Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Friday, 18 March 2005 at 9h 52m 32s|
The Wolf comes to the bank
You may not know what the World Bank is.
Wolfowitz to be the Head of the World Bank.
Now the World bank is really the United States Bank because almost all of the
funds are from the United States, which is why the President gets to nominate
the head of this bank.
But you may not know what this bank does. This is the bank which lends funds
to third world nations when they need to finance their government spending or
need to build infrastructure. The history of this bank's investments include
huge dams and nuclear reactors and housing developments mainly in order to
support, supplement, and subsidize various corporate involvement in the
background. The loans by this bank to third world governments get spent on
contracts provided by certain corporations, or are meant to supplement
ancillary corporate enterprises ... such as the Indonesian roads that aided the
investments of Exxon in their Indonesian business enterprises.
But I must defer to someone else when it comes to this Wolfowitz appointment to
the World Bank. I bring you,
... Joe Conason.
Bush cites Wolfowitz's Pentagon experience in choosing him to head the World
Bank. Considering his atrocious track record at Defense, the Bank should get
ready for an epidemic of waste, fraud and corruption.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason
March 18, 2005 | Taken at face value, the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to run
the World Bank is mystifying. The sudden elevation of the controversial deputy
secretary of defense has elicited both cynical speculation and naive
rumination. Is President Bush using the world's most important antipoverty
position as a patronage plum, to reward a loyal servant in the typical manner
of the Bush dynasty? Is Bush emphasizing his contempt for critics here and
abroad, as the dismayed Europeans suspect? Or is he seeking, as a New York
to change the direction of global development financing with "stern
As a disciplinarian, Wolfowitz has certainly left a strong impression on the
Iraqis, whose lives and infrastructure have been sacrificed to his
determination to oust Saddam Hussein by military force. And the former diplomat
clearly knows how to enforce his will in bureaucratic disputes, as he
demonstrated during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq.
In announcing the appointment, Bush himself insisted that Wolfowitz is the best
choice to take over the World Bank because he's a "man of compassion"
who "believes deeply" in uplifting the world's poor. Yet there is precious
little evidence to support that assertion (and plenty to contradict it).
As for Wolfowitz's actual qualifications, which many experts have questioned,
the president cited his appointee's recent experience at the Department of
Defense, "managing the largest U.S. government agency with over 1.3 million
uniformed personnel and nearly 700,000 civilian employees around the world."
Evidently none of Bush's White House briefers has ever mentioned just how badly
Wolfowitz and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, have managed that big old agency. The
president also seems to have forgotten how Rummy and Wolfie decided to ignore
the State Department's planning for post-invasion
Iraq; how they
brushed aside the Army's warnings about the need for many more troops to secure
the country; how they permitted or even encouraged the ongoing scandal of
detainee torture; and how they lost track of the most important weapons sites,
which were the supposed reason to go to war, and allowed them to be looted.
The indisputable fact is that the Pentagon's civilian leaders, an arrogant
clique of ideologues, provided no
for securing and rebuilding Iraq after the invasion. Against the advice of
wiser and more knowledgeable officials, Wolfowitz insisted that his own vision
would be realized. Surely our soldiers would be greeted as liberators, our
favorite exiles would assume power in Baghdad, and our expenses would be paid
by oil revenues. The deputy defense secretary couldn't imagine any other
scenario and dismissed anyone who did.
Since that inauspicious beginning, Wolfowitz's management capacity has not
For a would-be banker, he has allowed rather huge sums of money to be
squandered both at home and in Iraq. During Wolfowitz's tenure, auditors from
the Government Accountability Office have repeatedly found the Defense
Department lagging behind other major agencies in management and fiscal
responsibility. Last year, the GAO complained of its inability to issue a clean audit
of the entire
federal budget because of "serious financial management problems" at the
Department of Defense.
Two months ago the GAO again singled out the Pentagon for harsh criticism, reporting that it operates eight of the 25
government programs. Comptroller General David Walker said that the cost is
reckoned "in billions of dollars in waste each year and inadequate
accountability to the Congress and the American taxpayer." The failures, which
have persisted for many years, relate to financial and contract management, the
operation of military infrastructure, and the modernization of Pentagon
information technology -- which, in short, are a total mess.
