now loaned out $2,000 even though they have only received $1,000 that originated outside the bank (namely, Bill’s deposit of $1,000).

8. Thus, the bank has created $1,000–a 100% profit off of Bill’s original deposit. The bank has not performed any useful work to create this $1,000. They are merely allowed by law to do this.

9. The bank also is allowed to charge interest to both Jill and Jim. In Jim’s case, the bank did not receive any new money to fund his loan, so Jim has been lent phantom money–money that did not previously exist until he agreed to pay it to the bank over time.

10. Now the bank can say it has total deposits of $3,000, all because of Bill’s original $1,000 deposit.

11. Mary comes in and wants a $3,000 loan. The bank can give her the entire amount because they still have less than $10.3 million in deposits. They open an account for her and deposit $3,000 into it.

12. Meanwhile, no one other than Bill has deposited any money that originated from outside the bank

13. The bank is now allowed to say it has $6,000 in deposits and has created $4,000, all due to Bill’s original deposit of $1,000. Jill, Jim, and Mary are now all indebted to the bank for their respective amounts PLUS interest. The only one of the three who could conceivably be said to have received “depositor’s money” was Jill.

14. Don’t forget, the bank is still obligated to give Bill his $1,000 anytime he asks for it. Even if the bank did give the money to Bill, it would not cancel the loans to Jill, Jim, and Mary even though the bank would no longer have even the original $1,000 that allowed the bank to be able to “lend” “money” to Jill, Jim, and Mary.

15. Also, if Bill does come in and withdraw his $1,000, the bank is not obligated to share one cent of the 400% + profit it has made from his $1,000 deposit.

16. One last thing: Jim and Mary have literally been charged (via interest) for creating money for the bank. In other words, the bank did not actually have on hand the money to loan to Jim and Mary. But the promissory notes signed by Jim and Mary allow the bank to treat future repayment as real money in the here and now. So even though Jim and Mary are literally funding the amount of their loans, which is a favor to the bank, the bank is charging them Jim and Mary money to do them this favor. And only at the end of the term of the loan will the bank then have the money they “loaned” to Jim and Mary. Therefore, many “loans” from banks aren’t “loans” in any commonly understood sense of that word–they are favors done for the bank by customers that banks charge the customers for doing for them.

This sounds like it can’t be real, but that’s exactly what the Federal Reserve tells us that banks do. The big question to ask after realizing that this is how the system works is: Why do we allow banks to do this but not ordinary citizens? Why are banks allowed to use money as only profit whereas it is only debt for ordinary people? Why do we allow banks the privilege of charging us for funding our own “loans?”

If this doesn’t strike you as an outrage, then nothing will.

2008-12-13T20:45:00.001-08:00

IF ONLY EVERYONE WOULD DO WHAT ECUADOR IS DOING...

...and "default" on their "debts," the bankers would be powerless. Correa has a good slogan: "Life before debt." Here's the story:

" GUAYAQUIL, Ecuador, Dec 12 (Reuters) - President Rafael Correa declared a default on Ecuador's foreign sovereign bonds on Friday, vowing to fight "monster" debt-holders in court in one of most aggressive moves against investors in the region for years.

Ecuador's dollar-denominated debt prices plunged on news of its second default in a decade and the first in Latin America since Argentina in 2002, although the decision was not expected to lead to similar moves around the region.

Correa, a U.S.-trained economist and ally of Venezuela's anti-U.S. President Hugo Chavez, refused to make a $31 million interest payment due on Monday on 2012 global bonds, saying the debt was contracted illegally by a previous administration.

"I gave the order not to pay the interest and to go into default," Correa said. "We know very well who we are up against -- real monsters.""

Correa is right--these "creditors" are monsters. Interest is nothing short of robbery, especially when it's supposed to be paid on fake money, which is what this "debt" is.

2008-12-08T20:40:00.000-08:00

WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ANY MONEY?

I don't have any either. This New York Times story illustrates why:

"During the economic expansion that lasted from 2001 until December 2007, when the recession began, incomes for most households barely outpaced inflation. It was the weakest income growth in any expansion since World War II."

Most people's income just barely kept up with inflation. That was over a year ago. With the gas prices of this past year, it would probably be accurate to say that the income of many, if not most, households did not "outpace" inflation.

Bailout Commitments=Coming Hyperflation?

The bailout of our fraudulent financial system is just over 2 months old (awww...look at the little bailout...it's so cute...cute wittle bailout) and over $7 trillion dollars have been committed to various institutions. A study by Casey Research (whoever that is) has determined that the bailout costs "more than all U.S. wars and many big programs combined."

That's at least $24,000 for every person in America.

And that much new money floating around the economy is going to cause hyperinflation, possibly on par with that of the Weimar Republic. And then no one's income will outpace inflation.

2008-12-02T23:24:00.000-08:00

HOLD THE PRESSES: PAKISTAN DIDN'T DO IT

Here's how you can tell--just read the first sentence of this article:

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — Terrorists are "likely" to use nuclear or biological weapons in the next five years, a US commission warned, highlighting Pakistan as the weakest link in world security."

Seems someone--our government, natch--is trying to set up Pakistan. Again, that's a country that Obama singled out for saber-rattling during his campaign.

And note how this report dovetails so nicely with the announcement of 20,000 troops to be stationed in the U.S., with blame being assigned to Pakistan for the Mumbai attack, with the warnings from Colin Powell and others that January 21st or 22nd specifically, but Obama's first few months in office generally will be a time of testing for Obama and the U.S.

Oh dear.

2008-12-02T23:08:00.000-08:00

MUMBAI: WHO'S TELLING THE TRUTH?

India says a Pakistani guy did it:

MUMBAI -- India has accused a senior leader of the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba of orchestrating last week's terror attacks that killed at least 172 people here, and demanded the Pakistani government turn him over and take action against the group.

Just two days before hitting the city, the group of 10 terrorists who ravaged India's financial capital communicated with Yusuf Muzammil and four other Lashkar leaders via a satellite phone that they left behind on a fishing trawler they hijacked to get to Mumbai, a senior Mumbai police official told The Wall Street Journal. The entire group also underwent rigorous training in a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, the official said.

Mr. Muzammil had earlier been in touch with an Indian Muslim extremist who scoped out Mumbai locations for possible attack before he was arrested early this year, said another senior Indian police official. The Indian man, Faheem Ahmed Ansari, had in his possession layouts drawn up for the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel and Mumbai's main railway station, both prime targets of last week's attack, the police official said.

Mr. Ansari, who also made sketches and maps of locations in southern Mumbai that weren't attacked, had met Mr. Muzammil and trained at the same Lashkar camp as the terrorists in last week's attack, an official said.

U.S. officials agreed that Mr. Muzammil was a focus of their attention in the attacks, though they stopped short of calling him the mastermind. "That is a name that is definitely on the radar screen," a U.S. counterterrorism official said.

Information gathered in the probe also continues to point to a connection to Lashkar-e-Taiba, that official said. Along with a confession from the one gunman captured in the attacks, officials cited phone calls intercepted by satellite during the attacks that connected the assailants to members of Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, and the recovered satellite phone from the boat.

It also emerged Tuesday that U.S. authorities had warned Indian officials of a pending attack by sea. Hasan Gafoor, Mumbai police commissioner, told reporters there was a general warning issued in September that hotels could be targeted as well, after the bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad.

Pakistan says they had nothing to do with it:

WASHINGTON: President Asif Ali Zardari said Tuesday that Pakistan was not involved in the lethal attacks on Mumbai last week.

"I think these are stateless actors who have been operating all throughout the region," Zardari said on U.S. based television channel in an interview aired Tuesday night. "The gunmen plus the planners, whoever they are stateless actors who have been holding hostage the whole world."

President Asif Ali Zardari informed that it was wrong to put blame on Pakistan as the person arrested has no connection with Pakistan and he does not posses Pakistani nationality.

Indian officials have publicly blamed Pakistani militants for the attacks, and called on Pakistan to hand over a group of wanted militant leaders suspected of plotting them. On Tuesday, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi proposed a joint investigation into the attacks and said, "This is not the time to point fingers."

Zardari confirmed he is willing to have Pakistani security officials participate with India in a joint investigation.

"The state of Pakistan is in no way responsible," he told media "Even the White House and the American CIA have said that today. The state of Pakistan is, of course, not involved. We’re part of the victims. I’m a victim. The state of Pakistan is a victim. We are the victims of this war, and I am sorry for the Indians, and I feel sorry for them."

India and Pakistan. Both our allies and each other's mortal enemies. And both nuclear powers. Obama said even before this happened that he'd be willing to strike Pakistan if necessary.

Oh dear.

2008-12-02T20:47:00.000-08:00

TROOPS AND RECESSION, PART TWO

Forgot to include this info in the post below. The London Telegraph quotes a leaked internal memo from Tom Fitzpatrick, the chief technical strategist for Citigroup in which he validates the "Troops + Recession=Mayday" scenario:

The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter century was forcing the world's authorities to take steps that had never been tried before.

This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold.

"They are throwing the kitchen sink at this," said Tom Fitzpatrick, the bank's chief technical strategist.

"The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed though into an inflation shock.

"Or it will not work because too much damage has already been done, and we will see continued financial deterioration, causing further economic deterioration, with the risk of a feedback loop. We don't think this is the more likely outcome, but as each week and month passes, there is a growing danger of vicious circle as confidence erodes," he said.

"This will lead to political instability. We are already seeing countries on the periphery of Europe under severe stress. Some leaders are now at record levels of unpopularity. There is a risk of domestic unrest, starting with strikes because people are feeling disenfranchised."

"What happens if there is a meltdown in a country like Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. People react when they have their backs to the wall. We're already seeing doubts emerge about the sovereign debts of developed AAA-rated countries, which is not something you can ignore," he said.

Collapse of 2009

Gerald Celente has been in the news lately, mostly because he makes accurate predictions. I'll let the article take it from there:

The country’s top trends forecaster, who accurately predicted the “panic” of 2008 nearly a year before it unfolded, is now ominously suggesting that next year will come to be known as “the collapse of 2009″.

Gerald Celente, CEO of Trends Research Institute, sent out a letter to his subscribers announcing that he had purchased a domain name called “Collapseof09.com”.

Around this time last year, Celente sent the following message to his subscribers:

"In 2008, Americans will wake up to the worst economic times that anyone alive has ever seen. And they won’t know what hit them. Just as they were in a state of shock on 9/11, they’ll be frozen in fear when the Economic 9/11 strikes at the heart of Wall Street.

Dismiss this trend forecast at your own peril. If you believe everything will be all right, and that the ship of state is sailing along just fine, toss this out and go about your business."

Having correctly forecast the “Economic 9/11″, Celente is warning that people should prepare for something much worse in 2009.

As we reported last month, Celente recently told Fox News that by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.

Celente’s accuracy is widely heralded since he correctly predicted the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, the subprime mortgage collapse and the massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar.

In 2007, Celente forewarned that “giants (would) tumble to their deaths,” which is exactly what we have witnessed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and others.

Celente has stated that the current financial downturn will ultimately lead to nothing less than revolution.

“There will be a revolution in this country,” he said. “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight by Wall Street in this bloodless coup. And it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.”

2008-12-02T19:47:00.000-08:00

20,000 MORE TROOPS + "RECESSION"=MAYDAY! MAYDAY!

And so the police state approacheth...

The Washington Post says that 20,000 more U.S. troops will be stationed in the U.S. to "bolster domestic security."

"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said. "

This is on top of the brigade that began its tour of the "homeland" over two months ago. I cartooned about that here:
http://eggsistense.com/EggsIsTense16Large.jpg

Didn't Bush "keep us safe?"

But why is this happening now? What happened to the argument that "Bush kept us safe" from a terror attack for the last 7+ years? We didn't have the U.S. military stationed here for "domestic security" or "civil unrest" and "crowd control" during that time. I thought it was all the warrantless spying and the Patriot Act and all that other crapola that kept us safe, not troops in the streets.

"Recession" is the key

The reason they're moving the troops in at this juncture, then, is obviously because the economy is collapsing. Even though it was completely unnecessary, it was officially declared yesterday that we've been in a recession since December 2007.

People are starting to freak out. The cost of literally everything is going up, and people are already in debt beyond all semblance of their ability to pay. They have no savings, me included. The unemployment rate continues to climb. Even those who did have investments, i.e., real estate and stocks, have seen the value of those investments simply disappear into thin air.

Eventually people are going to do something about it. Hopefully it will be peaceful--my personal favorite option--but it may not be. Well, not to worry, says the Federal Reserve (the main culprit of all these shenanigans), we've got U.S. troops right here in America to enforce "domestic security." But the security being enforced will be for the bankers, not for the people.

The people are trained to think they're "safe" and "secure" as long as there are no ghastly terror attacks. Meanwhile, the security and safety of our finances, our civil liberties, our health--literally everything else--is being attacked and eroded.

God help us.

2008-11-27T21:35:00.000-08:00

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH...

Thought I'd share a nice letter I ran across today. It's right in line with a letter to the editor that appeared today in my local paper.

Here's a nice letter I ran across today that I thought I'd share with the group:

"Thank you, President Bush.

Thanks for legalizing torture.
Thanks for getting rid of habeas corpus.
Thanks for the "unitary executive" theory.
Thanks for making every man, woman, and child in America give $24,000 to private corporations and banks.
Thanks for the increase in poverty and hunger.
Thanks for the millions of dead and wounded soldiers and civilians.
Thanks for keeping us safe.
Thanks for the no-bid contracts.
Thanks for your response to Katrina.
Thanks the warrantless wiretapping and the telecom immunity.
Thanks for helping us undermine that pesky constitution.
Thanks for overturning posse comitatus.
Thanks for NSPD 51.
Thanks for the record average gas prices.
Thanks for kissing and holding hands with dictators and terrorists.
Thanks for invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Your friend,

The Military-Industrial Complex"

2008-11-26T21:39:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT: SINGLE BIGGEST LAYOUT IN U.S. HISTORY

And so the propping up of the fraudulent, predatory system known as the "free market" continues. Everybody's getting billions of handouts except the people who need it--you and me.

The money passed out since the bailout passed just a few weeks ago after Congress was threatened with a depression and martial law (both of which were/are likely to come down the pike sooner or later even with a bailout) now comes to a grand total, according to this article, of basically $5 trillion. Here's the horrific breakdown:
Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

The bailout, in the 6 to 8 weeks since it was passed, has cost more than our involvement in WWII!

You just gave these criminals $24,000...

...and so did everyone else you know (according to Bloomberg). My household, then, has contributed $72,000 to these private banks and corporations. That's $72,000 grand we ain't got, quite simply. This is going to cause massive inflation--how can $5-7 trillion dollars in free money to banks in less than two months not cause hyperinflation? Bloomberg points out that

"Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis."

People, not banks, create money

So in effect what is happening, as I've pointed out in previous posts, is that we are giving banks money so they can then turn around and lend it back to us. Kashkari told us that helping people directly with the bailout money would keep it from going very far and wouldn't help people to get the credit they need. Well, if my family was given its $72,000 directly, that'd go a long way toward helping us out. We don't need credit. CREDIT CREATES DEBT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WANT.

Oh, I can't take this...I gotta go to bed. But first, one more short post about Afghanistan...

2008-11-26T21:16:00.000-08:00

ECUADOR'S DEBT "ILLEGITIMATE?" OF COURSE...

...but not for the reason they say it is. According to this article, 44% of Ecuador's debt is to private banks. Ecuador has declared this and other foreign debts "illegitimate" because of the following:

"The commission found that usurious interest rates were applied for many bonds and that past Ecuadorian governments illegally took other loans on. Debt restructurings consistently forced Ecuador to take on more foreign debt to pay outstanding debt, and often at much higher interest rates. The commission also charged that the U.S. Federal Reserve's late 1970's interest rate hikes constituted a "unilateral" increase in global rates, compounding Ecuador's indebtedness."

Hey, those are all great reasons for Ecuador to declare its debt illegitimate. But, as we've seen, the overarching reason the debt is illegitimate is that the money loaned to them was fake. That is to say, it didn't and doesn't exist except as entries in computer databases.

So are we going to invade Ecuador?

The article notes that:

"Ecuador's findings could set an important precedent for the poorest of indebted countries, whose debt burden has long been criticized as inhumane."

Holy crap, that's the one thing the corporatists absolutely hate--setting an example for other countries, especially when the example being set is throwing off the chains of fraudulent debt slavery. Presidents are hunted down and killed and/or countries are invaded and/or overthrown via black ops for that kind of stuff.

U.S. declares debts illegitimate, why not Ecuador?

A former Ecuadorian government official points out the following:

"The United States itself has embraced the concept of illegitimate debt in encouraging countries to forgive the debt accrued in Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

Good point. Especially when one takes into account that the U.S. put Saddam in place to begin with.

The article makes a similar point:

"In fact, the U.S. originated the concept of foreign debt after the Spanish-American war. The U.S. refused to pay Cuba's outstanding debt to Spain, arguing that it was created by agents of Spain in Spain's self-interest, a matter in which Cubans had no say."

2008-11-18T07:22:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT 6: TRUTH IN LENDING--PEOPLE LEND MONEY TO BANKS

I have been led to believe my whole life that banks/finance companies lend money to people. I assume that most other people have been led to believe the same thing. But as we have seen, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Fed admits as much--in a roundabout way--in the quote I used below. Let's break it down again. Here's the quote:

"Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here's how it works: Most of a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank once again holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times."

First of all, despite the Fed's protestation to the contrary, "lending" does not create anything. By its very definition, the act of "lending" assumes that what is being lent already exists--in other words, one cannot lend something one does not have. That is to say, I can't lend someone a bicycle if I don't have a bicycle. I can't create a bicycle by lending someone a bicycle--it's impossible. So right off the bat, we can see that we are being misled because lending doesn't create anything. But this idea that money is created through bank lending is very pervasive. And this misconception is a fundamental part of the system under which we currently labor.

Okay, fine, but...

...how is it that people lend to banks? Well, the Fed comes right out and says it--again, in a backhanded way. They point out that "loans" are made to bank customers and are then deposited in a checking account. The bank then uses that deposit as the engine to lend more money. So without saying it in so many words, the Fed is acknowledging that deposits lent to them by us are what they then use to lend.

In fact, every deposit of any kind into a bank is a loan to that bank from people. Without deposits, which are essentially and fundamentally loans from people to banks, the bank could do nothing, it would have no assets. So banks are helpless without the people. But we are always led to believe that in fact people are helpless without banks. That's the whole premise of the bailout--that if banks fail, people suffer. And that may be true if we insist on clinging irrationally to our current system in which we allow banks to dole out the money that is loaned to them by the people at great expense to the people.

A little more

Even with our current system, in which we all go along with the mass delusion that banks, not people, create money, it's still blatantly obvious that it is people that create money instead of banks. I used the illustration of an auto loan below to make this point but now let's illustrate the point with something more expensive, like a mortgage.

But first let's recap a little bit of what posts below mentioned. We already see, by the Fed's own admission, that "very little" of a bank's deposits is "kept in the bank's vault." In fact, they only keep enough on hand "to meet routine withdrawals." In other words, they don't have the money "on hand" at any given time to actually lend any significant amount of real money, i.e., cash. That's what the Fed is essentially saying.

So let's say Bill goes into the bank to get a mortgage loan on a $500K house. We already know that the bank doesn't have $500K in cash on hand to give to Bill to pay for his house. Their deposits, i.e., loans from people, may total many times more than that amount on paper, but they don't actually physically have that amount of money in cash on the day that Bill comes in for his loan.

So the bank judges Bill to be good for the "loan" and they have him fill out a promissory note stating that he will pay the bank the $500K plus interest. The bank then enters some digits into a computer and print Bill or Bill's attorney or real estate agent a check for the proper amount, which they don't have on hand, remember (by the way, if one doesn't have something "on hand," that necessarily means one doesn't have it, even if it is listed as an asset on a ledger book somewhere).

So the bank essentially writes a bad check to the owner of the house Bill wants. But under our current system, the bank's check--again, written for an amount that they do not currently have on hand--is made good by, guess who? Bill and his promise to pay. So the fact that Bill will be giving money to the bank for the next 30 years is viewed as being the same as cash by all parties involved. But that view does not change the fact that the bank does not have the $500K on hand at the time of the transaction.

Quite literally then, Bill is creating the amount of his loan himself by paying it in installments over the next 30 years. That is to say, he's literally loaning the bank the money to cover the bad check it wrote because they don't have the cash on hand to pay for Bill's house.

When looked at this way, one can understand the predatory and fraudulent nature of interest. Again, Bill does not have $500K on hand to pay for the house he wants, but neither does the bank! So because we have created the illusion that banks have the "divine right" of money creation, the bank now gets to charge Bill interest for lending them the money to pay for his house!

No one would ever agree to this system if they realized how it works, and that's why the Fed tells us that banks, not people, create money. But we have seen that the opposite is true--people, not banks, create money but the people have been suckered into letting banks charge them money for loaning money to banks.

So much for "Truth in Lending"...

2008-11-17T22:19:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT 5: PEOPLE, NOT BANKS, CREATE MONEY

OK, thought about it some more and have come to this conclusion: People, not banks, create money. The Fed site I quoted from below has it exactly backward, stating that "banks create money." That's what they want us to believe. However, that is false.

We know it's false because they go on to tell us that money is created through lending. Well, all right, but as I've pointed out, banks don't actually have the money to lend. The money is "created" by our "promise to pay" and our monthly installments, as in the car loan example I wrote about below. When the "loan" is paid in full, we have then created the amount of money we "borrowed," along with interest that wasn't created by any bank.

How to look at it

All money is created through our labor. In fact, labor is money. Banks don't do labor, people do. That's the ultimate reason why the bailout and the system it is trying to prop up are utter fraud. They want us to bail out banks because they tell us that it's banks that create money. That is completely false.

And that's why there is no need for a bailout. That's why there's no need, quite frankly, for banks. And that's why there's no need, ultimately, for money. Because our labor is money.

2008-11-17T08:59:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT 4: QUESTIONING KASHKARI AND HIS "SYSTEM"

The questioning of Kashkari on Friday was a start, but it was only that. Kucinich and Issa didn't go far enough--even they appear to assume that the system is good for the most part and needs rescuing.