Pentagon traditions of boodling and bungling have been replicated in Iraq,
where they have intensified the misery of the country's inhabitants and
encouraged the murderous insurgency. According to an audit by the special
inspector general for Iraq reconstruction that was released in late January,
the Coalition Provisional Authority lost track of nearly $9 billion in spending
over the past two years. (Of course, the official directly responsible for this
fiasco, former CPA chief L. Paul Bremer, is now wearing the Medal of Freedom
that the president pinned on him last fall.) And thanks to the incompetence and
carelessness of Iraq's U.S. overseers, far more is likely to be lost as a
result of waste, fraud and corruption.
A newly released report from Transparency
International, the Berlin-based organization that monitors corrupt
practices around the world, warns that Iraqi contracting may soon become "the
biggest corruption scandal in history." The group blames the United
providing "a poor role model" in contracting and auditing. (They've likely
Waste, fraud and corruption, those perennial government buzzwords, are indeed
the most pressing problems for the World Bank as it seeks to reform development
aid. So it is difficult to understand why the president -- or any truly
compassionate conservative -- would entrust those enormous concerns to someone
with Wolfowitz's grim and blemished record.
If that wasn't enough, you can consult David Corn's opinion. Use the following
|Thursday, 17 March 2005 at 21h 23m 26s|
Oh, those whining libr'uls
Don't look now, but our fearless legislatures are coming on
against ... steriods and husbands who want to pull the plug on their machine
Tom Delay mingling corporate donations to a children's fund with election year
funds ... nah, that will wait.
Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay bribing legislators on the floor of Congress ...
oh, no step back, that's too hot.
Halliburton charging 127 million dollars to deliver 5 million dollars of
fuel ... yikes, egads, oh dearie me, no.
Dick Cheney receiving more back funds from Halliburton per year than he is paid
as Vice Pres ... oh my, nope, let's keep that one quiet.
Eck-hum ... MICHAEL JACKSON ... MICHAEL JACKSON .
Bush holding fake town meetings with rehearsed-staged questions ... say huhn,
that can't be true
Bush administration fake news tapes paid for with taxpayer dollars ... quick,
blame it on the irresponsible media.
Hundreds of election irregularities on Electronic voting machines in Ohio,
North Carolina, Florida, and New Mexico, all of which were errors in Bushes
favor ... no, that can't be, computers wouldn't fail so one-sidedly right?
What is "hacking"? Those exit polls must be wrong, even though they have never
been so wildly inaccurate.
Reporters and citizens who cast questions at press conferences -- why they must
be hecklers of course? Hmm, hecklers who ask coherent, thoughtful questions
that have nouns, verbs, and supporting clauses. They certainly deserved to be
escorted out by security.
And peaceful protests?
YES I'M SERIOUS.
But don't worry, cause freedom is on the march. That's why the Iraqi Congress
elected by slightly
less than 50% of the iraqi people can't meet to decide on how to make a
constitution. What's the big deal? Brehmer already wrote one for them
And everyone knows that the WMD moved somewhere else, even though every single
commission appointed and sent by the Bush admistration all stated vehemently
that there never were any weapons of mass destruction.
Personally, I'd rather believe pill-head Limbaugh and sexual harraser
O'Reilly. They have more know-how and expertise from their leather chairs than
anyone with a stat sheet, a ton of documents, and thorough on the ground
observation. That freak Scott Ritter was wrong, even though everything he said
was true. But don't worry, ole Scott Ritter won't get any media interviews.
Oh, our troops will start leaving as soon as there are enough Iraqi troops
trained. But the Bush administration can't explain the major discrepancy
between the trainees who actually show up and those whose names are on a
list. This is like having a class of 35 students in which only 5 ever show
And what's the deal with those critics who say that Homeland Security spends
all it's funds on commercials and info-mercials that remind the people why they
have to be scared and prepared to meet the big bad terrorists. And those
statistics about the administration cutting the funds for local police by 80%
are just plain misinterpreted, because surely the same administration which
allows Halliburton to defraud the government must only be cutting the fat out
of the first-responder budget.