Fake money

However, as I've shown below, our system is based on fake money that creates only profit for banks and only debt for the public. Indeed, as we've seen, even the Federal Reserve admits that for a profit, banks lend money that they do not have on hand. You and I can't do that. And that's why we stay perpetually behind and they stay perpetually ahead.

But even if one accepts that this actual fake money is real, there was one burning question that none of the Congressmen asked, at least not that I saw. And that burning question is this: Why should taxpayers be forced to give a gift of money to banks that banks will then use to create only profit for themselves and only debt for the people who gave them the money to begin with?

This may seem like a silly question, but only if one accepts that Kashkari's precious system helps the public. However, we have seen quite clearly that the system does no such thing. Kashkari is pleading for the system to be maintained--that banks be given money by the taxpayers to issue credit in order to make a profit off of those taxpayers.

Kashkari makes the faulty assumption that helping needy people and businesses "directly" won't work. But that begs another unasked question that is related to the first unasked burning question mentioned above: Why not just give the taxpayer money to the taxpayers directly instead of giving it to a middleman (i.e., the banks) to dole out to us in order to make a profit for the middleman? In other words, instead of giving banks $750 billion (and really much more than that), why don't we just give it to ourselves?

The only answer to those questions is that the system must be preserved, which appears to be the assumption of all the Congressmen I saw questioning Kashkari. But as we've seen, the best way to really help the people instead of the banks is to dismantle the fraudulent, predatory system.

And dismantling the system would not be hard to do. It would be very, very easy, except for the fact that the public has been brainwashed a million times over into thinking that bankers have the divine right of money creation and that credit is necessary for life and the country to continue. Kashkari's comments indicate that credit is the answer to our problems when in fact credit is the problem.

Credit is the problem, not the solution

I'll say it again--credit is the problem, not the solution. If people had good jobs at good wages, they wouldn't need credit. If inflation wasn't through the roof, people wouldn't need credit. BUT, if no one needed credit, then the bankers would be out of work.

And the bankers don't want to be out of work. That's completely understandable because as we've seen, banks are allowed to create money without producing anything but debt, while the rest of us have to perform labor to have access to money. And in fact, it is only our labor that gives bankers their money. We are quite literally "working for the bank."

So the banks have an excellent scam going--they do and produce nothing while getting rich off of those of us who are performing labor.

Labor vs. capital

So that brings up the age-old fight between labor and capital. As we've seen, labor is the only thing that makes capital possible, yet in our system, labor is subservient to capital. This in inexplicably called "free market capitalism" and is extolled a billion times a day by presidents and pundits alike.

But if we were to put capital in its rightful place, i.e., subservient to labor, that would be and is called "godless communism" and is disparaged a billion times a day by presidents and pundits alike.

So we've been conditioned, brainwashed, taught--pick your term--to think that capital, i.e., the financiers/bankers/middlemen are what allow us to exist when in fact THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. It was Abraham Lincoln who said

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

So call it communism, socialism, redistribution of wealth--again, pick your term--but the fact remains that labor is and therefore should be treated as the master of capital, not the other way around as is currently the case.

And that's why the questions posed to Kashkari and Paulson and Bernanke about the bailout and "the system" should proceed from a different assumption than they currently do. The questions should proceed from the assumption that the current system is rapacious, fraudulent, predatory, and contrary to common sense, not from the assumption that the current system should be preserved at all costs.

2008-11-17T07:29:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT 3: WTF?

I just want to make one thing crystal clear: the bailout is about propping up a failed, fraudulent system. We are being asked to preserve what even Kashkari calls "the system" but we are not supposed to question the system itself. All the bailout articles in the mainstream press proceed from the assumption that the system is good and needs saving and only quibble about whether or not the bailout is the best thing for the system or not.

But I'm saying that the very system needs to be questioned. And if you read what follows, you'll understand why...

How "the system" works--against us and for the bankers

This "system" that Kashkari referred to is used to keep us in debt slavery. And I'm using the term "debt slavery" quite literally. We are literally slaves to our debts. It's why we never do the things we really want to do--we have to pay a mortgage, don'tcha know. Meanwhile, the mortgage company is literally robbing us because they didn't have the money to lend us in the first place. The only thing that created the "money" to "lend" us was our "borrowing" of the "money."

That's right, our borrowing is the only way more money can be created. Here's how the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas explains it:

"Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here's how it works: Most of a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank once again holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times."

Just think about that for a minute. Let that sink in--money created by lending. I wish I could create money by lending. If I had that power, I'd never stop lending so I'd always make more money. And just when I was about to run out of money to lend, I'd simply lend some more so I'd have more money...that...makes sense, right?

We understand then, that this is the way our wobbly, fraudulent system works--there are a few people at the top (i.e., bankers) who are given magic powers to produce money out of nothing and the rest of us have to pay them exorbitant fees on pain of asset confiscation and/or financial ruination because...because...because we gave them these magic powers? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Divine Right

In fact, this scheme is terribly familiar and it's one that we thought we'd rid ourselves of for good. This scheme is just like the "divine right of kings," in which rulers in the past claimed to be ordained by the gods to rule over the people. It became evident (and was surely evident at the time) that such claims were poppycock, so eventually people correctly decided that they should rule themselves and the United States is a prime example of an attempt to do just that.

But then we allowed a privately-owned central bank (i.e., the Federal Reserve) to take over the creation of our money. They essentially assert a "divine right of money creation" over us. They openly tell us that they create their money out of our debt.

Think about it--in the Federal Reserve quote above, they openly admit that banks keep only a fraction of their deposits on hand. Indeed, the article puts it this way:

"Very little of this money (from savings and checking accounts) is kept in the bank's vault, however. While the Federal Reserve requires banks to keep a specified percentage of customer deposits on hand to meet routine withdrawals, they lend the excess."

Long story short, banks do not actually have on hand the money they are "lending." And the very act of "lending" creates more money on which they base their reserve requirements to then "loan" more "money," on and on, in a circular fashion of upward-spiraling profit for them and downward-spiraling debt for you and me (unless you're a banker).

In the Fed's own example of money creation, they point out that "a bank's loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts." Fine and dandy, but here's the catch--when one goes into a bank and gets a loan, the bank does not give one the amount of the loan in cash or gold or anything with inherent value. They simply "approve" the loan and get you to sign a promissory note. Bingo! That's the moment the "money" is created that puts you in debt and allows them to say they have that much more in deposits so they can do the same thing all over again. BUT NO ACTUAL CASH OR ANYTHING OF REAL VALUE EVER ENTERED INTO THIS TRANSACTION (except maybe what you put up as collateral).

And that's how "money" is created by banks--we do it for them. They can't "loan" us "money" unless we agree to pay them the money over time, plus interest. So not only are the banks keeping us in debt slavery, we are essentially financing our own indebtedness. We're creating only money/profit for the banks and debt for ourselves.

The conventional wisdom is that it all balances out, but that's not really true. Let's say I agree to an auto "loan" for a $30K car. At the end of 5 years (or whatever the loan period is), my labor has created $30K for the bank that didn't previously exist before the bank "loaned" it to me. And I've paid them interest on top of that.

So conventional wisdom says that well, it's true that the bank now has the money, but you've got the car, which is equal in value to the amount of money "lent" to you. Not true--the car is worth less 5 years later than it was when I first bought it. It's no longer worth the amount of money my labor has put in the bank's coffers. In short, the bank is way ahead (thanks to my labor) and I'm still behind (thanks to their chicanery). Indeed, since only banks can create money and they only loaned me the amount of the principal, how can I pay the interest and not still always be in debt? Remember, they only created the amount I financed, not the amount it takes (i.e., interest) to make good on the debt.

Why don't banks bail themselves out--they "create money when they lend it?"

I say all that to say that it's obvious that the system is fraudulent. That's why it makes no sense to continue to prop it up--unless you're one of the people with magic powers. Then it makes perfect sense. Except that it doesn't. If, as the Fed tells us, that banks create money through lending, why don't they just make more loans and bail themselves out?

2008-11-16T23:13:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT 2: MORE ON THE "CREDIT" INSULT

After writing the post below, I thought about what Kashkari said some more. He said that helping people directly wasn't feasible, but that taking taxpayer money to help banks directly was helpful for strengthening the system.

So basically what that comes down to is this bewildering, insulting, ludicrous situation:

We give the banks money to loan to us.

Does that make any sense at all? Why are we being forced to go along with this? That's how we should think of the bailout--we are giving free money to banks so they can loan money to us at interest. They get free money, we get debt.

And as Kashkari helpfully points out, we're being forced to do that to help sustain "the system," with the idea that what is good for the system is good for the people. Nothing could be further from the truth--again, we're GIVING banks money that they are supposed to then LOAN to us.

An Analogy

That's the equivalent of me saying to my friend, "Hey man, I'm hungry." So my friend says "If you'll give me an apple, I'll sell it to you." So I give him an apple which he then sells to me for a dollar. Then he says, "In a month, I'll need you to repay me an apple."

So now my friend has a dollar of my money plus he expects me to give him another apple as repayment for the apple I gave to him to sell to me because I was hungry.

I ask him why he thinks I should go along with his little scam. He says "Well, it's all for the good of the system. And hey, you got some benefit out of it--you got an apple when you were hungry. It's only fair that I should be justly compensated at a fair price for facilitating your receipt of sustenance. You see, the system works for the good of us all."

I protest, "But now I'm out a dollar and two apples while you have a dollar and will have an apple in a month. In fact, I've given you everything you now have. By what rights do you charge me for this?" And he says, "The system, the system must prevail! Questioning our free market system is not going to help you--but giving me free money sure will help one of us, i.e., me."

"The System" Uber Alles

And that's the situation we're in with this bailout--we give banks money to lend to us, and then they expect the amount of the loan plus interest yet we're not supposed to notice that the banks wouldn't even have the money to "lend" us if we hadn't given it to them.

But you see, it's for the good of "the system." And saving "the system" is what's important--saving the fortunes and homes of the people is secondary or tertiary if it ranks at all. Kashkari wants "the system" to be sustained because the system is what keeps him and his kind in silk undies and three homes.

2008-11-16T22:32:00.000-08:00

BAILOUT: THE ULTIMATE PROBLEM

Listening to Kashkari “walk through” the bailout procedure with Rep. Cummings, the main problem with the bailout occurred to me yet again. And that problem is this--the bailout money is being used to prop up a system that has two deficiencies: 1) the current system is unsustainable and 2) the current system is fraudulent.

That this is the main problem with the bailout occurred to me when Kashkari said the following to Cummings:

“If we went out to each of the people and businesses and communities and helped them directly the $700 billion wouldn’t go far enough. So we’re trying to take the $700 billion and stabilize the system as a whole so that credit can then flow out to everybody around the country who needs it. So it’s very hard--we’re trying to think of every day–if we have finite resources, how do we use those resources to the best possible benefit to the system as a whole, because that will help every American (at around 7:35 in the clip posted below).”

There are many problems with this statement, but let me start with the one that aggravates me the most, and that is this–we don’t need more CREDIT, we need LESS INFLATION and GOOD JOBS at LIVING WAGES. Credit is what got everyone into this mess in the first place.

And not only that, “credit” is fake money. Credit of the type Kashkari is referring to is what “creates” “money” for the banks while creating only debt for everyone else.

Why Not Help The People Directly Instead of the Banks?

Indeed, Kashkari specifically rules out helping people directly, BECAUSE THAT’S NOT HOW BANKS MAKE MONEY. Instead, Kashkari would rather help the banks directly instead of the people. That way the banks can create more inflation through fractional reserve banking and “loan” the “money” created in this way to us at interest.

What kind of crap is that? People say “please help us” and Kashkari says, “I won’t help you but I’ll help your bank ‘help’ you.” Since when has a bank helped anyone do anything but go into debt?

The $700 billion Is Not the Sum Total of the Bailout

Kashkari would have us believe that the bailout funds total only $700 billion, when the final bailout bill actually had a price tag of $850 billion and we know that the Federal Reserve gave away $2 trillion in bailout money and then told Congress that Congress isn’t allowed to know where that money went.

The idea that the money supply is finite is insane–the money is issued out of nothing. It’s fake, it doesn’t even exist. It’s unlimited, it’s infinite.

In fact, here's a great summary of how the fake money is created from David Icke (the whole article is great; below is just a taste):

"This is how 'they' control governments, businesses and the general population, by creating enormous debt.

Vital to this has been to allow bankers to lend money they do not have. It works like this. If you or me have a million pounds, we can lend a million pounds. Very simple. But if a bank has a million pounds it can lend ten times that and more, and charge interest on it.

If even a fraction of the people who theoretically have 'money' deposited in the banks went today to remove it, the banks would slam the doors in half an hour because they do not have it. Money in the bank is a myth, another confidence trick.

If you go into a bank and ask for a loan, the bank does not print a single new note nor mint a single new coin. It merely types the amount of the loan into your account. From that moment you are paying interest to the bank on what is no more than figures typed on a screen. However, if you fail to pay back that non-existent loan, "they" using "they're" own made-up laws - which are illegal, according to God - will come along and take your wealth that does exist, your home, land, car, and possessions, to the estimated value of whatever figure was typed onto that screen."

Read that last paragraph again and then think about the homeowners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast who are still making mortgage payments, even on houses that were swept out to sea by Katrina on August 29, 2005. I heard a BBC story just yesterday about this--these homeowners are paying interest on nonexistent money (see above--read it multiple times if it doesn't make sense at first) to "pay back" a "loan" on a house that doesn't exist. And they're trapped in the debt--they can't sell or rent the house; they can only go into more debt rebuilding (because insurance won't pay) or have their wages garnished or their credit ruined through foreclosure or other judgments if they just stop paying the mortgage.

2008-10-30T20:02:00.000-07:00

SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH, FREE MARKET FOR THE POOR

Oh, you have got to looooooovvvve this. The headlines tell the story pretty well:

"New GDP Numbers Strongest Signal Yet The Country Has 'Hurtled Into Recession'"

No shit, Sherlock. However, some of us aren't really affected by that, to wit:

"Exxon Mobil Profits Set a Record in Third Quarter"

"Shell announces huge rise in profits"

"AIG Already Running Through Government Loans"

And so on...

Mmmm...Interesting

The recession article makes this interesting point:

"Americans stopped buying everything from cars to corn flakes in the July-September quarter, ratcheting back spending by the largest amount in 28 years and jolting the national economy into what could be the most painful recession in decades."

So spending dropped more than it has in 28 years yet ExxonMobil continues to make record profits. Why is that, one might ask? Well, simple--they charged us more for the gas.

Why are they suddenly charging us less? I have a relative who is a man of wisdom on many topics, and he had this to say about falling gas prices: "It's curious that the demand for gasoline would drop off so suddenly." You know, because as we all were conditioned to believe from grade school, prices are naturally a product of the magic of supply and demand.

Oh brother...what poppycock. The reason gas prices are low is because it's right before an election--it's rigged.

Recession?? Duh!

It's interesting that there has been a debate for some time now about whether or not we are in a recession. More specifically, there's been some discussion about whether or not the government will officially declare that we have been or currently are in a recession.

My hunch is that there won't be official government confirmation that we are or have been in a recession until after the election or even after the inauguration. That way, those at the top can decide which president it's best to put the blame on for the recession: Bush or Obama/McCain.

2008-06-12T09:57:00.000-07:00

HELL NO, WE WON'T "GET USED TO" BEING USED...

...to finance our own demise through "inexplicable" oil company/OPEC price gouging. But that's not even what I wanted to write about...

Yesterday, the Huffington Post had a headline saying "Get Used To It" regarding this story, which says:

"WASHINGTON — Motorists can expect gasoline prices around $4 gallon through next year, the Energy Department said Wednesday, with oil prices staying well above $100 a barrel."

That one sentence begs the question: How does the Energy Dept. know that--that gas will stay around $4/gallon? Are they clairvoyant? Have they been to the future and back?

Oh sure, they say it's only a "projection" that these things will come to pass. They'll say that OK, they really don't know such things for sure but are able to make predictions based on current trends, computer models, etc. Yeah, maybe. But let's not forget this little tidbit:

The 24/7 Wall Street blog, which is affiliated with both Dow Jones' MarketWatch and The Wall Street Journal, carried an article over the weekend that entertained the possibility of oil tipping the $200 mark, citing experts in the industry who expect the $95 a barrel level to be surpassed by the end of the year if the recent stock market turmoil continues.

The ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group, a consortium of power brokers from banking, business, politics, academia and oil, met in Munich Germany in May 2005 when crude oil prices were around the $40 a barrel mark.

During the conference, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what has happened.

During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. This information was gleaned from sources inside Bilderberg who have proven reliable in the past.

This shit is rigged, yo, plain and simple. Check my cartoon about it at Eggs Is Tense...

2008-06-05T09:53:00.000-07:00

OPERATION IRAQI (AND AMERICAN) ENSLAVEMENT

An Iranian leader, referring to Bush's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, spoke the truth about the plan:

"The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Bush is trying to force the Iraqi government to agree to the following terms by the end of next month:

-allow US troops occupy permanent bases
-allow US troops to conduct military operations without consulting Iraqi government
-allow US troops to arrest Iraqis without consulting Iraqi government
-allow US troops to have immunity from Iraqi law
-allow US control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet

And so on.

Does that sound like "freedom" to anyone? Isn't that what our war was euphemistically named--"Operation Iraqi Freedom?" Oh, but we have long since learned that politicians in general and neocons in particular are well-versed in what I call "oppositism," i.e., saying the opposite of what they mean.

Do the terms that Bush wants Iraqis to agree to sound any different than what Saddam Hussein did? No, they don't. Bush obviously isn't interested in "victory" in Iraq. Making Iraq agree to such odious terms is a surefire way to ensure defeat and a prolonged conflict.

Because that's what the neocons really want--war all the time. That's so they can always say that we're "in a time of war" and they can use that excuse to continue taking our civil liberties. The war in Iraq and the wider "war on terror" are really an excuse to wage war on US.

If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

2008-06-05T09:23:00.000-07:00

PHASE II: BUSH LIED ABOUT IRAQ. BIG SURPRISE.

From the Huffington Post report on the Senate's long-delayed "Phase II" report on the misuse of "intelligence" in making a case for our illegal and immoral invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq:

"The 'Phase II' report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated."

Wow. Thanks to things like the NY Times report on the Pentagon analyst scandal, Scott McClellan's new book, this Phase II report and other sources, the truth is finally being officially admitted, here in the middle of Bush's last year in office when it's too late to do much about it. Oh, he could still be impeached, I suppose. But that was taken "off the table" long ago.

And so the war will go on into the next presidency. And the presidency after that. And the presidency after that. And so on. But at least we got a quiet official admission that it was all based on lies. That's something, at least, right?

No. It isn't. They got away with it. And they'll get away with the next one. And they'll admit to lying about the next one, too. And I guess we'll just say that impeachment is "off the table" then, too. I guess it just goes to show you that THE SYSTEM WORKS (for the bad guys)! Hooray!

2008-04-25T21:43:00.000-07:00

PAID $3.45 FOR GAS TODAY...

...and apparently that's cheap for regular grade. This evening I saw it as high as $3.56 for regular.

Gee, it wasn't even 4 months ago that I paid "only" $3.09. But oh yeah, the head of OPEC told us that oil prices aren't set according to supply and demand. They're set according to a "common understanding" that we, the rabble, have to be brought low financially while they enjoy record profits. Isn't that nice?

Maybe we should start a cartel and do some things according to a "common understanding." Like make them quit gouging us. Just an idea...

2008-04-21T22:10:00.000-07:00

OPEC HEAD: OIL PRICES HAVE "NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND..."

...rather, the price of oil is the product of a "common understanding," says one Abdalla Salem el-Badri, the secretary-general of OPEC. Here's the quote from the AP story, so it's clear I'm not paraphrasing or spinning:

"'Oil prices, there is a common understanding that has nothing to do with supply and demand,' el-Badri said on the sidelines of an energy conference in Rome."

This little tidbit comes to us in a story about the national average gas price hitting $3.50!

It's interesting that the head of OPEC tells us that the price of oil has nothing to do with supply and demand, yet this AP article attempts to justify the new record oil price of $117.83 with the following factoids:

-"Militancy and lawlessness has [sic] grown in recent years in Nigeria's south,
and attacks on oil infrastructure have become common."

-"Nigeria is a major supplier to the United States. Attacks there in the past two years have cut nearly a quarter of the African country's oil output."

-"Crude oil also rose Monday after the 150,000-ton tanker Takayama was attacked off the coast of Yemen as it headed for Saudi Arabia."

-"In Mexico, oil production slipped 7.8 percent in the first quarter to 2.91 million barrels a day as output at the country's traditional oil fields wanes, state oil company
Petroleos Mexicanos said."

-"In Scotland, workers at Ineos PLC's 196,000-barrel-a-day Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical plant have threatened to strike for 48 hours from April 27 over changes to an employee pension plan."

Hmmm...all of those sound like reasonable excuses for the price of oil to go up. However, the head of OPEC, of which Nigeria (which, as you'll recall is a "major supplier" to the U.S.) is a member, just told us that supply and demand have nothing to do with the price of oil.

What Is This "Common Understanding?"

If you're like me, you probably wonder what "common understanding" the head of OPEC is talking about. Also if you're like me, you really already know what the understanding is but search for just the right way to accurately express it. Well, search no more, for here it is, from the Boston Herald:

"[Peter] Beutel [a Cameron Hanover analyst] estimated that the 25-cent gas
increase over the past two weeks takes about $100 million out of American
consumers’ pockets each day, funneling money away from other purchases."

There it is, the "common understanding" among OPEC members that truly determines the price of oil--$1,400,000,000 dollars transferred to the already obscenely wealthy. That's $1.4 BILLION sucked out of our pockets in just 2 weeks! And that's only an "estimate!" It could be even higher! Who doesn't "understand" that? If you could make an extra $1.4 billion in 2 weeks without the hassles of providing better products, better services, or any of that jazz, wouldn't you do that? Of course you would! Now you "understand!"

OPEC Is A Cartel...

...and by their very definition, cartels are formed to regulate prices:

"car·tel Audio Help /kɑrˈtɛl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kahr-tel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an international syndicate, combine, or trust formed esp. to regulate prices and output in some field of business."

Or better yet, from the same link:

"car·tel Audio Help (kär-těl') Pronunciation Key
n.
A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members."

Just one more--they get more damningly accurate as you scroll down the page:

"cartel [noun]
a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service; "they set up the trust in the hope of gaining a monopoly" [syn: trust]"

Great cartel article here. Gotta go night-night--I think the point is abundantly clear, i.e., that we're being raped economically and it's on purpose, it's by design and the people who we elect to supposedly look after our interests are just letting it all happen.

2008-04-03T10:22:00.000-07:00

MCLEANS IN THE NEWS

Here's WHLT's story on the McLean situation:

2008-04-02T11:32:00.000-07:00

PROTEST PIX

Finally joined the McLeans in their monthly protests. All it took was five years of war and McLean getting arrested to get a bunch of us out there. Finally met some fellow members of the Hattiesburg American forum face to face. I'll write more later. Here are some pix:

2008-03-20T18:22:00.000-07:00

LOTS OF POST-9/11 ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL

A poster at the Hattiesburg American forum asked this question today:

“How many attacks have been [on] American soil since 9-11?”

Well, let’s see...

There was the anthrax attack.
There have been multiple attacks on our civil liberties, including but not limited to:
the Patriot Act, the illegal detention of Jose Padilla, warrantless wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, NSPD 51, the Tasering of Andrew Meyer, the extremely questionable detention of Yuri Wainwright, the arrest of William McLean, the normalization of torture as an interrogation tool, etc.

There have been many, many attacks. And frankly, if one wants to count embassy compounds as “American soil”–which the government does under the doctrine of extraterritoriality–then we have the following attacks:

March 2002-US embassy in Yemen attacked by a “sound grenade”
January 29, 2005–US Baghdad embassy compound hit with a rocket; 2 killed, 4 wounded–all Americans
September 12, 2006-US embassy in Damascus, Syria attacked
December 2, 2007-US embassy in Manila attacked
February 21, 2008-US embassy in Belgrade burned

And that doesn’t count all the attacks on the Green Zone, which while not technically “American soil,” is controlled by the U.S. and home to many U.S. citizens.

So to answer the question, there have been a lot of attacks on American soil since 9/11. George Bush hasn’t kept us “safe” in any sense of the word.

2008-03-19T18:54:00.000-07:00

IMPEACH THE LYING CORPORATE GREEDHEADS PART TWO

Went to an antiwar “candlelight vigil” today. Met up with my friend Scott Tyner, pictured below with the green “Support our troops” sign. Saw William McLean (the creator of the unforgettable “Impeach the Lying Corporate Greedheads” sign), about whom I wrote both a blog entry and letter to the editor over two years ago.

Scott told me that William was arrested for disturbing the peace during their most recent protest. Apparently a cop pulled up and cited some nonexistent ordinance and took William to jail. He had to pay a $100 fine to get out. At least they didn’t Tase him.

How can anyone say William is/was “disturbing the peace?” There’s no peace to disturb–after all, as Bush and Cheney and their neocon followers love to say, “This is a time of war.” And William and the rest of us would like to see that time pass, so that we can use “this is a time of peace” as an excuse to say no when they want to build more weapons and kill more people. In other words, use their strategy on them, but for positive purposes.

Not much to say but this–this is not a just war, this is just war. End it. Now.

2008-02-22T14:04:00.000-08:00

PAID $3.04 FOR GAS TODAY...

...and a place down the street was selling it for $3.06. These prices have sparked some discussion on the Hattiesburg American forum, and I reproduce one of my posts there below:

All I'm saying is that the previous inflation-adjusted record average gas price was in 1981, when Reagan was in office and there was a war going on in Iraq. That same month, this is what happened:

"...U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks."

The declassified memorandum that details all this is here.

Reagan was also shot that month.

The new inflation-adjusted record average gas price has now been achieved during Bush's term. And strangely enough, there's a war going on in Iraq.

Coincidence? Not bloody likely.

I'm not at all saying that Democratic presidents haven't had their share of foibles--LBJ lying us into Vietnam, Truman using the atom bomb even though he knew Japan wanted and was trying to surrender, etc.

But I'm saying that when wars in Iraq converge with Republican presidents, we seem to get record average gas prices. And interestingly, in the case of both records, in '81 and '07, men named George Bush were either president or vice-president.

Also, not exactly sure what 1977 gas lines kenjutsu is referring to. The first Arab oil embargo was in 1973, when Nixon, yet another Republican, was in office.

There was of course the energy crisis of 1979, due to the effects of the Iranian revolution, and there were gas lines then.

"Back in the 1973-1974 period and in 1979, folks waited for an hour or more on gasoline lines that at times stretched for miles, and people could only buy gas on alternate days, depending upon whether their license plate ended with an odd or even number. The federal government even printed gas-rationing coupons, although they were never used."

Gas prices "climbed throughout the 90's?"

Gas prices, according to kenjutsu, began to "climb throughout the 90's." He notes that this started in approximately 1992, the last year Bush I was in office.

As ol' Ronnie Raygun said--"Trust, but verify":

All prices listed are for U.S. regular grade gasoline:

1/6/92: $1.04
12/28/92: $1.06
1/25/93: $1.05
12/27/93: $0.99

Point taken? No? OK, let’s skip ahead a few years...

5/26/97: $1.20
7/28/97: $1.16
1/5/98: $1.08
3/23/98: $0.99
1/4/99: $0.91
12/27/99: $1.26

I think we can conclude that the price of gas didn’t ONLY “climb throughout the 90's.” The price FLUCTUATED.

Gas prices under Bush

Lowest gas price of Bush admin.:
12/17/01:$1.04

Lowest price since beginning of Iraq war:
5/12/03: $1.42

The price of regular has not been that low since then. And since March 14, 2005, gas has never been less than $2.

Where’s the data come from? From the Energy Information Administration in good ol’ Washington, D.C.

Under “Area,” click on “United States.” You have to have Excel or an Excel viewer to see the chart. All data above was taken from the first column.

2008-02-21T19:22:00.000-08:00

WHAT? I THOUGHT OSAMA DID IT!

Should've posted this last week...

"The Pentagon on Monday charged six Guantanamo Bay detainees with murder and war crimes for the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Officials sought the death penalty in the unprecedented military tribunal case that has been clouded by revelations the key suspect suffered interrogation tactics that critics call torture."

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden runs free!

And were any of these six suspects citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan, the two countries we invaded because of 9/11?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-Kuwait
Mohammed al-Qahtani-Saudi Arabia
Ramzi bin al-Shibh-Yemen
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali-Kuwait or Pakistan
Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi-Saudi Arabia
Walid bin Attash-Saudi Arabia or Yemen

Hmmm...so we are we at war with Iraq and Afghanistan again? WMD? Freedom? 9/11? Oil? Israel? Because it's certainly not because any citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan attacked the U.S on 9.11.

2008-02-21T19:06:00.000-08:00

AFGHANISTAN A JUST WAR? NOT SO MUCH...

A dude at the Hattiesburg American forum said Afghanistan is a "just war." I attempt to disabuse him of that notion with what follows...

Consider:

1. The Bush administration gave the Taliban a lot of money before our invasion--$53 million, to be exact. This was only a few months before 9/11 in spite of their support for terrorism, their treatment of women, and their toleration of Osama bin Laden.

2. Suddenly, and I'm sure quite by coincidence, Bush agreed to a plan to attack Afghanistan on 9/10/01.

3. In February 2001, the Taliban offered to send Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the U.S would work with them.

4. None of the hijackers in the official 9/11 fable were from Afghanistan.

5. If bin Laden's presence in Afghanistan justifies a war on a country that has hardly ever known anything else, why did the Bush admin. arrange for bin Laden's relatives to be flown out of the country two days after 9/11?

6. Afghanistan did not invade or attack the United States. In fact, the Taliban tried to warn the U.S. about 9/11.

7. The U.S. government has never brought formal charges against bin Laden for 9/11.

So why again is Afghanistan a "just war?" If you ask me, it's not "just war"--it's just war. And war is a racket.

2008-02-11T22:10:00.000-08:00

BUSH'S IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES! Plus: the relative novelty of Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul

A letter to the editor of my local newspaper:

Is this the America we have become?

In recent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, CIA director Michael Hayden testified that the agency had used waterboarding on three "enemy combatants" and that the technique is probably illegal under current statute.

Later, like a spoiled brat, President Bush, strutting his macho Rambo stuff, announced that he reserved the right to authorize water boarding on those he, in his wisdom, decides need it.

A short video at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19259.htm about American torture gives a small glimpse of how America under Bush has strayed from its founding principles in the last seven years.

Is this the America we have become? Is this an America we can be proud of? Is this who we are?

George W. Bush has taken us on a path from which there is no return to undo the evil we have wrought. We are an empire with more than 700 military bases in about 130 countries (see "Nemesis" by Chalmers Johnson).

Defense and expansion of that empire requires belittling, demonizing, even torturing anyone who gets in the way of our crusade to dominate the world (as has been true of every empire in history - in the end there are no benign empires).

It's called American exceptionalism. In his 1920 poem, "Four Preludes On Playthings Of The Wind," Carl Sandburg laments the demise of an "exceptional" nation with the monotonously repeated hollow refrain; "We are the greatest city, the greatest nation, nothing like us ever was."

Even as the nation decays into rubble populated only by rats and lizards.

Robert R. Regl

Hattiesburg

My response:

Great letter, Bob.

Mr. Regl never said or implied that GWB put 700 military bases around the world.

As Bob said, Bush has publicly admitted to at least one other criminal act--warrantless wiretapping. It doesn't matter whether GWB has one year or one hundred years left in office. He should still be impeached, tried, and put in prison.

The trial ought to be very short--it could consist of someone reading the FISA act and then playing videotape of Bush admitting to warrantless wiretapping. Then someone could read statutes relevant to cruel and unusual punishment or whatever law forbids waterboarding (granted, it's not decapitation, but since when is it OK for us to do exactly what the bad guys do) and then play videotape of Bush's latest admission. Cut and dried. Open and shut. Maybe it'd take about 45 minutes. Bye bye Bush.

Then we let Cheney go ahead and take the oath of office, after which he'd also be tried and convicted in a similar manner. So with the swearing in and the trial, maybe an hour and half goes by. Then we go to lunch, by which time President Pelosi knows that she better mind her p's and q's or she'll get the same treatment (this would have the added benefit of taking the potential title of "first female president" away from Hillary Clinton, thereby cancelling out the novelty of the idea of Clinton becoming president, turning the mood of the country toward another novelty--following the Constitution and voting for Ron Paul)!

Also, Regl is far from alone when it comes to "hating Bush." Nobody likes the guy or wants to have a beer with him anymore. He's got miserable poll numbers. It's not divisive to speak out against Bush, it's mainstream!

2008-02-04T19:49:00.000-08:00

WHAT DO RAT POISON AND MY TAP WATER HAVE IN COMMON?

According to the CDC, they both contain sodium fluorosilicate, an inorganic fluoride compound that is recommended for use as an insecticide and a rodenticide.

Our water has been laced with this poison since 1976. Here's the data:

"CITY OF HATTIESBURG 0180008 8 Forrest Sodium Fluorosilicate Adj 8/1/1976 48,000 0.2 0.8"

Sodium fluorosilicate is a poisonous substance defined thusly:

"Definition: A sodium silicate of the formula Na2SiF6 occurring as a white, odorless, granular powder. It is toxic if ingested or inhaled, and will strongly irritate tissue. It is used for fluoridation, in porcelain and china enamels, to mothproof woolen garments, and in the manufacture of silicon.
(Synonyms: sodium fluosilicate, sodium hexafluorosilicate, sodium silicofluoride)"

Here's how an apparently Chinese company that sells the chemical describes it ("poisonous," "pesticide"):

"Formula: Na2SiF6 M.W: 188.06
Property: This product is a white crystal or crystalline powder, poisonous, slightly acid, soluble in water and insoluble in alcohol, it can decompose into fluoride and silica in alkali. S.G.: 2.68 ; HS Code: 28262000; Cas No.: 16892-85-9.
Package: Plastic lined woven bags of 25kg or 50kg net each
Usage: it is mainly used as disinfectant for running water, additive for acid¡ªproof daub, solvent for enamel, pesticides, wood preventive, welding solvent for lead alloy and also used in production of opal glass, artificial marble, sodium fluoride, pharma"

Here's another website regarding chemicals from China that indicates that containers with sodium fluorosilicate, the ingredient intentionally added to our water supply since 1976, should be labeled with a skull and crossbones.

Pelchem makes the rat poison connection

Pelchem, a South African producer of sodium fluorosilicate, issues the following warning about the chemical in their safety information:

"Toxic by inhalation and if swallowed. Harmful if in contact with skin."

Is that not what we do with water, i.e., inhale it (steam in shower or from boiling), swallow it, and bring it into contact with our skin? And our water is intentionally spiked with a chemical that makes all such activities toxic?

The Pelchem data sheet also tells us the following:

"LOCAL EFFECTS:
Ingestion may cause gastrointestinal irritation,
nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. Inhalation of
dust may cause shortness of breath, tightness
of the chest, a sore throat and cough.
CHRONIC TOXICITY:
Continuous or intermittent exposure to
inorganic fluorides can lead to
appreciable accumulation of fluoride in
bone, and, to development of
osteosclerosis and other bone
changes.
HUMAN EXPERIENCE:
No evidence of association between fluoride ingestion and mortality from cancer in
humans. (Internal Agency of Research on Cancer)."

Here are Pelchem's recommended uses for the chemical:

"RECOMMENDED USE:
1. Fluoridation of drinking water.
2. Laundry sours.
3. Opalescent glass.
4. Vitreous enamel frits.
5. Metallurgy of aluminium and verblium.
6. Insecticides and rodenticides.
7. Leather and wood preservatives."

They recommend that what's in our drinking water be used as RAT POISON! Or to process aluminum!

Where does Hattiesburg's sodium fluorosilicate come from?

Where does the city of Hattiesburg get its sodium fluorosilicate to put in our water, I wonder? In my limited Google searches, the main manufacturers/importers seem to be from Asia and Africa. Do we special order our poisons from overseas to put in our water supply?

2008-02-02T19:02:00.000-08:00

EXXONMOBIL BREAKS RECORD--AND BACKS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

So ExxonMobil has now broken its previous record, which was the all-time high for any company in history in quarterly profits:

By any measure, Exxon Mobil’s performance last year was a blowout.

The company reported Friday that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion, thanks to surging oil prices. The company’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.

Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.

The company also had its most profitable quarter ever. It said net income rose 14 percent, to $11.7 billion, or $2.13 a share, in the last three months of the year. The company handily beat analysts’ expectations of $1.95 a share, after missing targets in the last two quarters.

Like most oil companies, Exxon benefited from a near doubling of oil prices, as well as higher demand for gasoline last year. Crude oil prices rose from a low of around $50 a barrel in early 2007 to almost $100 by the end of the year — the biggest jump in oil prices in any one year.

It's simple, really. They made more because they charged us more for something we have to have. They didn't make the gas any better, they didn't serve us any better or anything. They just charged us more.

Why are we upset about this? I'll tell you why...

At the Hattiesburg American forum, a poster asked "Why are we upset that the big oil company makes record profits?" Here's my reply:

"Why are we upset that the big oil company makes record profits?"

1. We're upset because they charged us more for the same exact product and the same exact service.

2. We're upset because gas is something we must have.

3. We're upset because higher gas prices mean higher prices for everything. ("Diesel price rise has ripple effect on goods," LA Times)

4 We're upset because the value of the dollar keeps dropping while prices keep rising.

5. We're upset because of record credit card debt, negative savings, and declining wages. (An earlier post about all that can be found here)

6. We're upset because of record debts and unnecessary wars that threaten to collapse our economy.

7. We're upset because we're about to borrow from ourselves (or the Chinese) to "help" ourselves buy some more over-priced gas or goods made in China, which only fuels (no pun intended) #6 (and #5).

8. We're upset because we know the world is nowhere near to running out of oil--the supply is being suppressed while demand only increases, jacking up the price.

9. We're upset because the president makes out with oil-rich dictators who won't cut us a break on oil prices, so we agree to sell a dictatorial regime that maintains a state of war with Israel a bunch of weapons because we love democracy so much (which only fattens the bottom line of defense contractors who then have that much more money to lobby with, allowing the whole sick cycle to continue ad infinitum).

10. We're upset because we have very few alternatives to get us out of this mess--even if we buy hybrids, we still have to pay inflated prices for all the goods that are trucked to market because of high gas/oil prices.

11. We're upset because the "free market" has allowed many industries, including the oil industry, to consolidate in fewer and fewer hands (now only 6 "supermajor" oil companies), whiich reduces competition and the incentive to fix any of the problems mentioned above.

12. We're upset that none of the American oil companies, including ExxonMobil, would help out with discounted home heating oil for Americans. Luckily, Venezuela's Citgo stepped up to the plate to help out.

If I left anything out--and I'm sure I did--please add your reason we're upset to the list.

2008-01-28T19:50:00.000-08:00

ECONOMY "DOING WELL": TAX REVENUE DOWN, BUT BUSINESS IS BOOMING?

Another post from the HA forum that involved a bit of research...

Mississippi IS a recession...

OK, wait a second.

Yesterday, we were informed that:
"Hattiesburg residents haven't been spending as much money as they once did..."

And today, we're informed that:
"...representatives at most Hattiesburg businesses that rely on disposable income say it is too early to see a drastic change in the habits of consumers."

Something isn't adding up.

For one thing, today's story has one caveat, which is that businesses "that rely on disposable income" supposedly aren't hurting. That could be taken as an implication that businesses that don't rely on disposable income are seeing "a drastic change in the habits of consumers." This flies in the face of generally accepted notions of economic behavior, i.e., that when people have less money (which we know is true across the country), they have to cut back spending on the types of goods and services mentioned in today's article in order to be able to cover the expenses they must pay, such as rent, mortgage, insurance, daycare, health care, etc.

I'm not sure that the statement of the headline of today's story--"Hub City economy doing well so far"--can be validated on the basis of comments from five representatives of small businesses in Hattiesburg. After all, it is in the best interests of those representatives to put a positive spin on their supposed success and resilience even if in reality, they are not especially successful or resilient. In fact, the comment from McLelland along with the copy in the story regarding his business comes off like an advertisement rather than as an actual inquest regarding the strength of his sales.

In other words, to accurately say "Hub City economy doing well so far," one would not ask for an assessment of the how good or bad sales are from a representative of any given business (who will almost invariably feel obligated to paint as rosy a picture of the situation as possible), one would have to view current sales numbers versus sales numbers from a comparable period of time. And that data is surely not going to made available to a reporter for analysis.

On the other hand, it may be true that "businesses that rely on disposable income" might not be experiencing hard times despite the negative savings rate and decline in wages that plagues the entire country--we also know that a majority of the country is in massive credit card debt. So it could very well be that the businesses mentioned in this piece are doing just fine, but that does not necessarily mean that the economy of the Hub City is doing well, because people are racking up even more credit card debt.

Whatever the case may be, these two stories seem to paint completely different pictures of the state of the economy in Hattiesburg.

SOURCES:

Negative personal savings (2006 figures):

"People are saving at the lowest level since the Great Depression, and that could be a problem for the millions of baby boomers getting ready to retire. In fact, the Commerce Department reported Thursday that the nation’s personal savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, the worst showing in 73 years."

Decline in wages (inflation-adjusted):

"Average weekly earnings, after adjusting for inflation, dropped by 0.9 percent in 2007, the fourth decline in the past five years. The lagging wage gains are cited as a chief reason many workers have growing anxiety about their economic futures."

Record credit card debt ($915 billion):

"While the fallout of the subprime loan industry collapse continues to play out, momentum is gaining on another potential economic calamity: Americans now owe a record $915 billion in credit card debt, according to a new report by Moody's Investors Service.
Credit card companies wrote off 4.58 percent in payments between January and May, almost a third more than in the same period in 2006, Moody's said.
As a result, lenders such as Citigroup, Bank of America, and American Express, already reeling from the subprime mortgage collapse, are being further weakened, according to a new report at MoneyNews.com."

2008-01-28T19:41:00.000-08:00

THIS JUST IN: SLAVERY IS THE BASIS FOR THE CONFEDERACY

And the debate over the rebel flag goes on at the Hattiesburg American forum. I did a lot of research and writing about that today, so here are two of my posts...

"U.S. Flag Protected Slave Trade"

Logik (a member of the HA forum): "The U.S. Stars & Stripes did protect the slave trade on the high seas, even after January 1, 1808."

This statement, while true, lacks a significant qualifier that puts the lie to the point Logik is trying to make about the U.S. flag. That qualifer is that the U.S. flag protected slave ships from British ships, but not from the U.S. Navy. Logik does acknowledge that the U.S. flag "prevented any foreign police actions against...slave ships."

He then erroneously states that Congress and the Navy "did basically nothing" to enforce the ban on the slave trade. To be sure, thousands of slaves were smuggled into the U.S. despite the ban, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. did not attempt to enforce the law. For instance, the U.S. Navy's "African Squadron" patrolled the coast of West Africa from the 1840s to the beginning of the Civil War in order to catch violators of the slave trade ban. It is true that the squadron was mostly, but not completely, unsuccessful.

There were also attempts to interdict American slave ships headed to the United States prior to the formation of the African Squadron in 1843. The following passage indicates how U.S. and other flags were used:

"The Cyane [U.S. Navy vessel] continued on to intercept slavers, on 10 April 1820 bagging nine vessels suspected of slaving. At least six were from Baltimore, Charleston, and New York, but they had changed both names and colors to Spanish at sea."

"The next day, with the temperature hovering at 120 degrees on deck and 92 degrees below deck, 'the American schooner Exchange anchored near us, a prize...She is a slave trader from Baltimore via Havannah.' The expedition returned from upriver the following day. "They left their schooners nearly ready for taking on slaves but all under Spanish colors.'"

When a slave ship flying the U.S. flag was being chased by a U.S. Navy ship, the following would happen:

"...its ostensible 'captain' would hoist the Spanish flag, substitute Spanish registration papers, and might even carry a Spanish crew hidden below decks. This stratagem would be exactly reversed if apprehended by a British man of war."