You libr'uls are absolutely nuts. Don't you know that steroids and Michael
Jackson are the most important issues facing America today?
|Tuesday, 15 March 2005 at 18h 57m 15s|
Re: The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
A bipartisan group of Bankruptcy Law professors
pleading with Congress not to pass the bankruptcy bill. Here's what they
wrote. Notice the specificity of the reasoning AND the list of sources.
How come we can't get the same specificity and reasoning from the average
congressperson? Instead we get the froth and hyperbole from the comments on
the television nightly news.
We are professors of bankruptcy and commercial law. We are writing with regard
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 685/S.
“bill”). We have been following the bankruptcy reform process for the last
eight years with keen
interest. The 110 undersigned professors come from every region of the country
and from all
major political parties. We are not members of a partisan, organized group. Our
interest is to seek the enactment of a fair, just and efficient bankruptcy law.
Many of us have
written before to express our concerns about earlier versions of this
legislation, and we write
again as yet another version of the bill comes before you. The bill is deeply
flawed, and will
harm small businesses, the elderly, and families with children. We hope the
Representatives will not act on it.
It is a stark fact that the bankruptcy filing rate has slightly more than
doubled during the
last decade, and that last year approximately 1.6 million households filed for
bill’s sponsors view this increase as a product of abuse of bankruptcy by
people who would
otherwise be in a position to pay their debts. Bankruptcy, the bill’s sponsor
says, has become a
system “where deadbeats can get out of paying their debt scott-free while
honest Americans who
play by the rules have to foot the bill.”
We disagree. The bankruptcy filing rate is a symptom. It is not the disease.
people do abuse the bankruptcy system, but the overwhelming majority of people
are in financial distress as a result of job loss, medical expense, divorce, or
a combination of
those causes. In our view, the fundamental change over the last ten years has
been the way that
credit is marketed to consumers. Credit card lenders have become more
aggressive in marketing
their products, and a large, very profitable, market has emerged in subprime
risk is part of the business model. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise
that as credit is
extended to riskier and riskier borrowers, a greater number default when faced
with a financial
reversal. Nonetheless, consumer lending remains highly profitable, even under
The ability to file for bankruptcy and to receive a fresh start provides
crucial aid to
families overwhelmed by financial problems. Through the use of a cumbersome, and
procrustean means-test, along with dozens of other measures aimed at “abuse
bill seeks to shoot a mosquito with a shotgun. By focusing on the opportunistic
use of the
bankruptcy system by relatively few “deadbeats” rather than fashioning a
tailored remedy, this
bill would cripple an already overburdened system.
The principal mechanism aimed at the bankruptcy filing rate is the so
which denies access to Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy to those debtors who
“able” to repay their debts. The bill’s sponsor describes the test as
a “flexible . . . test to assess
an individual's ability to repay his debts,” and as a remedy to “irresponsible
consumerism and lax
bankruptcy law.” While the stated concept is fine – people who can repay their
debts should do
so – the particular mechanism proposed is unnecessary, over-inclusive,
painfully inflexible, and
costly in both financial terms and judicial resources.
• First, the new law is unnecessary. Existing section 707(b) already allows a
judge, upon her own motion or the motion of the United States Trustee, to deny
a discharge in Chapter 7 to prevent a “substantial abuse.” Courts have not
deny discharges where Chapter 7 was being used to preserve a well-to-do
the United States Trustee’s office has already taken it upon itself to object
when, in its view, the debtor has the ability to repay a substantial portion of
his or her
• Second, the new means-test is over-inclusive. Because it is based on income
standards devised by the Internal Revenue Service to deal with tax cheats, the
effect of the “means-test” would be to replace a judicially supervised,
flexible process for
ferreting out abusive filings with a cumbersome, inflexible standard that can
be used by
creditors to impose costs on overburdened families, and deprive them of access
bankruptcy discharge. Any time middle-income debtors have $100/month more income
than the IRS would allow a delinquent taxpayer to keep, they must submit
a 60 month repayment plan. Such a plan would yield a mere $6000 for creditors
five years, less costs of government-sponsored administration.
• Third, to give just one example of its inflexibility, the means-test limits
parochial school tuition expenses to $1500 per year. According to a study by the
National Center for Educational Statistics, even in 1993, $1500 would not have
the average tuition for any category of parochial school (except Seventh Day
and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans).4 Today it would not come close for any
In order to yield a few dollars for credit card issuers, this bill would force
struggling families to take their children from private or parochial school
violation of deeply held religious beliefs) for three to five years in order to
Chapter 13 plan.
• Fourth, the power of creditors to raise the “abuse” issue will significantly
number of means-test hearings. Again, the expense of the hearings will be
to the already strapped debtor. This will add to the cost of filing for
the filing is abusive or not. It will also swamp bankruptcy courts with lengthy
unnecessary hearings, driving up costs for the taxpayers.
• Finally, the bill takes direct aim at attorneys who handle consumer
bankruptcy cases by
making them liable for errors in the debtor’s schedules.
Our problem is not with means-testing per se. Our problem is with the
collateral costs that this
particular means-test would impose. This is not a typical means test, which
acts as a gatekeeper
to the system. It would instead burden the system with needless hearings,
deprive debtors of
access to counsel, and arbitrarily deprive families of needed relief. The human
cost of this delay,
expense, and exclusion from bankruptcy relief is considerable. As a recent
study of medical
bankruptcies shows, during the two years before bankruptcy, 45% of the debtors
studied had to
skip a needed doctor visit. Over 25% had utilities shut off, and nearly 20%
went without food.6
If the costs of bankruptcy are higher, the privations will increase. The vast
individuals and families that file for bankruptcy are honest but unfortunate.
The main effect of
the means-test, along with the other provisions discussed below, will be to
deny them access to a
Other Provisions That Will Deny Access to Bankruptcy Court
The means-test is not the only provision in the bill which is designed to limit
the bankruptcy discharge. There are many others. For example:
• Sections 306 and 309 of the bill (working together) would eliminate the
ability of Chapter
13 debtors to “strip down” liens on personal property, in particular their car,
to the value
of the collateral. As it is, many Chapter 13 debtors are unable to complete the
of payments provided for under their plan. These provisions significantly raise
payments that must be made to secured creditors under a Chapter 13 plan. This
a whipsaw effect on many debtors, who, forced into Chapter 13 by the means-
not have the income necessary to confirm a plan under that Chapter. This group
debtors would be deprived of any discharge whatsoever, either in Chapter 7 or
13. In all cases this will reduce payments to unsecured creditors (a group
ironically, includes many of the sponsors of this legislation).
• Section 106 of the bill would require any individual debtor to receive credit
from a credit counseling agency within 180 days prior to filing for bankruptcy.
credit counseling sounds benign, recent Senate hearings with regard to the
led Senator Norm Coleman to describe the credit counseling industry as a
network of not
for profit companies linked to for-profit conglomerates. The industry is
“consumer complaints about excessive fees, pressure tactics, nonexistent
education, promised results that never come about, ruined credit ratings, poor
many cases being left in worse debt than before they initiated their debt
plan.”7 Mandatory credit counseling would place vulnerable debtors at the mercy
industry where, according to a recent Senate investigation, many of
the “counselors” are
seeking to profit from the misfortune of their customers.8
• Sections 310 and 314 would significantly reduce the ability of debtors to
card debt and would reduce the scope of the fresh start, for even those debtors
able to gain access to bankruptcy.
The cumulative effect of these provisions, and many others contained in the
bill (along with the
means-test) will be to deprive the victims of disease, job loss, and divorce of
much needed relief.
The Elusive Bankruptcy Tax?
The bill’s proponents argue that it is good for consumers because it will
reduce the socalled
“bankruptcy tax.” In their view, the cost of credit card defaults is passed
along to the rest
of those who use credit cards, in the form of higher interest rates. As the
dramatically puts it: “honest Americans who play by the rules have to foot the
argument seems logical. However, it is not supported by facts. The average
interest rate charged
on consumer credit cards has declined considerably over the last dozen years.
between 1992 and 1995, the spread between the credit card interest rate and the
risk free sixmonth
t-bill rate declined significantly, and remained basically constant through
2001.9 At the
same time, the profitability of credit card issuing banks remains at near
Thus, it would appear that hard evidence of the so-called “bankruptcy tax” is
discern. That the unsupported assertion of that phenomenon should drive
Congress to restrict
access to the bankruptcy system, which effectuates Congress’s policies about
the balance of
rights of both creditors and debtors, is simply wrong.