For this reason, the U.S. flag was flown by foreign slavers:

"Acknowledging that foreign slavers used the American flag as a shield against British cruisers, [Navy] Secretary [Abel] Upshur warned that it should not be imagined that 'the mere hoisting of [the American] flag shall give immunity to those who have no right to use it.'"

And some slavers intentionally flew no flag at all, only to hoist a U.S. flag at the last minute before capture seemed inevitable, as described here in the journal of a sailor in the African Squadron:

"Making all sail, we chased him, under no colours; she tried hard to give us the slip, but at 11 o'clock we came up with her but she, showing no colours, we fired a shot cross her bows, & in a twinkling of an eye, the Stars and Stripes were floating at her peak, no colours have ever been hoisted faster than these were.
She had evidently been waiting for us to hoist our Ensign first so that she might hoist false ones & thus blindfold us. She thought us to be an Englishman & hence her hoisting the American flag, as if we had been what she expected, we could not have searched her."

Long story short, the presence of a U.S. flag on the mast of a slave ship did not constitute endorsement of that ship's activities by the United States.

Also, once the Civil War started, the U.S. concluded a secret treaty with the British to let the British assume the interdictions of the African Squadron. This treaty also ended the safe haven that the U.S. flag had once provided against seizure by the British:

"In the emergency, President Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, negotiated a secret treaty with the British to assume the nation's share of the African blockade, including the long-denied right of search of American-flag vessels by British warships."

Obviously, if a slave ship was flying an American flag, it was to escape capture by the British (who, admittedly, were far more effective at interdicting slave ships), not to demonstrate the approval of or sanction by the United States.

Info above can be found in this well-documented and very interesting article.

Confederate Vice-President says CSA based on slavery

The "rebel flag" we are all familiar with was incorporated into both the 2nd and 3rd official flags of the CSA. So in every conceivable way, the "rebel flag" is inextricably linked with the Confederacy, and we know that Mississippi joined left the Union and joined the Confederacy in order to be able to perpetuate the practice of slavery.

Even CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens knew the real reason the Confederacy came into being:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negr0 in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Slavery was, in Stephens' words, THE immediate cause of the formation of the CSA. He didn't say it was the only cause, to be sure. It was just the cause that had the most direct bearing on the secession. That's all.

Stephens goes on to whip up some of that good ol' "Southern pride" and "heritage, not hate" for ya:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negr0 is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Logik, when he's not busy reading "Complicity," might want to take note of the similarities to N@zi logic in the above statement.

But seriously, I don't know why so many people who post on this forum wish to argue that slavery really didn't have all that much to do with the creation of the Confederacy. Especially when the fucking VP of the CSA himself said that making blacks subordinate to "the superior race" was the very "cornerstone" of the CSA! He actually said that slavery for blacks was normal and constituted a great "moral truth."

And we're supposed to believe that the flag of such a country doesn't represent slavery and racism? And that such a flag's inclusion on our state flag doesn't hearken back to that sentiment? Really?

Well, sorry--that shit doesn't wash. Mississippi said its decision to secede was to protect slavery, the VP of the CSA said that the very basis of the new nation (not really, though, because it was never recognized by any foreign country) was slavery, and God only knows what else.

Rebel Flag=slavery, white supremacy, tyranny and racism of the worst possible kind. End of story. It needs to be removed from our state flag--we're the last state in the Union to cling to it. It's pathetic, really. The flag stands for hate, not heritage.

Take down the rebel flag!

2008-01-24T21:55:00.000-08:00

SOUNDING "OFF" PART 3

Whenever I hear something that sounds "off" in a song I love, I like to make a note of it. Usually these "off" items are anomalies or just plain mistakes of some kind that made it onto a finished, master recording. What makes them interesting to me is that I usually don't hear them the first 10 billion times I listen to a song. Even though I know that, I still fret over such things when I'm doing my own recording.

I just heard another one and want to add it to the list, which will make now 7 entries:

1. Vince Guaraldi-"Linus and Lucy" finger slip on piano keys on return to first section :50
2. Neil Young-"After The Goldrush" finger slip on piano keys after the line "hoping it was a lie" (the first time) 1:46
3. Ozzy Osbourne/Randy Rhoads-"Crazy Train" notes in solo not doubled exactly (after joining back in unison following a harmony section) 3:05
4. Soft Machine-"10.30 Returns To The Bedroom" finger slip on organ 2:07
5. "Deliverance" soundtrack-"Dueling Banjos" 3:03 the guitar starts to go back around while the banjo is doing an ending lick. The guitar abruptly stops when he realizes that's the end of the song. (Larry G)
6. Flying Burrito Brothers-"Hot Burrito #2" finger slip on piano 0:47...lyrics on top are "And you want me home all night..." [maybe that's not a slip, because the same thing happens at 0:31 when the same part is being played...wait, maybe it is, because it happens at 1:32 and 1:36 and...]Dig the horn-like steel going on in that section...

And the new entry--Flying Burritos again! I was listening to "Christine's Tune" and listening to Sneaky Pete's fine steel work (and looking over at my pedal steel that I haven't played since...uh...). I was enjoying how the two vocal tracks were panned hard left and hard right and then I heard a cough or a throat clearing or something. So I backed it up and heard this:

7. Flying Burrito Brothers- "Christine's Tune" 2:29-2:31: vocal on left starts to hold out the word "lies," stops short, clears throat, and then picks up on next line.

2008-01-23T22:25:00.000-08:00

TED ANDERSON NUTSHELLS THE PROBLEM WITH THE US/WORLD ECONOMY...

...or, macroeconomics for dummies--I transcribed this from the Alex Jones Show, top of the second hour (1/22/08):

1. Dollar losing reserve currency status

The problem we have right now is that the United States dollar is losing its world-class status. People are no longer using the U.S. dollar as a second alternative to their own currencies–when I say “people,” I mean people of other nations. They used to have great reserves of US dollars on hand and in stock; because of the Bretton Woods agreement the United States dollar was exchangeable for gold and silver for foreigners even though it was illegal to own here in the United States after 1933.

2. End of gold standard and Bretton Woods

Well, Nixon had a problem with the Vietnam War going on and deficit spending--that the United States dollar was falling so fast and gold was going up so quick that Fort Knox was going to be emptied. And in order to stop that from happening, he raised the price of gold, first from $36 to $42 an ounce, and then the dollar continued to plummet, so he just shut the gold window completely and ended the Bretton Woods agreement.

3. The crux of the biscuit: Money out of thin air

Since then, there has been no limitation as far as to how much money can be printed and how much deficit spending can go on. Since 1972, we had an economic collapse practically in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was in office.

4. The crux of the biscuit, part 2: World is abandoning dollar (see #1)

I mean, the dollar’s falling real hard, so the foreigners that are sitting on these reserves want to sell their reserves. At the same time, the market’s not big enough to absorb them. If the Chinese started dumping their $1.3 trillion of cash and bonds and bills into the marketplace, to trade back into some stronger currency, they’ll set up a stampede with other countries as well. And entire portfolios will be wiped out.

So they’re sitting in a situation where they know that the value of their resource is going down very fast, but if they try to sell it, it goes down even faster. So they’re just trying to quietly get rid of it.

2008-01-23T21:39:00.000-08:00

MAYBE ALL I NEED IS A "SHOT IN THE ARM"...

Here's Bush's great idea to "save" the economy:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Friday called on Congress to give the U.S. economy a "shot in the arm" with an election-year package of temporary tax cuts and other measures worth up to $150 billion.

I like my ideas (that I posted on the HA forum)better:

Or, we could just end this goddamn war and save a good $5 billion a month--that'd be $60 billion in just 12 months!

Or, since Federal Reserve notes are just funny money anyway, just print up $150 billion, wrap it in plastic, put it on pallets, then just hand it out randomly to people across the United States. That's what we did in Iraq, after all.

Of course, that was only $12 billion--that we know of. And it stands to reason that we in the U.S. would be entitled to more of what is supposedly our own money, right?

Or, if the cash pallet method of distribution seems too likely to incite rioting, they could just put $1 million in the bank account of the head of every household with the click of a mouse. That'd come to more or less $105 trillion, but what's the harm, really? Our money isn't real anyway, so why not dream big?

2008-01-18T22:15:00.000-08:00

YURI WAINWRIGHT: NEW TRIAL DATE OF FEBRUARY 7, 2008

Here's what I posted about this today on the Hattiesburg American forum:

February 7. That means he'll have been in jail for the majority of a year. He was thrown in jail for simply writing something--the content of which has never been specified by the authorities.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--there is no such crime in Mississippi as "cyber-stalking through electronic media." The charge is redundant--cyber-stalking can ONLY take place through "electronic media."

Yuri was originally arrested for "posting messages through electronic media for the purpose of injury to any person" as he was supposedly in violation of MS Code 97-45-17, aka The Anti-Free Speech Act of 2003.

But let's be clear--the AFSA does not pertain only to "electronic media," as the law's short title would have us believe. The law applies to "the use of ANY medium of communication." And the message does not have to "cause injury" to any specific person; the law clearly says that intent to cause injury to "any person" is sufficient grounds to prosecute.

Oh, and "injury" isn't defined in the statute. This is a monumental case which is apparently going to be the first test of a seriously flawed statute. Hopefully the judge (and jury?) will recognize these flaws and throw out or refuse to convict on the charge pertaining to the AFSA of 2003 (97-45-17).

If not, we're all going to have to watch what we say, not just on the Internet, but in "any medium of communication." And that's frightening.

2008-01-16T19:58:00.000-08:00

STRAIT OF TONKIN

So it looks like the neocons really are bent on attacking Iran and will try to manufacture/manipulate any evidence they need to create an excuse to do so. The latest, of course, was the non-event of an "attack" by Iranian patrol boats, which has now been revealed to have been greatly trumped-up by the Pentagon.

WASHINGTON - Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the January 6 US-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself.

Then the navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that US warships would "explode" in "a few seconds". Although it was ostensibly a navy production, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three US warships occurred very early on Saturday January 6, Washington time. No information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.
The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".

Does it strike anyone else as, um, unusual that this non-event in the Strait of Hormuz was blown way out of proportion just over a month after the Iran NIE was released saying that Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003 and were unlikely to be able to produce a nuclear weapon in this decade? Do the neocons think we're that stupid? Do they really think we'll fall for a scenario that reads almost exactly like what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin 40+ years ago, another non-event that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War which just this month was revealed to have been even more manufactured/manipulated than previously thought?

And what's with Bush kissing Saudi Arabia's ass now? Here's what I wrote about that on the Hattiesburg American forum today:

It's no accident that all this is happening while Bush is trying to kiss up to Saudi Arabia and ask them to pump more oil (isn't more and cheaper oil what we're supposedly in Iraq for?). It's Saudi Arabia that would welcome an attack on Iran (even SA's enemy Israel supports this). Iran is Shiite, SA is Sunni. Iran is moving away from the dollar, SA is clinging to it (for political reasons rather than for economic reasons).

Essentially, this falsely trumped-up Iran situation looks like Bush is demonstrating that he'll give the Saudis what they want (i.e., an attack on Iran) if they'll give us what we want (i.e., more and cheaper oil).

So let us count the ways the neocons have tried to manufacture excuses to attack Iran--we'll put this latest non-event at the top of the list:

1. Accused Iran of provoking U.S. warships using small patrol boats
2. Accused Iran of having a secret nuclear weapons program
3. Declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be a terror group
4. Accused Iran of providing weapons to the Iraqi insurgency
5. Accused Ahmadinejad of wanting to wipe Israel off the map

And so on. What am I leaving out?

2008-01-15T10:35:00.000-08:00

SNEAKY PETE: HOW HE GOT INTO ANIMATION

I was thinking about the Sneaky Pete story I told last night and wanted to make sure I was telling it right. I knew I had the gist, but today I hunted down my CD copy of the interview and did this transcription:

"I saw an ad in the paper that said ‘Animators wanted.’ ‘Animators wanted’–and that’s all it said. In those days, people just let it all hang out--they didn’t sneak it in or anything. So I called them because I was interested in animation in those days. When I was a kid living with my family, I made a big dinosaur out of clay on our dining room table. My folks were photographers and my dad showed my how I could do a single frame at a time with their camera. It didn’t work very well, but anyway..

That leads me to the day when we were living in Glendora and that happened to be near where the studio was that they were working on Gumby. I didn’t know what Gumby was, but I called them up and said ‘I’d like to be an animator.’ Art Cloakey, who was the father of Gumby, said ‘Oh, you’d like to animate–well, why don’t you come on over’–just like that. It was another world in those days.

So I came over. To make a long story short, I walked in and there was a bunch of nice people in there and he asks ‘Have you ever animated before?’ and I said ‘Oh yeah, I know all about it’ [we both laugh]! Well, I kinda knew about it.

So he said ‘Waddy over here, he’s the foreman, he’ll give you a chance.’ Waddy told me to just walk around the stage there and watch these other guys–there was about six other guys there animating in different stages–and they were all nice. And I walked around and looked at it and they were doing lousy animation.

But I walked around there and came back the next day and they set me up with a little stage to do the animation. And it was wonderful because they had ball-joint armatures which you could control and so forth so I was in heaven again there!

So I started animating and the very first day I did some animation that they used! And from that point on I just got better and better and that was my entrance into stop-motion animation...I was a natural at animating, let’s put it that way. I just had a talent for it.

When you look back on it, it seems amazing to me, too..."

Pretty much as I remembered it. So he did have some experience in stop-motion animation--as a kid--but certainly no professional experience or training. However, he did have BALLS and wasn't above a certain amount of BS. Ya gotta fake it to make it, as they say...

Still, though, it's amazing that the studio head just basically took Pete at his word that he knew to do animation. At least in this telling of the story, there was no checking of Pete's resume, calling past employers to verify anything, background checks, credit checks, etc.

As he said, it was another world back then...

2008-01-14T21:30:00.000-08:00

JOBS, INSIDE JOBS, AND SNEAKY PETE

So there are going to be recounts in New Hampshire. That’s good, because the machine tallies confounded the expectations created by the pre-primary and exit polls, while the paper ballot tallies comported with the expectations created by the polls. Not only that, but at least two townships originally reported zero votes for Ron Paul but admitted they had made a “mistake” when voters from the townships said they had in fact voted for Paul.

And it’s not surprising that the voting machine chicanery has already begun. It turns out that Ken Hajjar, the marketing and sales director for LHS Associates--the company in charging of programming all of New Hampshire’s (as well as 4 other states in New England) Diebold voting machines–is a convicted felon. His crime? Selling narcotics.

Traffic Tickets vs. Selling Drugs

Which leads me to a question–how does a convicted felon get hired by an election services company? I mean, ex-cons have to make a living too, but do they have to make a living working in elections? Hajjar must be a REALLY good marketing and sales director to be able to get such a job. Or, as it turns out, being an ex-con is almost a job requirement to work in the elections industry.

But this brings me to my own job search. I fill out applications all the time that ask whether or not I’ve been convicted of a crime (I haven’t) and for details if I have. Some applications ask me to volunteer information about my traffic violations, whether driving is a big part of the job or not.

Was none of this done in Hajjar’s case? Or was he just part of the good ol’ white boy club, in which all is forgiven, and nobody checks a good ol’ boy’s criminal record–it just isn’t done. That shit is for the little people–the little people have to be haunted by the paper trail being created for them to “keep them safe” from “terrorists.” Only the little people have to wear the scarlet letter.

Getting vs. Finding Jobs

A lot of people use the terms “find a job” and “get a job” interchangeably, as if “finding” and “getting” are the same thing. I’ve “found” lots of jobs, but I don’t “get” lots of jobs. What I’ve discovered is that if you want to get a job making say, I don’t know–the tubes that are inside paper towel and toilet paper rolls–you either have to have experience doing THAT job, not one kind of similar, OR you have to have a degree in making paper towel/toilet paper rolls. If you don’t have that, forget it.

But it seems to me that the job market has not always been this way. In fact, my parents always told me it wasn’t–they’d say, “You just need a college degree, it doesn’t really matter all that much what it’s in.” Boy howdy, has that not turned out to be true. But again, I’m not sure it’s always been this way, with a degree for everything and nothing without a degree.

What Sneaky Pete told me

Who told me so? Sneaky Pete. You know, of the Flying Burrito Brothers. Pete Kleinow, who died just over a year ago this month, may he rest in peace.

I interviewed him a few years ago in my last job. The reason I got to talk to him was because his new band Burrito Deluxe had just released their debut album. Anyway, he told me that when he moved to California, he didn’t have a job. This would’ve been in the late 50s or early 60s–I can’t remember exactly. I’m not transcribing this from the tape, I’m just going off what I remember.

So when he got to Los Angeles, he had to look for a job. He looked in the newspaper and saw an ad for a studio that needed animators. He said he’d never done anything like that in his life but was intrigued, so he decided to see if he could get a job there. He said he went down to the studio, and the guy in charge was showing him around. At some point, they let Pete kind of sit in with some of the workers. The guys that worked there showed Pete what they were doing, and being a quick study, he caught on and started doing it also. Long story short–Sneaky Pete got a job in the animation studio even though he’d never done any animation work in his life.

And that animation job wasn’t just something he did for a little while until he got on his feet or whatever. It turned into a career for him. Here’s how the Washington Post described Pete’s animation career:

Mr. Kleinow also won acclaim as an animator, special-effects artist and director of commercials in television and film. His credits ranged from the original "Gumby" series -- he wrote and performed the theme music and designed cartoons -- and the relaunched "Twilight Zone" to the movies "Under Siege," "Fearless" and "The Empire Strikes Back."

To be sure, Sneaky Pete’s a genius, but that’s not the point. The point is that he was able to get a job with no experience or education in the field. That’s virtually unheard of these days.

Just sayin’...

2008-01-06T10:43:00.000-08:00

TRAFFIPAX, HATTIESBURG, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONTROL GRID

The city of Hattiesburg will be treated to a sales presentation by Traffipax, a company that sells intersection camera-enforcement equipment. Here are a couple of posts on the subject that I put up at the HA forum:

"This is just a stepping stone for us to get used to. Just wait till Big Brother has us watched every where we go to be sure we are not planning to overthrow the socialist regime that is coming to the U.S."

This statement is exactly right. Right now, they're trying to convince us to accept cameras for "safety" reasons. After all, who can argue in favor of running red lights?

But it's the beginning of the control grid. Soon we'll have the cameras scanning license plates (if they aren't set up to do so from the get-go), checking inspection stickers, and issuing tickets for that.

And then the argument will be "who can argue against making people renew their license plates and inspection stickers?"

Then the cameras will be reading lips if not recording the audio of conversations. An arrest or two of some bad people will probably be attributed to the efficiency of the cameras, and who can argue against arresting bad guys?

By then, there will probably have been more cameras installed and then we won't be able to go anywhere or do anything without being watched.

The initial cameras are proposed to be installed at 3 of the busiest intersections in Hattiesburg--hence the most lucrative for the city and/or Traffipax. The reason that those intersections are supposedly so dangerous is simply because they're so busy; one has to go through one of those intersections to get almost anywhere of significance in the city.

Here's Traffipax's arrangement with the city of Lufkin, TX:

"If each person had to pay a fine that ran lights during the "warning" month of October, the city could have raised a total $121,950 due to the red light cameras. Since the money raised is divided between Traffipax, Lufkin and the state, that's a possibility of $36,585 for the city if citizens keep running the lights at the same rate they did during the warning period."

That may or may not be the exact arrangement that Hattiesburg ends up with, but we can be sure that Traffipax (a U.S. subsidiary of a German corporation) is going to make a lot of money off of us. And it will be money we give them voluntarily by giving them permission to spy on us.

I for one, am uncomfortable with the whole arrangement, mostly because we are being asked to sacrifice our freedom to do the impossible: make everyone safe at all times. The cameras aren't going to do that because it can't be done. The cameras are only going to inure us to the increasing surveillance society and make money for a German corporation. Oh, and turn more of us into law-breakers with more and more fines to pay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading the story a little more closely, it does look like Traffipax will be sharing in the ticket revenue:

"Bierma would not reveal the cost of the system but said the city would not have to put up any money to start the program.

'The program pays for itself through the revenue of the citations,' she said. 'Regardless of what happens, the city would never owe more money than the program brings in.'"

We'll never "owe more money than the program brings in?" What does that mean exactly? Does Bierma mean to say that if, for instance, as Ms. Delgado wishes, no red lights are run because of the monitoring, that we'll owe nothing to Traffipax?

In other words, what if the cameras are the excellent deterrent that Delgado and Bierma make them out to be and therefore don't "bring in" any money at all because the cameras successfully deterred every violation? According to Bierma, that must mean that the city would then owe nothing for the cameras.

On the other hand, we know all too well that corporations like Traffipax don't do things that won't make them money. And they know that red lights can easily be disobeyed by accident and in fact are rarely disobeyed willfully (no study to back this up, just my opinion). They know that due to human error or miscalculation, they will make money (and get to surveil us in the process), allowing Bierma to make a statement like the above.

But the human error factor really defeats the argument of having the cameras in the first place, since we all know that red lights are going to be "disobeyed" whether cameras are present or not.

I'd be interested to know what, if anything, city council members may or may not be getting out of this unnecessary arrangement. Have they been on any Traffipax-sponsored trips or received any "gifts" of any kind from a "friend" who has connections to Traffipax? Just wondering--don't mean to cast aspersions or make insinuations. And note that I am not making statements, I am asking questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety, Columbus, MS and Tupelo, MS use red light cameras.

The IIHS reported that studies in California and Virginia show that red-light cameras reduced red light violations by 40%. However, the IIHS also admits that different studies have shown that red-light cameras can increase rear-end collisions.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also says that red-light cameras reduce violations. However, in Los Angeles County, for example, the results from 3 different intersections varied wildly:
92 percent, 78 percent, and 34 percent. The article containing this info gives no explanation for the variance. It also strikes me as unlikely that red-light running could ever be reduced by almost 100% for an extended period of time.

The FHWA study found that in San Francisco, violations were down by 40% in the first 6 months of the program. While that is positive, no mention is made of other possible contributing factors to the decrease in violations, such as publicity surrounding the presence of the cameras. Also, no mention is made of whether or not these positive results continued beyond the 6-month period, presumably once the publicizing of the cameras had died down or stopped altogether.

In fact, an IIHS publication mentions a few important factors that likely play a much bigger part in reducing red-light violations than the cameras do. First, the setup: In Philadelphia, cameras were installed at what happened to be a couple of the most crash-prone intersections in the country (no indication if the crashes were necessarily caused by red-light running or by being poorly designed intersections with say, poor visibility or something similar). The red-light violations went down significantly--approaching 100% decreases, in fact.

However, the article also notes two other factors that came into play in reducing violations: extended yellow lights and "conspicuous signs [that] warn motorists as they approach camera-equipped intersections." The article then ignores the effect of the signs, plays up the cameras, and acknowledges the helpfulness of lengthened yellow lights but downplays their effectiveness.

One wonders whether or not similar results could be achieved with less privacy-invading tactics. For example, if red-light running is such a big problem, the fine for red-light running could be made more punitive, i.e., substantially increased. Or, dummy cameras could be used so that drivers think they're being watched when in fact the mounted cameras are not recording anything. Or, if municipalities wanted to really get serious about stopping red-light violations, they could install barriers that rise out of the intersection when red lights are on, then recess back into the street when the light turns green. That way, it would be impossible for cars to move at all until the red light ends.

None of the articles I consulted mention how much money Traffipax and other similar companies have contributed to the IIHS or how many former or current camera-enforcement company personnel work for or in concert with the FHWA.

We can see then, that the argument that cameras in and of themselves necessarily reduce red-light violations is very weak and that similar results could likely be obtained through other means which lack the privacy-and-civil-liberties-violating potential of cameras.

And here's another article that raises similar points...

2008-01-02T20:49:00.000-08:00

FIRST TIME I'VE EVER PAID OVER $3 FOR REGULAR GAS

This was on New Year's Day, just outside Gulfport, MS...and whaddya know, oil hit $100/barrel today!

Very interesting info from Americans Against Escalation In Iraq:

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE CLAIMED THEN VS. WHAT THE FACTS ARE OF OIL AND IRAQ TODAY

Wolfowitz: “[Iraq] will finance itself relatively soon” with oil
revenues

“The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100
billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of
claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Institute for Policy Studies, Paul
Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

US Spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, But in 2003 Gov Officials
Insisted Iraq Will Not Require Sustained Aid

“The White House projected yesterday that postwar Iraq will not require
long-term U.S. aid, in part because of oil reserves that the Bush administration
contends will offset many of the costs of reconstruction. "The United States is
committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require
sustained aid," said a report from President Bush's Office of Management and
Budget.”” [WP, 3/29/2003]

Colin Powell “Iraq will not require the sorts of foreign assistance
that Afghanistan will”

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a similar point Wednesday on
Capitol Hill. "Iraq will not require the sorts of foreign assistance Afghanistan
will continue to require for some time to come," Powell said, explaining that
Iraq's talent and resources will be "put to productive uses, instead of buying
and manning weapons and palaces for Saddam Hussein." [WP, 3/29/2003]

Let's remember our lesson: (War + Iraq)Republican President=Record Gas Prices!

Oh, and apparently, it turns out that the more troops we send in to this quagmire, the more we lose as it now turns out that 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops.

2008-01-01T21:48:00.000-08:00

MY 2008 NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION

I usually don't make resolutions, but I'm making this year an exception. I have only one resolution, which is this:

Accept how awesome I am.

It's something I've struggled with for years--feeling like I was awesome, but then not really being able to truly perceive the magnitude of my awesomeness. I hope all that will change this year!

2008-01-01T21:13:00.000-08:00

NOTHING CHANGES ON NEW YEAR'S DAY...

Check out what the Kirbys did today:

Make a slideshow - it's easy!

My wife made this!

2007-12-22T21:13:00.000-08:00

USELESS AIRPORT SECURITY AND FBI BIOMETRICS DATABASES...

A couple of stories I've noticed the past couple of days that are related...

First, a story about a study which shows that airline security is more about control than safety:

Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.
A team at the Harvard School of Public Health could not find any studies showing whether the time-consuming process of X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks.
They also found no evidence to suggest that making passengers take off their shoes and confiscating small items prevented any incidents.

Since there's no evidence that such "security" measures increase safety, then I'm sure such practices will be discontinued, right? Fat chance of that. It's like Alex Jones often says--the point was never to keep us "safe," the point is to inure us to being searched, to get us used to being subjected to pointless, petty invasions of our privay and submitting to authority for no good reason.

This is how a police state is created--slowly, gradually, almost imperceptibly, until the police feel they no longer need the subtlety. And the police state feels no need to justify itself, as the article points out:

"The U.S. Transportation Security Administration told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the British Medical Journal."

Basically, the police state says, our "security measures" are effective because we say so. Even if they obviously aren't effective.

So we'll just scan everyone's face!

And that leads us right into the FBI's gigantic new biometric database!

"The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad."

My, how safe we'll be when we can all be tracked to the four corners of the earth!

Think that such a system would only be used on "terrorists?" Think again:

"But the FBI is planning a "rap-back" service, under which employers could ask the FBI to keep employees' fingerprints in the database, subject to state privacy laws, so that if that employees are ever arrested or charged with a crime, the employers would be notified."

Why might one be arrested? For participating in an antiwar demonstration, maybe? Why should one's employer be notified of that? Why should the government be telling employers such things? Would an employer be notified if one were charged with the crime of speeding or running a stop sign? What is the employer supposed to do with such information, anyway? Penalize an employee? What the hell is going on here?

Think the FBI won't abuse this database? Anybody remember the national security letter debacle? Let's refresh our memory:

"An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism."

Speaking of abuse of power--J. Edgar Hoover's mass arrest proposal!

Speaking of the FBI and abuse of power, how's about this from ol' Queen Hoover:

A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty.

Though this Hoover letter is from 1950, it sounds awfully familiar:

"For a long period of time the FBI has been accumulating the names, identities and activities of individuals found to be potentially dangerous to the internal security through investigation. These names have been compiled in an index which index has been kept up to date. The names in this index are the ones that have been furnished to the Department of Justice and will be attached to the master warrant referred to above. This master warrant will, therefore, serve as legal authority for the FBI to cause the apprehension and detention of the individuals maintained in this index."

No-Fly List, anyone? Hoover only had 12,000 "potentially dangerous" people on his list? What, was he soft on terror or something? The no-fly list has at least 20,000 people on it.

2007-12-10T19:56:00.000-08:00

TORTURE WORKS? YEAH, RIGHT...

Here's an incredible story from ABC News:

A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

That last sentence is the one the Bush administration wants us to focus on. Supposedly because Zubaydah "answered every question," terror attacks were averted. Predictably, Kiriakou does not offer even one specific instance of a terror attack being thwarted because Zubaydah was tortured.

If one reads the ABC transcript, one sees that Brian Ross tries to get Kiriakou to give specifics about what terror attacks may have been thwarted. For example:

BRIAN ROSS:
And in terms of the actual planned future attacks?
JOHN:
Yeah, we disrupted a lot of them.
BRIAN ROSS:
And he knew about them?
JOHN:
He knew about some. But like I say, it was time-sensitive information. So that-- that wound down over time.
BRIAN ROSS:
And the ones that he knew about, were they on US soil? Were they in Pakistan?
JOHN:
You know, I was out of it by then. I had moved onto a new job. And I-- I don't recall. To the best of my recollection, no, they weren't on US soil. They were overseas. (pp. 19-20)

So Kiriakou claims ignorance about specific terror attacks because by then he'd moved on to other missions. But, as far as he can recall, the attacks that were supposedly stopped by torturing Zubaydah weren't even on U.S. soil--they were overseas!. Isn't that interesting? So Kiriakou wants to assure us that torture works and that the United States is safer because we torture people who tell us about terror attacks...that aren't on U.S. soil!

Kiriakou then reveals that all the gradually intensifying torture techniques were specifically authorized by the higher-ups in the CIA; the interrogators sought and received approval from CIA headquarters to take it up a notch. Oh, but they weren't worried about killing Zubaydah because there was always a doctor in the room. And you know that doctors are taught to "first, do no harm..."

"Al Qaeda is not like a World War Two German POW"

Kiriakou then tells Ross that he feels torture was necessary, and that he didn't have weeks or months to play chess with Zubaydah like captured Germans in WWII. He says that "al Qaeda is not like a World War Two German POW. It's a different world."

I would agree with that assessment. For example, Germany had actually invaded and conquered several countries. They methodically killed 6 million Jews with the assistance of IBM (the Nazis were also financed in part by several Americans, including George W. Bush's grandfather). Al Qaeda has done nothing of the sort. At their worst, al Qaeda killed a few thousand Americans on one day--if you believe the official story, which most Americans do not.

So yeah, I can see why we have to torture a much weaker enemy that has no army, hasn't conquered a single country, hasn't killed anywhere near 6 million Jews, etc.

Really an amazing interview...So much I don't have time or energy to go into it all, but Kiriakou goes on to say that once Zubaydah was broken, they'd go bounce info off of him for him to confirm or refute. And I'm sure Zubaydah always told them the truth and provided "actionable intelligence." That's how they found Osama bin Laden and captured...him...

Oh wait, Osama still hasn't been captured, has he...Ohhh riiiight...bin Laden hasn't been captured yet because torture is so necessary and so effective...Give me a break.

Ross opens part 2 of the transcript with a question about whether or not Zubaydah knew the whereabouts of bin Laden, and guess what, Zubaydah hadn't seen ol' Osama in months. How very convenient--he knew all about terror attacks on foreign soil but had no clue where to find or who to talk to about where to find Bush's favorite bogeyman.

Other random observations from the first part of the transcript

Tenet had a trauma surgeon sent to Pakistan specifically for the purpose of treating Zubaydah who had been shot three times during his capture. So basically we revived a guy (Kiriakou says in the ABC transcript that Zubaydah "almost died") so we could torture him to a point just before death. We almost killed him once when capturing him and then again after we used taxpayer money to make sure he didn't die from gunshot wounds.

In the ABC transcript, Kiriakou tells Brian Ross that when Zubaydah awoke from his coma (resulting from the first time we tried to kill him), Kiriakou said "We have plans for you." I wonder if what Kiriakou really said was "Ve haf vays to make you talk," but he didn't want to tell Ross or the American public that.

Kiriakou expresses surprise that Zubaydah is actually a very friendly person who spoke very good English and even wrote poetry and debated the merits of his religion. You know, a normal person.

Ross asks Kiriakou if Zubaydah talked about 9/11 and Kiriakou says he did. Interestingly, Kiriakou never indicates that Zubaydah took credit for 9/11. Apparently Zubaydah only said that 9/11 was "necessary," according to the ABC transcript.

2007-12-10T14:04:00.001-08:00

THIS JUST IN--CIVIL WAR HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY

A letter titled "Mississippi flag represents hate" appeared in my local paper yesterday.

Most posters to the forum thought that the symbols in the flag were/are essentially meaningless and that the flag doesn't stand for hate. I of course submitted that it does. I even wrote a song about it that appeared on my band Buffalo Nickel's first album "Up On Blocks" back in 2002. The song is called "Take Down The Rebel Flag" and here's a sampling of the lyrics:

"The Southern Cross sure looks great to some southern natives
Like a swastika makes a Nazi feel alive
Some of us just can't relate to a flapping symbol of endless hate
Hey, the Civil War ended in 1865
Take down the rebel flag
Burn it instead of crosses
Let's cut our losses
And take down the rebel flag"

Causes of Secession

Anyway, the conversation on the forum got me to doing some research, and I ran across a document called "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." I graduated with a Bachelor's degree in history from the University of Southern Mississippi and took a course in Mississippi history from one of the foremost scholars on the subject, John Gonzales (R.I.P.). But I don't think I'd ever read that document before.

This document so easily puts to rest the faux-sophisticate argument that the southern states didn't really fight the war over slavery, but instead fought it over some high-minded, esoteric, principles about economics and state's rights. Actually, that's kind of true, but slavery was at the heart of the matter, at least where Mississippi was concerned, and they said so very plainly in their "declaration of independence" from the Union. Here's an excerpt:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Argument over. The Civil War was about slavery.

My Forum Posts About This Topic

Count me as one who thinks symbols matter and thinks the Mississippi flag is a disgrace. I'm white, my ancestors fought for the Confederacy, etc.--and I find the Confederate flag portion of the state flag both embarrassing and purposely provocative and divisive.

There are plenty of other symbols representative of Mississippi's heritage that are inclusive and positive. We could have a book, a guitar, a microphone or all three to symbolize this state's immortal contributions to literature and music. Or just have a white flag with a single blue eighth note to symbolize the fact that blues, country, and rock 'n' roll all came from here.

Why is it such a tribute to Mississippi's heritage that the state withdrew from the union less than 50 years after joining it in order to defend the institution of slavery? Don't believe that Mississippi's motive in secession had everything to do with continuing slavery? Ever read Mississippi's "Causes For Secession" document? If not, here's an excerpt:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

Brilliant, inspiring stuff, huh--"a blow at slavery is a blow at...civilization"? Does that sound like something we should be "celebrating" almost 150 years after the defeat of the movement that produced this kind of evil thinking? To me, it doesn't. Oh, and just because all races may have been slaves at one time or another or in one place or another doesn't mean that arguing for the preservation of slavery and/or actually preserving slavery isn't evil.

Would that make a good present-day slogan for Mississippi--"a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization"--you know, something harmless like that? What's the big deal? It's just "our heritage." Heritage is harmless and should be celebrated and promoted without qualification, right?

Give me a break--take down the rebel flag!

In response to this post--"I would suggest he and others on here look up the old "Black Laws" enacted by many Northern states before the Civil War. The library has many books on this and of course, you can find anyting now on the internet. Maybe he should accept history for what it is, learn from it and move on. It's amazing........the northern "free states" hated blacks as well. Who knew?"--I wrote the following:

No one is denying that prejudice against blacks existed and still exists everywhere in the U.S., even in the north. However, the point being made in this thread is that Mississippi, as of 2003, is the only state that incorporates the Confederate flag into its state flag.

Given that fact, is it merely coincidental that we are also the only state that:

-has the lowest percentage of people who've completed high school (including equivalency)

-has the lowest median household income

-has the lowest median family income

-is the state with the highest percentage of children below the poverty level (Washington D.C. has a higher percentage but isn't a state--but seems to be considered a state for the purposes of the census...even so...)

-has the highest percentage of people 65 and over below the poverty level

And so on. Our glorious yet benign heritage at work!!! Let us celebrate it with great fervor, shall we?

And the last one...

I merely suggested that the flag and the sorry state of affairs in MS may be related...

The chain of causation if the two things were related might go like this:

-Slavery exists in MS
-Slavery in MS threatened
-MS leaves union to maintain slavery
-MS is on the losing side
-MS forced to free slaves
-MS resents this
-MS determined to keep former slaves and their descendants down
-MS largely succeeds in that effort with overt Jim Crow policies; Confederate flag incorporated into state flag, symbolizing success of Jim Crow
-Policies of oppression create a large underclass
-Underclass creates burden on state economy
-MS forced to stop keeping down former slaves and their descendants
-Underclass persists and grows through covert, subtle, neo-Jim Crow means; state given opportunity to change symbol--rejects change
-MS continues to rank at or near bottom of lists of most good things, at or near top of lists of most bad things

The state flag is not the cause of the state's societal ills, obviously. But the mentality that keeps the Confederate flag on the state flag IS the cause of the state's societal ills. That's my argument.

2007-12-10T14:02:00.000-08:00

IF IRAQ INTEL WAS WRONG, WHY BELIEVE NEW IRAN INTEL?

That very interesting question was asked today on the forum of my local paper. I posted the following answer...

1) It goes against what Bush wants, i.e., some sort of conflict with Iran. If the recent NIE had said that there was "high confidence" that Iran was working on nuclear weapons, it would have been seen as merely being what Bush wanted to hear. Since the NIE said the opposite of what Bush wanted to hear, it seems more trustworthy.

2) Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which it is allowed to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Since Iran in fact ratified the treaty before the U.S. did, it seems likely that Iran is in fact developing nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes.

3) Iran is aware that the U.S. military is sitting right across the border in Iraq (and special ops-type troops have been reported to be in Iran) and Afghanistan--the U.S. already has Iran boxed in to the east and the west. They know that if they were found to be developing nuclear weapons, they'd have a real problem on their hands.

4) Iran has been enduring IAEA inspections and made good-faith efforts to be transparent, even letting the IAEA visit their heavy-water reactor at Arak in July of this year.

5) The U.S. intelligence community knows it's under scrutiny and has every incentive to get it right with regard to Iran.

And so on. That's why the Iran intel seems trustworthy. Also, I should point out that before we invaded Iraq, we had a very intrusive inspection regime being imposed on that country under the threat of war. The inspectors on the ground before the war never found any WMD and said so before our invasion. And that's why the Iran NIE is trustworthy.

2007-12-05T12:10:00.000-08:00

BUSH LIED. WHAT'S NEW?

On January 13, 2006, Bush said the following about Iran:

"Countries such as ours have a great obligation to step up, working together to send a message to the Iranians that their behavior, trying to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon, or using the guise of a civilian nuclear program to attain a nuclear weapon, is unacceptable."

The latest NIE on Iran now tells us that Iran suspended the pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003, the same year that Iran approached the U.S. about opening a dialogue, which the Bush administration rebuffed.

Oh, but the Bushies will protest that at the beginning of 2006, Bush was merely acting on info in the 2005 Iran NIE, which suggested with "high confidence" that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons." So Bush wasn't really lying, Bushies will say, because he was being told that Iran had a rabid desire to get nuclear weapons.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. One, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike our good buddies Israel and India--both of which do in fact have nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran has been a signatory to the NNPT for as long as the U.S. has, since July 1, 1968. Iran ratified the treaty a month sooner than the U.S. did. So technically, Iran agreed to the NNPT before the U.S.

As fellow signatories and earlier ratifiers of the NNPT, Iran is entitled to production of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Ever since being elected president of Iran, Ahmadinejad has maintained that Iran's nuclear program was for peaceful purposes:

"Iran's peaceful technology is the outcome of the scientific achievements of Iran's youth. We need the peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medical and agricultural purposes and our scientific progress. We will continue this," the ultraconservative Ahmadinejad said."

The above quote is from August 2005, several months before Bush openly declared Iran to be pursuing a nuclear weapon.

So here we have at least two major indications that Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon, but Bush chooses to be a bully.

"A Long History In Fabricating Evidence"

Ahmadinejad also pointed out that the United States has "a long history in fabricating evidence." He was correct about that even before the release of this new Iran NIE, but the new NIE just proves his point that much more. The 2005 Iran NIE was basically an attempt to give the neocons what they wanted--the 2005 NIE, as noted above, declared with "high confidence" that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons"--and what the neocons wanted was an excuse to attack Iran. The 2005 NIE also tried to downplay the Iranian "threat," pointing out that it would be at least a decade or so before Iran was able to develop nukes. But the 2005 NIE was, at its heart, another twisted chapter in our "long history in fabricating evidence."

So, Ahmadinejad told the truth about Iran's nuclear program. And Bush lied about it. Unfortunately, that state of affairs is no more remarkable than the sun coming up every day.

False-flag operation likely?

But the neocons still want their war with Iran. Now that the "threat" of Iranian nukes has been obliterated, how will they try to sell us on war with Iran? I'm guessing a staged terror attack of some sort, or maybe a video that will purport to show Iranians attacking U.S. troops in Iraq. Something like that. Of course, it will all be fabricated evidence, because as we've just seen, that's what we do. That's how we roll.

Of course, there's still the matter of the EFPs that Iran is supposedly supplying to Iraqi insurgents. The neocons could try to beat that dead horse some more. Or maybe try to blow up one of the American ships in the aircraft carrier groups we have in the Persian Gulf and blame it on the Iranians.

Whatever they decide to do, don't count the neocons out just because they've been proven dead wrong. Remember, they think they create reality and all we get to do is study it "judiciously" and try to keep up with them.

And there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip...so we have to keep our eyes on those bastard neocons...

2007-11-30T22:11:00.001-08:00

Bring U.S. Soldiers Home--Let the Mercenaries Stay and Fight

Saw this van parked outside of the Hollywood Casino in Bay St. Louis on Thanksgiving Day. Thought it was a great sentiment, of course and it made me think--why don't we just go ahead and bring U.S. soldiers home and let Bush have his war with the "civilian contractors," i.e. Blackwater and other mercenary groups?

Because these guys have loyalty to nothing but the dollar. And killing people, I suppose. And they're getting to do a lot of that, as the Washington Post points out:

BAGHDAD -- Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.

And let's wean these "contractors" of the tit of the U.S. taxpayer. Let Iraq pick up the tab for them. There are so many mercenaries in Iraq now that actual U.S. troops are no longer needed--in fact, mercenaries now outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq. So if Iraq really wants or needs help as pro-war types say they do, then let Iraq pay for the mercenaries if they want to.

So let's bring home the U.S. military--the people who volunteered to serve our country. Neither our country nor Iraq is being served by the presence of U.S. troops there. The only people being served are the neocons and their corporate, defense contractor pals who need U.S. troops there to create an excuse for two things: 1)to take away our civil liberties here at home and 2)to create an excuse for endless war and endless profiteering.

2007-11-30T21:15:00.000-08:00

PEACEFUL PROTEST PROVES POINT...

...that torture, indefinite detention, "rendition"--extraordinary or otherwise, military commissions, abridgment of the right to counsel, etc. are un-American and anti-American. Even in the case of supposed "terror suspects."

Bravo to the 150 hooded Cornell activists! They gave John Ashcroft the tiniest, infinitesimal dose of his own poison.

2007-11-28T22:32:00.000-08:00

WAINWRIGHT'S TRIAL POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT YEAR...

...at the request of his lawyer. Here's what I wrote about it today on the Hattiesburg American forum.

Here's what the HA said about YW on 11-10-07:

"Wainwright was arrested in April, just days following the shootings at Virginia Tech, for allegedly posting threats on the popular social networking Web site MySpace.com.

Since his arrest, Wainwright has been held in the Lamar County Jail on a $1 million bond.

Wainwright was indicted on charges of cyber-stalking through electronic media in September. He pleaded innocent following his arrest.

Very little information has been released regarding exactly what kinds of threats Wainwright posted on his blog."

So he posted threats on his MySpace page? On his MySpace blog? Are they trying to get him on the Jessica Simpson stuff?

Where have these posts gone? Other articles have Bob Hopkins saying that it was YW's MySpace "correspondence"--MySpace emails?--that was the problem.

"His own correspondence on his MySpace page gave the indication that he was unhappy with his education, that he was a direct threat if he would have carried out an incident to either an individual or a group of individuals," says Chief Bob Hopkins of the university police.

From the same link:

"Hopkins says the suspect's MySpace page discussed the April 20, 1999, massacre at Columbine High School and gave authorities the definite indication Wainwright was planning an attack at Southern Miss."

Before or After VT?

Here's something interesting--Hopkins has always said that YW's offending words were posted BEFORE the Virginia Tech incident, but we know that YW's bulletin quoting the Columbine guys was sent out AFTER the VT shooting and didn't spell out a threat to anyone.

"Authorities say they do not believe the threats were in any way related to the Virginia Tech massacre. The MySpace.com postings evidently existed prior to the horror in Blacksburg."
[same link]

Here's a link to the Student Printz's archive of YW's MySpace bulletins provided by dorkface.

Since none of the HA stories or forum posts from April are still in existence, I can't find anything for sure, but I seem to remember that the bulletins above were sent out post-VT, which makes it curious that Hopkins would say that YW's offending posts existed before VT and then cite a post-VT bulletin as evidence that YW was planning something.

The post-VT nature of the dorkface-posted bulletins seems to be confirmed in this David McRaney editorial:

"Wainwright has told both WDAM and The Hattiesburg American this is all a misunderstanding. He said the things he posted that got him arrested were benign criticisms of the way the Virginia Tech shootings were being reported including references to the Columbine shootings. His descriptions seem to match what is being posted in forums. "

There have been so many conflicting details given since April, it's difficult to keep it all straight....

2007-11-24T20:06:00.000-08:00

MCCLELLAN VS. BUSH VS. PLAME

My friend left another comment about the Plame case. He points out that Novak said his source was Richard Armitage. Interestingly, Armitage apologized to Plame for revealing her identity to Novak. He also said just this month that it was "foolish" for him to have revealed Plame's identity. Here's how CBS/AP puts it:

"(CBS/AP) Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage says he was foolish to have revealed the identity of a CIA employee.

Armitage's acknowledgment Sunday came in response to comments by Valerie Plame, who said the former Bush administration official had no right to talk to a reporter about where she worked.

A year ago, Armitage publicly apologized to Plame and her husband. The former No. 2 State Department official remains the only principal in the leak to have done so.

At least three one-time administration officials in addition to Armitage discussed Plame's CIA status with reporters. They are former White House political adviser Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer.
Armitage and Rove were the sources for a 2003 newspaper column by conservative commentator Robert Novak that disclosed Plame's CIA employment."

It is true that Armitage was Novak's initial source, but it is also true that Novak called Rove for confirmation of Armitage's info, which Rove provided. Rove, Bush's closest adviser, also revealed info about Plame to Time's Matt Cooper before Novak's story appeared. David Corn sums it up thusly:

Novak neglects to note that Karl Rove was the source he used to confirm the leak he had received from Armitage--and that Rove also leaked classified information on Valerie Wilson to Matt Cooper of Time magazine before the leak appeared in Novak's column. Nor does Novak mention that Scooter Libby leaked information on Valerie Wilson to Judith Miller of The New York Times weeks before Novak entered Armitage's office--and also confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. (A source close to Rove is quoted in Hubris saying that Rove "probably" learned about Valerie Wilson from Libby.) Like Armitage, Rove and Libby kept silent, even as the White House claimed they were not involved in the leak. Maybe it's time for all leakers to come clean and tell what happened.

And Rove is definitely a White House source, and unlike Novak's description of Armitage as "no partisan gunslinger," Rove is the pre-eminent partisan gunslinger.

Our Impeachable Connection--"...and misdemeanors"

So there's our impeachable connection--Rove, Libby, and Armitage all leaked info about Plame. How Rove beat the rap is a mystery to me, but apparently it had something to do with being ultimately more forthcoming than Libby.

And that's what McClellan's getting at--Rove was in fact one of the leakers that Bush said would be fired, and McClellan was told that Rove wasn't involved. Or McClellan was told to tell us that Rove wasn't involved. So the president, through his spokesman, lied to you and me.

And lying may not be a crime, but it is a "misdemeanor," which is given in the Constitution as an acceptable reason to impeach a president. Here's dictionary.com's 2nd definition for "misdemeanor":

"2. an instance of misbehavior; misdeed."

Let the impeachment begin!

2007-11-21T18:57:00.000-08:00

VALERIE PLAME WAS A COVERT AGENT--YES, SHE WAS

A friend of mine left the following comment on my post from yesterday (McClellan Rats Out Bush...):

"In any case, perjury is only a crime if done under oath, so the President could only be accused of lying at best, but no crime. Furthermore, there was no crime committed in the first place since Valiere Plame was not a active field spy when her career was leaked and leaked not just by the White House."

I don't know if the CIA actually has a designation of "active field spy," but they do have the designation of an employee with "non-official cover," or NOC, which is what Plame was--a NOC ("knock"). She was working on WMD issues with respect to Iran:

"The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran."

Plame WAS a covert, "active field spy"

An unclassified summary of Plame's CIA work history was released in May of this year. It explained that she was in fact covert at the time of the leak and that she also conducted CIA/national security business overseas:

"The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

That, good people, is a genuine spy. So to have George Bush and Dick Cheney and their "familiars in the media" (how I miss "The Majority Report") portray the Bush administration as the party of national security is a JOKE. What's even more of a sick, unfunny, and ruinous joke is that they blew the cover of an agent working on issues with Iran and now have decidedd that we have to attack Iran.

So by outing Plame, they killed two birds with one stone--they smeared Wilson for revealing that there was no Iraq/Niger deal for uranium (a claim based on badly forged documents), and they blew the career and cover of his wife, who might have stood between the neocons and a war with Iran.

That's why we should impeach

Either one of those offenses is worthy of impeachment, but they gave us a twofer! Forget perjury--for Bush and Cheney, that's kid stuff--their aphrodisiac is starting wars and then cashing in. Lying may not be a crime, but starting wars of aggression is [just to be perfectly clear--that's what Bush and Cheney did].

Notice those bastards never testify under oath and, as in the case of their appearance before the 9/11 Whitewash Commission, they specifically stipulate that they are not to be sworn. They used the ol' "raise your right hand" trick on Clinton--but Willie wasn't as slick as the oilbirds Bush and Cheney and he fell right into the trap.

McClellan's revelation is big, big news--of course we all knew it all along anyway, but to have confirmation is nice. Now will the Democrats do anything about it? I doubt it, but we shall see...they need to get behind my man Kucinich. And/or my man Ron Paul.

2007-11-20T18:59:00.000-08:00

MCCLELLAN RATS OUT BUSH AND CHENEY--WHY NO IMPEACHMENT?

Scott McClellan has a book coming out in April 2008. But we have been treated to a very, very juicy tidbit, just in time for a tasty Thanksgiving political discussion with the conservative family members:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," writes McClellan. "So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

But his press performances weren't based on the facts, McClellan continues.

"There was one problem. It was not true," he writes. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

Holy articles of impeachment, Batman!! This is big! How can Pelosi continue to spit in Kucinich's face given evidence like this? How can she continue to spit in my face and your face? Or, as put it on the Hattiesburg American forum today:

"There is NO REASON to not impeach Bush and Cheney, and everyone knows it. Bush and Cheney both have record disapproval numbers. There is nothing to be gained politically by protecting them and vice versa. A huge majority of the country and the military wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

What then is the source of the Democrats' inaction on impeachment? Is it:

1. The warrantless wiretapping gave the Bushies some dirt on Pelosi and Reid
2. As Nader pointed out, Congress has been warned that martial law will be enacted if impeachment proceedings begin
3. The Democrats are in on the swindle and stand to profit as much from martial law and endless war as the Republicans

Not that the reason really matters--it's still an awful situation.

Put impeachment on the table!!"

Kucinich/Paul '08! Paul/Kucinich '08!

2007-11-12T18:22:00.000-08:00

WAINWRIGHT: FINALLY, A DAY IN COURT

Yuri Wainwright's trial is scheduled for November 28, 2007. That's over 7 months since he was arrested and held on $1 million bond. He was originally charged with violating the Anti-Free Speech Act of 2003, otherwise known as 97-45-17 of the Mississippi Code, which criminalizes "posting of messages" through any medium "for the purpose" of causing "injury" to "any person."

I have questioned Wainwright's detention from day one, for one big reason--the authorities would never tell us specifically what Wainwright wrote that could be construed as being "for the purpose of causing injury to any person." They did tell us that he was an atheist and that they found guns at his grandmother's house, where he lived. But to this day, the general public has never been told what Wainwright said that was so criminal that he had to be arrested exactly in the middle of the week that began with the Virginia Tech shootings and ended with the anniversary of the Columbine killings and then held on a $1 million bond.

I have never said that Wainwright did not commit a crime. I don't know if he did or didn't. I'm just saying that it strikes me as very odd that the authorities felt no responsibility to let the public know exactly what Wainwright said. After all, in a case that is similar to Wainwright's in many respects--that of Tosin Oduwole--the police quoted from his alleged writings immediately, as I've discussed elsewhere. Oduwole supposedly wrote that there was going to be a horrific act of violence on a college campus if money wasn't deposited in his PayPal account. Unlike Wainwright, Oduwole had also allegedly tried to (or actually did) purchase semiautomatic weapons online and had a gun in his dorm room.

Why wouldn't/won't they tell us?

Why would our public servants not tell us what Wainwright said? After all, if people are going to be thrown in jail because they wrote something, the public has the right to know what words were used--we have the right to know whether our First Amendment freedoms are being protected or not. I have feared from the beginning of this case that Wainwright's treatment suggests that the First Amendment is being trampled--it's the mood of the whole country, it seems.

Somewhere along the way, a charge of cyber-stalking was added to Wainwright's case. The Hattiesburg American has been apparently combining the two offenses in their descriptions of the charges, saying Wainwright is being tried for "cyber-stalking through electronic media." That is of course a redundant charge, as cyber-stalking cannot take place except through electronic media.

Cyber-stalking is a completely different charge--the law specifies that a threat must be issued, the victim must reasonably fear for his safety, and the accused must have had the apparent ability to carry out the threat. In fact, when the authorities were quoted in articles about the Wainwright case, they always seemed to be describing cyber-stalking even though Wainwright was originally charged with violating the "posting of messages" statute, which in the law is obviously separate and distinct from cyber-stalking.

I should point out that the "posting" law (97-45-17)does not mention a "threat." Rather, it forbids the purposeful causing of "injury," without defining what "injury" means for the purposes of the statute.

So I'm not sure what happened along the way. When the Hattiesburg American says Wainwright is accused of "cyber-stalking through electronic media," I can't tell if they're quoting the authorities verbatim or if that's the American's interpretation of what the authorities say.

At any rate, I hope Wainwright gets a fair trial and that the First Amendment rights of Wainwright as well as the public at large are protected.

Here's the text of the Hattiesburg American story, reprinted here without permission (I'll remove it if asked) because their stories are deleted after some indeterminate amount of time:

Court date set in Internet threats case
By TERRY L. JONES

A University of Southern Mississippi student charged with posting threats on the Internet may finally get his day in the Forrest County Circuit Court.

The court date for Yuri Wainwright, 26, is set for Nov. 28, according to court documents.

Wainwright was arrested in April, just days following the shootings at Virginia Tech, for allegedly posting threats on the popular social networking Web site MySpace.com.

Since his arrest, Wainwright has been held in the Lamar County Jail on a $1 million bond.

Wainwright was indicted on charges of cyber-stalking through electronic media in September. He pleaded innocent following his arrest.

Very little information has been released regarding exactly what kinds of threats Wainwright posted on his blog.

Jackson attorney Jim Kitchens is representing Wainwright now, court documents say. He was previously being represented by Hattiesburg attorney Maura McLaughlin.

Kitchens did not return calls seeking comment.

Court officials said the Nov. 28 date does not ensure Wainwright will stand trial then. District Attorney Jon Mark Weathers said Wainwright's case is just one of 12 on the court docket for that day.

If convicted Wainwright could be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison and fined $10,000.

2007-11-07T18:32:00.000-08:00

GOD DAMN THESE DEMOCRATS!

With few exceptions, these Democrats are totally fucking worthless. Kucinich tries to bring up his Cheney impeachment measure--again--and Hoyer fights to table it. Meanwhile, the Republicans try to stymie Hoyer and force debate on Kucinich's resolution.

I swear to the Lord Jesus...how can these weak, compromised Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer not impeach Cheney? And/or Bush? I mean, besides the fact that they're weak and compromised?

Bush and Cheney are war criminals. They are peace criminals. They are criminal criminals. They are liars and profiteers and torturers and murderers. There's simply no way around it. And I don't say that only because they're Republicans--there are plenty of Democratic war criminals, too. I say that because it's true.

Ron Paul Revolution

So Ron Paul just got $4.2 million in 24 hours. I've always said I'd never, ever, as long as I live, vote for a Republican, but I'd make an exception in his case. I don't agree with everything the man says, but he is unequivocal in his opposition to the Iraq war and foreign intervention in general. He's the only candidate I'm aware of that knows and will talk about the scam of the Federal Reserve.

He is real--you could have a beer with him. And learn something.

I just want an antiwar candidate that I can vote for that actually has a chance of winning. I love Dennis Kucinich--even if he did see a UFO. Kucinich's UFO story is a lot less crazy than Rudy Giuliani's 9/11 "heroism" story.

But anyway, Kucinich didn't just raise $4.2 million in 24 hours. I wish he had. Kucinich did try to impeach Cheney. Paul didn't do that. So credit where credit is due--they both have their strengths. But Paul's got the dough-re-mi.

Paul/Kucinich '08

I wonder who Paul would choose as a running mate. What current Republican could he pick that would bring voters to his side but not compromise his positions? If there is such a person, I can't name him.

So why not get Kucinich? The party-line crossing story would be huge. They could be the ultimate antiwar ticket, running for the unity of the country. They don't agree on everything, but does that ever happen? I mean, look at Bush and Cheney. Bush is a homophobe and Cheney's granddaughter is being raised by his lesbian daughter and her life partner. They seem to have made out all right--for a couple of war-mongering demons.

But I digress...Kucinich and Paul have similar positions on a lot of issues. Why not highlight those and the press angle could be this: the guy who raised $4.2 million in one day and the only guy who had the nuts to impeach Cheney are running together, even though they're from different parties.

You couldn't stop the press from talking about that shit, yo! Unless you were their corporate paymasters...

2007-11-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

WOW, THAT WAS QUICK!

The polls in Mississippi close at 7 p.m. The Hattiesburg American ran this headline on their website:

"8:35 p.m.: Barbour wins re-election"

That's some mighty quick vote-counting.

Pandering

But whatever...there was never any doubt that Barbour would win. Friends of mine complained that Eaves was simply pandering with his whole "bring prayer back into schools" gambit. I saw many forum posts echoing that complaint.

To which I say, yeah, okay. It was pandering. But at least it was pandering to the people, which is the complete opposite of what Barbour did. He pandered to the corporatocracy, constantly espousing what a great thing tort "reform" has been for the state.

So given the choice between a millionaire attorney that panders to the people and a millionaire lobbyist that panders to the corporations, the brilliant people of Mississippi chose the interests of corporations over themselves. Let us never again wonder why Mississippi is last or near it on lists of good things and first or near it on lists of bad things.

Race, Big Fat Haley, and Big Fat Cats (and little skinny, hungry, poor ones)

For fuck's sake, let me give an example of how fucked up things are here. This may sound made up, but I swear it's true. One of my wife's co-worker's has "cut off" her daughter because she's dating a black guy. I should point out that the daughter and her parents are white, of course. Is this frigging 2007 or 1957? Or 1927?

And this same co-worker has proudly announced a total submission to the Republican Party, forsaking all others. Don'tcha think Haley "Keep The Flag, Change The Governor" Barbour-y Pirate knows that? I mean, he knows that there are a lot of people who swear allegiance to the Republican party that don't like black people. Or at least don't like interracial couples--same diff.

So it's really easy for Whaley and others like him to lead people to their own destruction economically by doing some subtle (or not-so-subtle) race-baiting, i.e., "keep the flag, change the governor." That was a slogan from the 2003 election, but no matter--no one's forgotten it, especially not the people who support such a statement.

So Barbour can push tort deform on the state, stripping average people of their right to sue for damages. He can kick people off Medicaid. He can refuse to raise the tax on cigarettes despite overwhelming support for such a measure. And so forth and so on, ad astra, ad infinitum.

All because of a bunch of creeps who don't like black people.

Well what can you say, really, except that unfortunately it has been ever thus. Oh, and Nazi punks--FUCK OFF!

2007-10-20T20:28:00.000-07:00

ANYBODY ELSE GET THIS PATHETIC BARBOUR PROPAGANDA?

Haley must not have worked too hard to save "our" military bases. Naval Station Pascagoula was closed on Barbour's watch. The base officially closed November 15, 2006.

Of course, what would Republican propaganda be without the ol' ellipsis gambit. One Barbour quote on the mailer is printed this way:

"...to take the lead role, we'll relish it and take it on with dogged determination." Clarion-Ledger 1/19/04

Now, Barbour said this not quite a week after his inauguration (on January 13, 2004). Well he didn't quite say it like that. Here's the full quote, according to the Clarion-Ledger:

"If the Legislature sees fit for us to take the lead role, we'll relish it and take it on with dogged determination," Barbour said last week.

See anything different in the two quotes? Barbour acknowledges that saving "our" military bases is not something he can do by himself--he must work with the legislature. So apparently Barbour, unlike Dumbya, realizes he's not "The Decider."

So Barbour not only is "weak" according to Republican principles, he couldn't save Naval Station Pascagoula. Yet he's trying to turn this weakness into a strength, another classic Rove-ian Republican gambit.

He seems to think that a picture of himself hauling his fat ass onto a military Jeep in front of a few hundred assembled soldiers will make the public forget that we actually lost a military base--and the jobs that go along with it--during his time in office.

Unfortunately, he's probably right...

Ever heard of Vieques?

I had not, until I got this mailer from Whaley. I'll let Wikipedia give us the background:

From 1941 to May 1, 2003, the United States used Vieques, Puerto Rico, for naval training and testing. Some current studies show drastic increases in health problems which may or may not be related to toxic materials left on Vieques from the Navy’s occupation. The people of Vieques demand the U.S. clean up the toxic materials they left behind; but the Navy argues that residents of Vieques have not been negatively affected by the 60-year occupation, and that data showing high cancer rates, high infant mortality, vibroacoustic disease, and radiation contamination is misguided [1]. Whether or not the U.S. should be forced to further clean up the island still remains an issue.

Sounds like pretty nasty business, and unfortunately, pretty standard operating procedure.

Here's how the Barbour campaign frames the same facts surrounding Eaves' involvement in Vieques:

Haley's mailer has had the complete opposite effect on me of what he surely intended. I learned that John Arthur Eaves stands up for the little guy against the military-industrial complex. That probably means that Eaves will stand up for the little guy in Mississippi, which is exactly the opposite of what Whaley and his corporate, lobbyist buddies want.

Read what Eaves had to say about Vieques:

“Simply put,” adds Eaves, “everything that our military has used—with the exception of the nuclear bomb—has been first tested on Vieques.”

A researcher quoted in the same article describes the horrors visited upon Vieques this way:

“They started bombing the island in 1941, so the weapons they’ve used have evolved over time,” says Browning. “They’ve used everything from [small] bombs—50 pounds to 100 pounds—up to 3,000 and 5,000-pound bombs. Just the sheer size of the bombs would do damage to the island and shake it and damage the structure of the house and cause a lot of nervous problems in the children.” He compares the effects of the largest bombs to earthquakes.
From the 1950s through the 70s, Browning says, Vieques was also the main chemical weapons testing ground.
“We know by the navy’s admission that they’ve used depleted uranium here. They’ve used napalm. They’ve done all kinds of electronic and radiological testing. They’ve have dispersed chemical sprays [and] defoliants, possibly Agent Orange. This island for 60-plus years has been in a state of war.”

Puerto Ricans are Americans!

Now keep in mind that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. So Barbour is trying to take Eaves to task for defending American citizens! Is there anything more outrageous? Why should Barbour try to use Eaves' defense of American citizens against him?

Clearly, it's because Barbour doesn't want American citizens to be defended. He wants them to be servile, sick, and poor. Do us all a favor and vote his fat ass out of office. Please--for the sake of all Mississippians, who, after all--are also American citizens.

2007-10-17T15:46:00.000-07:00

WHO GAVE IRAN NUCLEAR PLANS? THE UNITED STATES, OF COURSE!

Today George Bush had this to say:

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

For one thing, if one is interested in avoiding WWIII, one ought to tone down one's rhetoric about attacking Iran. And also toning down one's shows of force in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

For another thing, Bush acts like he's clueless that we gave Iran plans for nuclear weapons in 2000. Did no one read James Risen's "State of War" to Dumya? Here's a little refresher:

"The CIA may have helped Iran to design a nuclear bomb through a botched attempt to channel flawed blueprints to Tehran's weapon designers, according to a new book on the US "war on terror".
In an excerpt from State of War, printed today in G2, the author and New York Times intelligence correspondent, James Risen, writes that the abortive operation misfired when a Russian defector on the CIA payroll, chosen to deliver the deliberately flawed nuclear warhead blueprints to Iranian officials in February 2000, tipped them off about the defects.

The operation, codenamed Merlin and approved by the Clinton administration, was intended to send Iranian scientists down a technological dead end, according to this account. They would spend years building a warhead which would fail to detonate. Instead, Risen writes, the operation may have helped Iran to "accelerate its weapons development" by extracting important information from the blueprints and ignoring the flaws."

2007-10-17T07:21:00.000-07:00

A FRIEND'S RESPONSE TO MY NIST POST

My friend LarryG commented on my last post. I'll reproduce his comments in italics and respond:

1. Is there a copy of the letter of correction they are referring to available to read?

I don't know for sure, but I assume the letter to which NIST is responding is available online or publicly available somewhere. Okay, I think this is it. Here's a sample of what the Jones, et al. letter said that NIST's recent reply was addressing:

"Under the NIST IQS, no initial request for correction will be considered
concerning “disseminated information the correction of which would serve no useful
purpose.” (See NIST IQS, Part III(B)(3).) This exception clearly does not apply to this Request. The horrendous attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 were the worst attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and perhaps the worst such attacks in the history of the United States. Approximately 3,000 people died on 9/11, and the vast majority of those died in the World Trade Center. In fact, family members of two of the Requesters herein died in the WTC Towers. Accurate, reliable information regarding the 9/11 attacks is imperative to the future of the United States because it is an essential part of any rational planning process and policy aimed at ensuring that such an attack never happens again.

NIST was statutorily tasked with telling the American people, the 9/11 victims’
family members, independent researchers, and the U.S. government how and why the WTC Towers collapsed, which would form the basis for future government policy. If NIST, through the WTC Report, has given inaccurate, unreliable information about the destruction of the WTC Towers, the implications would stretch across the entire architectural, political and social landscape.

Initially, inaccurate information and/or incorrect analysis by NIST would lead to
improper building codes, standards and practices. These improper building standards could, in turn, lead to needless deaths if such standards are too lenient, or unnecessary expenses if the standards are too strict.
In addition, there are immense political and social ramifications that stem from
NIST’s inaccurate information and analysis. For example, if the destruction of the WTC Towers was caused solely by the actions of foreign terrorists, but the quality of the data and information disseminated by NIST fails to meet the basic requirements of the DQA, then millions of Americans will needlessly doubt their government.

Consequently, Americans’ trust in their government will unnecessarily be undermined. On the other hand, if NIST is incorrect and airplane damage and resultant fire alone cannot explain the destruction of the WTC Towers, it would mean that the assumption that foreign terrorists alone carried out the destruction would become a matter of dispute. The importance of resolving this question is undeniable given that the destruction of the buildings, and the resulting deaths of almost 3,000 American citizens influenced, and continues to influence, national decisions of the gravest magnitude.

Thus, the importance and usefulness of having accurate, reliable, objective data
regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers cannot be overstated, and, in either case, an important and highly useful purpose will be served by NIST disseminating information that complies with applicable information quality standards. (pp. 3-4)"

2. The paragraph just before the one you cite states"In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conclusion is supported by large body of visual evidence collected by NIST."

LarryG makes a good point here. NIST reasserts its conclusion that the airplane impact and the resultant fires brought down the twin towers. But then they go on to say in the next paragraph that they can't fully explain the collapses.

That might be a reference to the computer models mentioned in the paragraph that LarryG pointed out, which is also quite interesting. NIST notes that Jones, et al. criticized NIST for not using computer models to analyze the collapses. NIST says that they did in fact use computer models but that they only did so to "the point where the buildings reached global instability."

They then apparently abandoned the computer modeling at that point. That is to say, they did not allow the computer models to mimic the collapse. They only allowed the computer models to analyze conditions up to the point where collapse was more or less inevitable.

Now why would they do that? Perhaps it's because they did let the computer models analyze the collapse and the computers showed that a building cannot fall at virtual free fall speed following the path of most resistance, as they would have us believe. Seeing that the computer models invalidated the official story, perhaps they thought that the computers had been misprogrammed. Or perhaps they were ordered to cover up their findings. Who knows?

What we do know is that NIST defends their abandonment of computer modeling after a certain point with a very weak argument:

"At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."

Say what? They expect us to believe that these computers cannot explain a building collapse? So the government has computers which can analyze mounds of data, map the human genome, and do all kinds of wonderful and complex things but when it comes to analyzing the collapse of a structure built in the 70s, these computers are clueless?
Come on!

And not only would they have us believe these computers can't analyze a building collapse, they say it's because of all the complicating factors, i.e., the "deflections and the number of failures occurring." That's precisely why a computer is ideal to analyze such things--because there are so many factors to take into account.

And that's to say nothing of NIST's avoidance of the collapse of WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane at all.

3. Two paragraphs after the one you cite they talk about the theory of explosives. They basically cite that after all the interviews they could not find anything to suggest that there were explosives.

NIST dismisses the use of explosives based on their interviews and analysis. This is simply ludicrous. There is no shortage of eyewitnesses who say they heard or felt explosions in the twin towers. Even firefighters say they saw and heard explosions, which NIST acknowledges.

However, NIST does not offer any reason why they discount the possibility of the use of explosives. They simply say:

"Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers."

There you go--cut and dried. NIST says the interviews don't lead one to the conclusion that explosives were used. I'd say the exact opposite is true, that taken as a whole, the interviews do support the contention that explosives played a role.

4. Even though they state that they cannot explain the total collapse in one paragraph, they state in the end that they are sticking to their original assertions. I think what they mean by "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" is that they could not satisfy the letter writers request for additional data and not that they did not have a valid explanation.

I guess. I think they would like us to believe they have a valid explanation.

5. This letter is hard to read (even for an engineer)and I find a few grammatical mistakes in it as well. Just makes me a little curious as to the authenticity of it. However I have no evidence to support that assertion. Just an observation on my part.

I agree that the letter was kind of dense and obtusely worded in a lot of places. I don't doubt its provenance, but then again, who the hell knows?

6. With regard to the cell phones: Although I use cell modems in my electrical designs, I don't know about their ability then or now to perform at high altitude. Has this been tested in real life?

According to David Ray Griffin, here's the deal with the cell phone calls:

"However, as I reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (sometimes called “the 20th hijacker”), a report on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights)."

Griffin also points out that in 2006, American Airlines (the airline on which Barbara Olson was flying) stated that their 757s did not have seat-back phones in 2001. Therefore, Olson could not have used one to call her husband. And again, the FBI's evidence in the Moussaoui trial showed that although Olson did attempt a cell phone call, it did not go through.

In Ted Olson's telling of the phone calls, he apparently went back and forth on what type of phone Barbara used to call him. He finally settled on onboard, seat-back phones which we now know, by the airline's own admission, were not available on the plane Barbara was in.

2007-10-16T21:19:00.000-07:00

NIST SAYS THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN WTC COLLAPSES

In the first paragraph on p. 4 of a letter from NIST to Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and some 9/11 family members, NIST says the following:

"Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of 'utility.' NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide an explanation-of the total collapse."

So the 9/11 conventional wisdom, the "man on the street" would tell you that the twin towers fell because of fire caused by being hit by planes full of jet fuel. However, NIST--the National Institute of Standards and Technology, part of the Department of Commerce--will not say that. NIST says they don't know why the builidings collapsed.

9/11: What we thought we "knew"

So another federal agency screws up the official 9/11 myth. Let's see where that leaves us:

1. Fire and jet crashes did not cause fall of Twin Towers (NIST)
2. Osama bin Laden did not "commit" 9/11 (FBI)
3. All high-altitude cell-phone calls on 9/11 were impossible (FBI)
4. Barbara Olson never reached Ted Olson on the phone (FBI)

Very interesting, yes?

2007-10-16T20:04:00.000-07:00

THIS IS AMUSING--AND SCARY AS HELL

2007-10-16T19:00:00.000-07:00

SIGNS, SIGNS, PART THE SECOND!

Well, I got a call from Parker Dykes himself today! I had sent him an email about my last post, which he actually checked out! I totally didn't expect to hear from him--I thought maybe if he or someone on his campaign actually read the email I sent, the most they might do is email me a form letter of some sort. But Dykes actually called me!

Now, I don't live in Dykes' district, but if you do and are reading this, why not vote for someone who knows what's really going on in the world? Someone like say, Parker Dykes!

I told him something on the phone that I'd meant to write in my last post. I told him that his signs let you know the about this guy's cojones--that is, he actually takes a stand right there on his campaign signs. For that reason alone, his signs stand out, never mind that they actually have great messages.

Like Dykes told me, a lot of signs, if they have any message besides a name, will say something like "Strength. Integrity. Candidate X" or whatever. Well, Dykes not only has strength and integrity, he lets you know where he stands in no uncertain terms--he wants to stop the new world order. He wants to bring the troops home. He wants to stop the national ID card. And so forth.

So here are some of the other signs I took some pictures of:

Hey, I'm no gun nut. But I also think it's true that if we let the government disarm us, we'll be powerless (even more so than we already are) to fend off the tyranny they will try to foist on us probably sooner rather than later. And those of us who suffered damage in Katrina know that FEMA is not really your friend. Hell, even those who had no damage in Katrina know that by now...

The national ID is supposed to serve many purposes, all of them ostensibly good: stop terrorism, stop voter fraud, etc. But guess what--there's about as much terrorism in the U.S. as there is voter fraud, and there ain't much of either one! The problems with both terror and voter fraud in the U.S. is that those things are created by the government, i.e., 9/11 or Bush v. Gore.

And the national ID card will be one more way to control us, or perhaps the ultimate way to control us, as a conservative Tennessean explains here.

Looks like Blogger is having trouble with picture uploads--and I've got two left. Guess I'll have to do a part 3...

2007-10-13T18:47:00.000-07:00

SIGNS, SIGNS, EVERYWHERE THERE'S SIGNS...

There's a candidate named Parker Dykes running for a seat in District 35 of the Mississippi Senate, and I know this because of his (possibly intentionally) amateurish yet highly provocative and legible signs along Mississippi Highway 49.

The first one I saw was a few weeks ago, and it said:

DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS

DYKES FOR SENATE

I thought, "Great, the xenophobia and racism isn't even masked anymore." Then I forgot about it--until I had to go to Jackson two days in a row this week. I saw more of Dykes' signs and found that I agreed with a lot of his statements. I changed my mind about Dykes and now understand more of where he's coming from with his "Deport all illegals" slogan.

I decided I had to get pictures of these signs, so here are some of them (some were taken as I drove past, some I was able to stop and focus on):

This one says "We are losing our freedoms." No shit! Bye bye, habeas corpus. Bye, bye privacy. Bye bye, freedom of speech. Who could disagree with such a statement?

I've been listening to Alex Jones a lot lately. I even joined prisonplanet.tv and am looking forward to "Endgame"--it comes out on my 11th wedding anniversary! But I digress--Dykes is obviously a Jones fan as well. And since the New World Order is basically what I have been calling "the corporatocracy," I want Parker Dykes and others to stop it. So again, I am in full agreement! I wish I lived in his district or he in mine so I could vote for him!

"Bring Our Troops Home!" A sentiment very near and dear to my heart. I doubt any of the other candidates for ANY state office would say such a thing! I love the fact that there is a sign on 49 just outside of Jackson that says we should bring our troops home! This Dykes character has, well...character. And balls! No BS or mincing words for this guy!

I'll post part 2 of the Dykes for Senate pictures soon...

2007-10-09T19:45:00.000-07:00

9/11: THE FBI FUCKS UP THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY

First off, the FBI wanted poster for Osama bin Laden doesn't mention 9/11. By now, the organization has had over 6 years to modify this poster or correct their "error." But...they haven't. According to the website, the poster was last revised in November 2001.

Just read an article today by David Ray Griffin in which he points out how the FBI has further fucked up the official conspiracy myth, by admitting that all the high-altitude cell phone calls were fake.

"Loose Change" makes this same point, but the FBI lends the ultimate credibility to the claim. Griffin explains it thusly:

"However, as I reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (sometimes called “the 20th hijacker”), a report on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights)."

The FBI's evidence also proves that Barbara Olson never completed a call to her husband Ted, the solicitor general.

Griffin explains again:

"Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby). Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter...

American Airlines in 2006 [said] that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.”

This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ’s former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened."

Still think that 9/11 was pulled off by 19 guys with boxcutters and poor piloting skills? The FBI itself casts doubt upon that story--maybe we all should take a cue from them.

2007-09-28T19:52:00.000-07:00

SADDAM: THE $1 BILLION OFFER

Saddam offered to leave Iraq in exchange for $1 billion. Bush himself said that Saddam could leave the country and the invasion would be called off (no one took that seriously, but still, he said it).

We've spent over 500 times that on our invasion and killed over a million people and lost tens of thousands in deaths and injuries (the cost of which will be in the billions as time goes on).

9/11 Every Day For Over 10 Years

Many will dispute the 1 million casualty estimate. They will do so because it's a conscience-pricking number. That number of deaths, proportionally speaking, is equivalent to a 9/11 casualty rate EVERY DAY in Iraq for over 10 years.

But suppose you argue that the 1 million casualty figure is impossibly high. OK, let's cut it in half--that's an equivalent 9/11 every day for 5 years in Iraq. Or take a fifth of that--an equivalent 9/11 every day for one year (this illuminating device stolen directly from Arthur Silber).

Support Our Troops--They're Fighting For Our Slavery

So Saddam offered to leave if we'd pay him 1/500 of what we have ended up paying. SO FAR.

But they turned him down. Because the war wasn't about bringing democracy to Iraq. It was about extending the arm of the corporatocracy and using the war as an excuse to increase the power of the government at home while decreasing our civil liberties.

And now that we're in Iraq, we'll be there for decades. They aren't building the largest embassy in the history of the world just for shits and giggles, you know. They're building it to keep us in endless war, which is "patriot" code for endless slavery.

2007-09-23T21:55:00.000-07:00

WHO IS THE "STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR?"

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

"Ahmadinejad's trip to New York ignited a debate this week over his rejected request to lay a wreath at ground zero. The State Department calls Iran a state sponsor of terror, and politicians and families of Sept. 11 victims were outraged that its president might visit the site of the 2001 terror attacks."

The United States is the biggest "state sponsor of terror." Our invasion of Iraq has now killed over 1,000,000 people. That's 1/25 of the population of Iraq. And that's just for starters. We overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 through the use of terror attacks and we're still doing that today:

"As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan 'tri-border region.'"

In other words, we're sponsoring terror. Here's some more about our sponsorship of terrorism:

"TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Explosive devices and arsenals used in a terrorist attack in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Wednesday came from the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.

Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an "informed source" was quoted as saying.

The source further pointed out that Jundallah, a shadowy Sunni militant group, had several plots for assassinating Sunni and tribal leaders to sow discord and foment conflicts between the Shiite and Sunni citizens in Sistan-Baluchestan province."

We're not the good guys. In fact, there are no good guys--only varying degrees of bad guys. Seriously, is that how one "fights terror?" By engaging in it?

2007-09-23T20:53:00.000-07:00

AND SO BEGINS WWW III...

...and so ends our republic.

When the British wanted to invade Iran some 50-odd years ago, the American press wasn't much in favor of such a plan, according to "All The Shah's Men." According to author Stephen Kinzer, they knew that war with Iran would not be good:

"The Philadelphia Inquirer warned that a British invasion of Iran might bring 'a quick outbreak of World War III.'(p. 113)"

Kinzer goes on to note that:

"A popular CBS commentator, Howard K. Smith, asserted that many countries in the Middle East and beyond supported Iran, and that an invasion might 'stir all the Southern Asians to a rebellion against the Western foreigner and cause serious trouble for both Britain and the United States.'(p. 113)"

How have we managed to regress instead of progress in the last 50 years?

Hope we can all afford the gas prices that are about to shoot up along with the cost of anything else that is brought to market by a vehicle that uses gas.

Which of course is only everything.

2007-09-17T21:36:00.000-07:00

ASK A QUESTION, GET TASERED AS JOHN KERRY LOOKS ON--WTF?

Ummm...watch this video of a student being Tasered after asking John Kerry some pointed questions. If you're not disturbed, ask yourself why? Why should a student be Tasered for asserting his First Amendment rights as police officers try to deprive him of those rights? Either we have a First Amendment or we don't, and this video makes it fairly clear that we don't.

As I watched it, I was reminded of the Who concert in Cincinnati at which people were trampled to death as the band played on. Kerry goes on speaking as if nothing is happening. The audience members sit passively as the First Amendment is raped.

I asked myself if I would sit passively like that, and you know what? I'm afraid I probably would. What is one supposed to do in that situation? You can't call the cops--it's the cops that are running roughshod over the Constitution. If you try to intervene, they'll slap some charges on you.

It seems to me that Kerry could have appealed to the cops to stop what they were doing. He's a United States Senator, for God's sake--surely the cops would've listened to him. All Kerry had to do was shout out "Stop that! Let this man hear answers to his questions! Leave him alone! He's merely exercising his First Amendment rights!"

But Kerry did no such thing...

2007-09-11T18:50:00.000-07:00

9/11 LIES VS. 9/11 TRUTH

Hmmm. 6 years since 9/11. I have to admit that even I went jingo there for a while. I bought into the lie. But I remember why I did--I didn't pay enough attention. I let myself be manipulated by the official story.

And it's hard not to be manipulated if you don't have your bullshit detector set on maximum sensitivity at all times. That's why the official line is that "conspiracy theories" are crazy. Bush himself said we shouldn't "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty," blah blah blah.

The term "conspiracy theorist" is usually meant in a pejorative sense, but why? Why, when there are in fact many conspiracies that are confirmed daily? It's because they want to manipulate you the way I was manipulated. I shouldn't have been so easily manipulated about 9/11. I should have looked for the real story from the very beginning.

But my good friend Joe Given of Techno Slavery woke me up. He gave me a copy of "Loose Change." If you haven't seen it, watch it. Of course, by then my jingoism had abated and I could think clearly again.

I opposed the Iraq war from the minute I heard about it. My wife and I put a makeshift sign in our yard--it was made from an old door and spray-painted "No War In Iraq" on it and put it out front. I don't know why we never took a picture of it. We used the door so that no one could or would just drive by the house and quickly snatch it out of our yard.

Bullshit Detectors--On!
Anyway, whatever. As you can probably tell, I don't have a whole lot to say about this except that your bullshit detector must alway be on. Like when it comes to talk about going to war with Iran because they somehow threaten us. Or when Bush says he'll bring home 30K troops by next summer (if the progress he wants has been made). Both of those are complete and utter bullshit.

In that Bush story, notice some other bullshit. At the very bottom of the story, there is this statement about the Petraeus hearings (more heaps of steaming bullshit):

The hearing fell on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Does the AP really believe or really expect us to believe that the Petraeus hearings "fell on the anniversary" of 9/11 just by chance? That sir, is utter bullshit. Just like it's utter bullshit that the new "bin Laden" video or Bush's announcement of a possible troop withdrawal all just happened you know, by chance, to fall on or very near the sixth anniversary of 9/11. It's complete bullshit.

2007-09-10T19:28:00.000-07:00

"BIN LADEN" VIDEO OBVIOUSLY FAKE

Mos Def was badass on this topic:

The "bin Laden" video freezes at 1:58 while the audio continues for 10 + minutes. The video then unfreezes at 12:30 and syncs with the audio again--it's a fake, and not even a GOOD fake.

Also, the London Telegraph is reporting that "American spy chiefs" say American Adam Pearlman wrote "large sections" of the script that "bin Laden" reads in the video.

2007-09-10T19:23:00.000-07:00

CONFIRMED: BUSH KNEW IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE WMD

In Salon magazine, Sidney Blumenthal reports that on 9-18-02, George Tenet briefed Bush on the fact that the CIA had confirmed that, according to Saddam's foreign minister at the time, Iraq had no WMD.

The foreign minister's name is Naji Sabri, and he turned informant for the CIA prior to the war. The account of the Sabri saga was first told by former CIA operative Tyler Drumheller in 2006 and has now been confirmed by two other former CIA agents:

"Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war."

Again, it's obvious that this war is, was, and will be based on LIES. We must end it now.

2007-09-02T21:56:00.000-07:00

FREE SPEECH OUTLAWED IN MS CODE 97-45-17?

The more I think about it, the more I have to ask whether or not the law under which Yuri Wainwright was charged is an attempt to outlaw "free speech."

Why would I say this? Consider the following:

1. The term "injury" isn't defined in the chapter in which this anti-free-speech law in contained.
2. Any "message" posted in "any medium of communication" is subject to this law.
3. The "injury" claim can come from "any person," not just the person who may or may not be mentioned in the "message."

The only mitigating factor, the only part left up to a jury, is whether or not the "message" is "for the purpose of causing injury to any person." Intent, I would think, is fairly difficult to prove. But not impossible--all it would take is a slick lawyer making a case to a dumbed-down jury.

What is "injury?"

Since "injury" isn't defined in the code, how is that word defined in say, the dictionary? Dictionary.com lists a legal definition of injury as:

4. Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made.

So according to this definition, a person's reputation can in fact suffer "injury." At what point does injury to a reputation become illegal? It would be helpful if this law would tell us, but it does not. We know that Yuri Wainwright was not satisfied with the quality of his education. If he posted a message that said "I think the University of Southern Mississippi's architecture department is useless," could that be construed as causing "injury" to the reputation of the university and/or one of its academic departments? Of course it could--and probably should.

But is it illegal--or more precisely, should it be illegal to express one's opinion about the architecture department? I should think that this goes to the very essence of the First Amendment. For example, if I say that "George W. Bush is a moron and is unfit to be president," could I, under MS Code 97-45-17, be charged by not just Bush, but any and/or all of his supporters who feel that I have injured Bush's reputation as well as the reputations of his supporters? I'd argue that yes, under the vague language of this law, I could be prosecuted for saying that.

Should I be able to be prosecuted for saying that? I'd like to think that the First Amendment and related judicial precedents would render the very question inane, but 97-45-17 seems to render the likelihood of my prosecution for such a statement a very open question indeed.

Was Wainwright in fact arrested for something that's been "hiding in plain sight" on his MySpace page? In his "About Me" section, he says the following:

"Yuri switched his alliterative identity of a pothead philosopher to an alcoholic architect. As soon as he graduates from a rinky dink excuse for a school(with good teachers, amazingly), he will promtly move to a different place where the scenery doesnt quite match the morass of its inhabitants."

The University of Southern Mississippi is not mentioned by name on Wainwright's page. But someone with an axe to grind against Wainwright could conceivably argue that he caused injury to the university's reputation among people who knew he was USM student, including the faculty member who supposedly turned him in.

Is that far-fetched? Well, consider the fact that, according to the Hattiesburg American, Wainwright "has been placed on interim suspension by Southern Miss." For that status to apply to Wainwright, all that must happen is that
"the president of the university or a designated administrator determines that the presence of a student would reasonably constitute clear and present danger to the university community or property" (Section 11 of USM Student Handbook). Would someone bad-mouthing the university "reasonably constitute" a "clear and present danger" to the university? Probably not. Unless Wainwright saw something involving a professor that he wasn't supposed to see and let it be known that he was going to go public or something. Or something similar--who knows?

But I'm getting away from my point. It strikes me that 97-45-17 of the MS Code is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Maybe Wainwright's case will help that happen--if they ever get off their ass and try him.

2007-09-02T21:25:00.000-07:00

EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CARE ABOUT YURI WAINWRIGHT'S CASE...

New story about the lack of information in the Yuri Wainwright case today...

Here's what I wrote about it at the Hattiesburg American forum...

Stonewalling=Lack of guilt?

Wainwright has been rotting in jail for over four months. It is long past time for "the law" to bring a case against him or let him go. I've said it before and I'll say it again--there is no way that this case can be as complicated as Weathers and Hopkins have made it out to be. Either Wainwright made a threat on the Internet or he didn't.

The stonewalling of Weathers and Hopkins makes it pretty clear that Wainwright did NOT make a threat on the Internet. After all, if Wainwright had written something that was clearly a threat, no one would've had any qualms about publicizing what it was that he wrote that was so bad.

How do we know this? By comparing Wainwright's situation to that of Tosin Oduwole, a student at Southern Illinois University.

Wainwright vs. Oduwole: Contrast & Compare

The police supposedly found a note in Oduwole's abandoned car that said:

"if this account doesn't reach $50,000 in the next 7 days then a murderous rampage similar to the VT shooting will occur at another highly populated university. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!"

Not only that, Oduwole had recently placed online orders for semiautomatic weapons. Oduwole also had a loaded gun in his dorm room.

Note that what Oduwole supposedly wrote appeared in the very first stories about his arrest. That's because in America, when someone is hauled off to jail for engaging in a constitutionally-protected activity--in this case, exercising the freedom of speech--the public has a right to know how that constitutionally-protected activity crossed a line if in fact a line has been crossed.

Why This Concerns Every American

Everyone in America should be concerned about Wainwright's incarceration and the authorities' apparent lack of justification for it. I don't care if Bob Hopkins is a smart, likable guy as I've repeatedly been told. He owes the university, nay, the Hattiesburg community, nay--the people of the United States some concrete reason for putting Yuri Wainwright behind bars on $1 million bond.

If they can put Wainwright in jail for over four months with no apparent end in sight to his incarceration, what's to stop them from putting any one of us in jail merely on their say-so? Apparently all that has to be done to take a citizen's freedom is to make a vague accusation under a (probably intentionally) vague statute (in Wainwright's case, it's "Posting of Messages through Electronic Media for Purpose of Causing Injury to Any Person," which is from MS Code 97-45-17).

Is that the impression John Mark Weathers and Bob Hopkins intend to leave for the citizens of this city, state, and country? I sincerely hope not--but what other conclusion are we to draw?

What, exactly, is "injury?"

Read the statute--it went into effect in July of 2003. It's likely that it hasn't even been tested in court yet. The standard it uses--that a "message" must "have the purpose" of "causing injury to any person"--is so vague that it could apply to anything. In fact, if Bob Hopkins or John Mark Weathers were to read this post, they might try to argue that this "message" has the purpose of "causing injury" to them, or their reputations, or their feelings, or whatever.

After all, what, pray tell, is meant by "injury?" How can it be proved whether or not a message "has the purpose" of "causing injury?" As far as I can tell by just using Google, MS is the only state with a statute like this. That doesn't mean other states don't have similar laws, I just can't find them easily/quickly.

Not only on the Internet

But also take note, the statute in question here is not limited to only the Internet. It says if you purposely create a "message" that has the purpose of causing "injury" (physical? social? mental? all of the above? any of the above?) to "ANY person," you could be charged under this act if you use "ANY means of communication."

2007-08-28T20:16:00.000-07:00

BUSH IS THE "BOY WHO CRIED NUKES," Part the Second...

So today Bush says the following:

"'Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,' he told a veterans group here."

I sure wish the talking point I came up with almost a year and a half ago had been hung around Bush's neck--he's the boy who cried nukes. How can anyone still trust this asshole? How can anyone think that yet another war with a country who's never attacked us is a good idea?

Then he has the nerve to say this (from the same link as above):

'Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late,' he said.

Iran's actions threaten world security? Can the boy who cried nukes really expect us to believe that if and when Iran is able to successfully manufacture a single nuclear warhead, that that warhead would be a threat to the U.S.? To Israel? To anyone?

Let's think about this

Let's say that right now, at this very moment, the first Iranian nuclear warhead is rolling off an assembly line somewhere. So the fuck what. Who would they use it against? Why would they immediately fire off a rocket that contains their only nuclear warhead? The Iranians are not stupid--they don't want to get in the middle of a nuclear war.

But here's the thing--every reliable estimate says there is no possible way for Iran to create a nuclear weapon before George Bush leaves office, and not even for a few years after he leaves office. Not only that, Iran says they don't want nuclear weapons--they want energy. And frankly, I don't find that so far-fetched. Who wants a bunch of nuclear weapons sitting around that cost millions and billions to build, house, maintain, etc.--oh, that's right: our stupid ass. I don't know whether or not Iran has their own military-industrial complex that constantly demands to be fed, but I'm guessing they don't, at least not on the scale of ours.

The "holocaust" Bush foresees has nothing to do with non-existent Iranian ambitions for WMD. The holocaust will be when the military-industrial-neo/theocon-complex finally gets its way and we start bombing Iran. That's your holocaust right there: a third unnecessary war that will only demand that we surrender even more civil liberties (if not all of them). Oh, and it will likely engulf the entire world in either actual war or at least economic war.

Good night and sweet dreams!

I quit my job today

I told the bastards they could go to hell. I told them to take their job and shove it--they won't have ol' LHL to kick around anymore. Hopefully my other irons in the fire will continue to heat up until they're glowing bright orange...

2007-08-19T22:28:00.000-07:00

GEORGE SHILL, SPOKESGEEK FOR THE CORPORATOCRACY

Who will speak for the voiceless corporatist?
George Will will.

Who will pimp the principle of socialism for the rich and the free market for the poor?
George Will will.

Who will rejoice in having our economy "insulated from democracy?"
George Will will.

Who will defend the "victimization of the many by the few?"
George Will will.

Who will openly advocate that "let the buyer beware" should be the guiding principle of our economy?
George Will will.

I wish George Shill would take his baseballs and his thesaurus and retire to Richistan and leave us alone.

Caveat venditor!

2007-07-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

“BECAUSE OF IRAN”....

So as mentioned in previous entries, the New York Times reports that we have to arm the Middle East to the teeth “because of Iran.”

Let’s see, how many unwise actions has the U.S. justified over the years by saying (either in so many words or just through implication): We’re doing this “because of Iran.” If you can think of more examples, please feel free to leave them in the comments or email them to me and I will add them to the list, which follows:

“Because of Iran....”

1. We supported Saddam Hussein throughout the 80s

2. We had to invade Iraq in 2003–that’s a post-invasion justification

3. We have to stay in Iraq because if we don’t, Iran will take over

4. We’re losing the Iraq war

5. We have to put missile defense systems in Europe, to Russia’s chagrin

6. We have to sell arms to the Saudis, the people who attacked us on 9/11 (according to the official story)

I’m sure there are many more examples of this kind of warped thinking. But let’s debunk this idea that we’re forced, yes, forced into feeding the military-industrial complex all because of Iran.

Why “Because of Iran” excuses are bullshit:

1. We overthrew Mossadegh in 1953, using fake terror, fake stories in the press, etc.

2. We then installed the shah–we toppled a democratic government and replaced it with a monarchy, and the shah was not a nice ruler

3. We cut off diplomatic relations in 1979 because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis, which was a direct result of our continuous support of the shah

4. We gave chemical and biological weapons to Saddam for him to use against Iran

5. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entitles them to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, among other things.

6. Iran expressed great sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11

7. Bush said Iran is part of the “axis of evil”

8. In 2003, Iran offered to open a dialogue with the U.S. and put everything on the table: support for Hezbollah, nuclear programs, recognition of Israel, etc.–Bush administration ignored Iran’s advances. You can read the offer for yourself here.

Looking at these lists, surely anyone can see that what we have done is use Iran as our bogeyman, our go-to country for demonization, overthrow, and weakening. Then when they naturally react against the things we’ve done to them, we say they’re evil and the biggest threat in the world.

We say they’re violent and outrageous and can’t be trusted. However, the Iranians know that’s just projection–that the U.S. is really the state that’s violent and can’t be trusted.

2007-07-27T23:05:00.000-07:00

SAUDI ARMS DEAL, PART THE SECOND...

The more I read of this New York Times story about this Saudi arms deal, the more peeved I get. This whole deal is supposedly to help counter Iran:

"Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons."

How many different ways can these fuckers twist the bogeyman of Iran? Iran is why we have to stay in Iraq, Iran is why we have to sell weapons to dictatorships, Iran is why our troops in Iraq are getting killed, Iran is why we have to subvert Hamas even though they were the democratically-elected choice of the Palestinians, etc. Iran should start charging royalties whenever Bush or his administration invokes their name. They'd be a superpower tomorrow...

The story also has this to say:

"Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same."

Since when did the navies of Middle Eastern countries become, well, ours? Why are we interested in improving the navies of other countries? I would guess it's so they can attack other countries more efficiently, tearing up their infrastructure a little more so that we can have Halliburton come in after we help provoke some more wars over there?

Oh hell...I just gotta go to sleep...

2007-07-27T21:34:00.000-07:00

TILLMAN EVIDENCE, SAUDI ARMS DEALS, HAGEE'S WET DREAM...who says the U.S. is not the cause of all the wars in the world?

Pat Tillman murdered?

$20 billion arms deal with Saudis?

Hagee wants war with Iran?

Read on...

New evidence has come to light about the death of Pat Tillman. You may recall that the story evolved in the following manner:

1. Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire and he is a hero

2. OK, we lied–he was killed by friendly fire but is no less a hero

Now we find out that Army doctors found the evidence surrounding Tillman’s death to not be indicative of friendly fire. Prison Planet has a good summary:

“Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon”

It sounds incredible, that Tillman would be murdered, but apparently the propaganda value of a pro football player turned soldier in helping the Bush administration could have a lot of reverse propaganda value for the antiwar movement. And surely the Bushies realized that...

Arming Dictators–and the Iraq insurgents?

The New York Times says we’re about to sell $20 billion worth of weapons to the Saudis–and their neighbors:

“WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.”

And don't miss the part where they buy off Israel, who's understandably nervous about this deal:

"Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years."

The Several Things Wrong With This Picture

OK, there are several things wrong with this picture. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, remember? None was from Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Iran. Of course 9/11 was an inside job, but the story the Bush administration wants us to swallow is that Osama bin Laden, also a Saudi, convinced 15 other Saudis and a few others to fly planes into buildings.

All right, that’s problem number one–we’re literally selling weapons to the “people that attacked us on 9/11.” Won't some enterprising reporter ask that question of George Bush/Tony Snow/any neocon? Why is it our policy to hold hands with and sell arms to the people that actually (according to the official story, anyway) attacked us on 9/11 while we bomb the living shit out of countries that literally had nothing to do with it?

Problem number two–the Saudis are still technically in a state of war with Israel, our supposed ally. Jews are not allowed inside Saudi Arabia. Also, Saudis oppress women, commit gross human rights violations, and have a dictatorship. I also covered this here.

Some ally, those Saudis, eh? And you thought George Bush’s mission was to bring God’s gift of democracy to all people. Who are you going to believe, Bush or the overwhelming evidence against everything he says?

Problem number three–most of the foreign fighters in the Iraq insurgency are from–you guessed, Saudi Arabia.

“An article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times detailing the national origins of foreign insurgents in Iraq has punctured a large hole in the Bush administration’s relentless propaganda against Iran. For months, the White House has been demonising Tehran for “meddling” in Iraq by establishing networks to arm, train and finance anti-US insurgents. Most foreign fighters, however, come, not from Iran, but Saudi Arabia, a close American ally, with which the Bush administration in particular has intimate ties.

According to military statistics provided to the Los Angeles Times, about 45 percent of the hundreds of foreign militants involved in attacks on US troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia. Another 15 percent are from Syria and Lebanon and 10 percent from North Africa. Nearly half the 135 foreigners currently held in US detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis.

A senior American military officer told the newspaper that Saudis are believed to have carried out more suicide bombings in Iraq than those of any other nationality. He estimated that half of all Saudi jihadists come to Iraq as suicide bombers, who in the past six months have been responsible for killing and maiming at least 4,000 Iraqis.”

Is it not conceivable that these weapons could be used by Saudi insurgents against our troops in Iraq? If that is not conceivable, shouldn’t we say, avoid selling military equipment to the Saudis as an incentive to get them to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq? At the very least?

But it appears that the real concern of the Bushies is to get back the petrodollars from Saudi Arabia. You know the deal–we buy oil from them in dollars, and then sell them weapons to get the dollars back. Arthur Jensen summed it up in “Network”:

“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance.”

So what if Saudis have committed the most suicide attacks in Iraq? To the Bushies/corporatists, it’s a small price to pay to get their money back.

One more thing--don't forget that Bush 41 was meeting with Saudis, bin Ladens even, on the morning of 9/11!!!!

Can anyone still really believe that George Bush and his supporters care one iota about democracy? Or freedom? Those words are curses in their mouths.

Hagee and his war

Just watched the Max Blumenthal video on the Christians United For Israel convention. That is some scary-ass, fucked-up, way-out-there shit, dude.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

Hagee desperately wants a war with Iran. When he says that the U.S. should consider a pre-emptive strike on Iran, the crowd goes apeshit. There’s also some fucked-up scene of an American soldier marching through the crowd, going up onstage and comforting some Jewish woman. It’s unreal.

Hagee is a scary monster, that’s for sure, as I pointed out here.
And here I thought Jesus was the Prince of Peace. He did say “blessed are the peacemakers,” right? He didn’t say “blessed are the warmongers.”

What in holy fuck is wrong with these fucking people?

2007-07-25T20:20:00.000-07:00

LOOSE CHANGE PRODUCER ARRESTED

So they arrested Korey Rowe for desertion on Monday night. There's speculation about whether he is or isn't really a deserter and whether or not this move is meant to chill the 9/11 truth movement.

I can't say for sure on either question, but if he's been a deserter for two years--he left the military in 2005--why are they just now arresting him? They've had more than a year to arrest him and he hasn't exactly been laying low. I don't know when the final cut of Loose Change is supposed to hit theaters, but one would assume it's supposed to be sometime soon, hence the arrest to try to discredit Loose Change and the 9/11 truth movement by association.

Because that was one of the Loose Change guys' strong points--they have a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan on their team. Seems to me that Bush is making a trial run of his new executive orders...

2007-07-25T20:14:00.000-07:00

YURI WAINWRIGHT & TOSIN ODUWOLE

Today makes the 14th Wednesday since Yuri Wainwright was locked in jail for supposedly threatening someone online. He's been held on $1 million bond. We still haven't been told what it was Wainwright wrote that got him arrested.

Compare Yuri's case to that of a similar case that made the news today:

EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. (AP) — A college fraternity president and aspiring rapper who was accused of threatening a "murderous rampage" similar to April's deadly shooting spree at Virginia Tech pleaded not guilty Wednesday.

A gun dealer had alerted federal authorities about Olutosin Oduwole, saying he had seemed overly anxious to get an online shipment of semiautomatic weapons, according to an affidavit filed in court by a police detective.

The Southern Illinois University student was arrested Friday after police said they found a handwritten note in his car demanding payment to a PayPal account, threatening that "if this account doesn't reach $50,000 in the next 7 days then a murderous rampage similar to the VT shooting will occur at another highly populated university. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!"

-Unlike Wainwright, this student had recently ordered semiautomatic weapons online.

-Unlike Bob Hopkins, the police in this case revealed what the student had written that got him locked up. In Wainwright's publicly available writings, he's never said anything remotely like that, nor has Bob Hopkins ever alleged that Wainwright said anything close to that.

-Unlike Wainwright, police found a loaded gun in this student's dorm room.

-Like Wainwright, this student is in jail on $1 million bond.

This new Illinois case is an example of the police and the courts responding appropriately (at least based on what we know so far). The Wainwright case is an example of the police and the courts overreacting and almost certainly violating Wainwright's civil liberties. Again, we can't know that for sure because Bob Hopkins STILL won't tell us what Wainwright wrote that was so bad and the DA ain't talking either.

2007-07-16T04:11:00.000-07:00

MALIKI, IRAN "IN LIMBO," PAKISTAN PERMISSION

Wrote a letter to the editor last night about avoiding war with Iran, even though the House and Senate have each overwhelmingly approved amendments saying that Iran is very, very bad.

Way to go, al-Maliki! I wonder how long he will live now:

BAGHDAD - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts about his government's military and political progress yesterday, saying his forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."

One of his top aides accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

When aides of the PM of Iraq say your behavior is embarrassing, you know we're doing some shameful shit over there. And Maliki's quote says it all: the U.S. can leave "any time they want," and that's just it--Bush doesn't want to leave. The majority of the country wants us to leave and believes the war was a mistake, but Bush doesn't want to leave. And Cheney doesn't either. That's why these fuckers must be impeached and removed, impeached and removed.

Letter to editor
Here's the letter, followed by a post I made on the forum on basically the same topic.

The Guardian newspaper has reported that “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.” On top of that, the Senate recently passed an amendment stating–with little to no evidence–that Iran is “murdering” our troops in Iraq.

Suppose for a minute that this is true. As Stephen Kinzer has pointed out, Chinese-manufactured weapons killed our troops in Korea but we didn’t invade China. In Vietnam, we knew the North Vietnamese were using weapons from the Soviet Union, but we didn’t invade the USSR. What’s so different about Iran?

What’s happening is that Bush is looking for someone to blame for his failure in Iraq, a war of aggression we should never have started in the first place. Iran fits the bill perfectly, even though Iran has not violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has not invaded any other nation, and is years away from having even one nuclear weapon.

For years now, the Bush administration has demonized Iran, laying the groundwork for war, even though in 2003, Iran offered to start a dialogue with the U.S. with everything on the table–acceptance of Israel, nuclear programs, etc. The Bush administration rejected the offer. After all, you can’t have perpetual war if you go around making friends all the time.

Any U.S. military aggression toward Iran will be unprovoked, immoral and catastrophic, both for the Middle East and for us here in this country. As James Madison said: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

For the sake of innocent people across the Middle East and our own civil liberties here at home, we must demand that the United States stay out of Iran and withdraw immediately from Iraq.

And the forum post:

Blame Bush for Osama/al Qaeda

Just like the CON-serviles around these forums like to blame Clinton for 9/11 because he didn't get Osama when he supposedly had the chance.

Well, why doesn't Bush get Osama now when he has the chance? "Intelligence" officials are saying that al Qaeda is now stronger than they were last year at this time. And these same "intelligence" officials "know" where al Qaeda (and presumably bin Laden) is--in Pakistan.

So why doesn't Bush invade Pakistan rather than Iran? There's a whole lot of noise about invading Iran, but al Qaeda's not in Iran. Tom Fingar, an intelligence official recently testified before Congress that it's Bush's policy not to go into Pakistan without their permission.

Say what? Since when does Mr. "War President" Li'l Bush have to ask permission to go kill people? Apparently, he even has to ask permission from ol' **** Blossom, who recently said "The United States has concerns about taking unilateral action in a sovereign nation without their approval.”

When he said that, the audience laughed, as well they should have.

So if we're in a "war on terror" and our main problem is al Qaeda--according to the Bushies--why won't they go get them? Because that ain't what the "war on terror" is about, don'tcha know. It's about making money and keeping George Bush in power. Oh, and indiscriminately killing brown people. Just like always.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22065811-601,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABP4znt2dzw
(Rove clip starts around 1:22)

2007-07-14T22:47:00.000-07:00

SOUNDING "OFF" PART 2...

On June 21, I posted a list of mistakes I've heard in songs I love. Just heard another one, in "Hot Burrito #2." So here's the list so far, with my man Larry G.'s contribution from the comments on June 21:

1. Vince Guaraldi-"Linus and Lucy" finger slip on piano keys on return to first section :50
2. Neil Young-"After The Goldrush" finger slip on piano keys after the line "hoping it was a lie" (the first time) 1:46
3. Ozzy Osbourne/Randy Rhoads-"Crazy Train" notes in solo not doubled exactly (after joining back in unison following a harmony section) 3:05
4. Soft Machine-"10.30 Returns To The Bedroom" finger slip on organ 2:07
5. "Deliverance" soundtrack-"Dueling Banjos" 3:03 the guitar starts to go back around while the banjo is doing an ending lick. The guitar abruptly stops when he realizes that's the end of the song. (Larry G)
6. Flying Burrito Brothers-"Hot Burrito #2" finger slip on piano 0:47...lyrics on top are "And you want me home all night..." Dig the horn-like steel going on in that section..

Also, I listend to the Bad Religion tune "Let Them Eat War" about 30 times in a row last night...I love that song!

2007-07-11T21:01:00.000-07:00

JENA 6, SYNCHRONICITY, & THE SUPREME COURT

I just head about the Jena 6 today, on Democracy Now--I gotta say, not that it's news to anyone, but Amy Goodman kicks ass.

I got to reading about the case, and it occurred to me that on the same day Mychal Bell of the so-called "Jena 6" was convicted by an all-white jury (is this 2007 or 1957?) presided over by a white judge who would not give the jury a written copy of the charges and no witnesses were called on Bell's behalf, the Supreme Court basically endorsed segregation in the Seattle school case. Those events happened on June 28--what synchronicity!

Who says racism isn't alive and well in America in the "new" millenium?