Who Will Bear the Burden of the Means-test?
The bankruptcy filing rate is not uniform throughout the country. In Alaska,
one in 171.2
households files for bankruptcy. In Utah the filing rate is one in 36.5. The
states with the ten
highest bankruptcy filing rates are (in descending order): Utah, Tennessee,
Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi, and Idaho.11 The deepest
hardship will be felt in
the heartland, where the filing rates are highest. The pain will not only be
felt by the debtors
themselves, but also by the local merchants, whose customers will not have the
benefit of the
The fastest growing group of bankruptcy filers is older Americans. While
over 55 make up only about 15% of the people filing for bankruptcy, they are
the fastest growing
age group in bankruptcy. More than 50% of those 65 and older are driven to
medical debts they cannot pay. Eighty-five percent of those over 60 cite either
medical or job
problems as the reason for bankruptcy.12 Here again, abuse is not the issue.
filing rate reveals holes in the Medicare and Social Security systems, as
seniors and aging
members of the baby-boom generation declare bankruptcy to deal with
prescription drug bills,
co-pays, medical supplies, long-term care, and job loss.
Finally, it is crucial to recognize that the filers themselves are not the only
ones to suffer
from financial distress. They often have dependents. As it turns out, families
with children –
single mothers and fathers, as well as intact families – are more likely to
file for bankruptcy than
families without them. In 2001, approximately 1 in 123 adults filed for
bankruptcy. That same
year, 1 in 51 children was a dependent in a family that had filed for
bankruptcy.13 The presence
of children in a household increases the likelihood that the head of household
will file for
bankruptcy by 302%.14 Limiting access to Chapter 7 will deprive these children
(as well as their
parents) of a fresh start.
The bill contains a number of salutary provisions, such as the proposed
protect consumers from predatory lending. Our concern is with the provisions
“bankruptcy abuse.” These provisions are so wrongheaded and flawed that they
make the bill as
a whole unsupportable. We urge you to either remove these provisions or vote
against the bill.
1 Teresa A. Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, Jay Lawrence Westbrook, The Fragile
Middle Class: Americans in Debt
(2001); Marianne Culhane and Michaela White, Taking the New Consumer Bankruptcy
Model for a Test Drive:
Means-Testing for Chapter 7 Debtors, 7 AM. BANKR. INST. L. REV. 27, 28 n.8
2 As one commentator has put it: “[T]he new means testing proposal . . .
has . . . shifted to a command-and-control
approach. Although means testing can be defended in principle - surely, debtors
should repay some of their
obligations if they can realistically do so - mechanical guidelines are both an
artificial and manipulable strategy for
inducing debtors to pay.” David A. Skeel, Jr., Debt’s Dominion (2001) at 210.
3 See, e.g., In re Kornfield, 164 F. 3d 778 (2nd Cir. 1999).
4 National Center for Educational Statistics, Private Schools in the United
States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94
(Table 1.5), available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ps/459t1050.asp.
5 American Bar Association, Fact Sheet: Congress Considers Imposing Harsh New
Liability Standards Against
Bankruptcy Attorneys (December 2004), available at:
6 David U. Himmelstein, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Thorne, and Steffie
Woolhandler, Illness and Injury as
Contributors to Bankruptcy, HEALTH AFFAIRS (2005), available at:
7 Statement of Senator Norm Coleman, Hearing of the Senate Permanent Commission
on Investigations (March 24,
2004), available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
9 Mark Furletti, Credit Card Pricing Developments and their Disclosure (Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia,
January 2003), available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
10 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, The Profitability of
Card Operations of Depository
Institutions (June 2004), available at:
11 Source: American Bankruptcy Institute. Available at:
12 Melissa B. Jacoby, Teresa A. Sullivan, & Elizabeth Warren, Rethinking the
Debates over Health Care Financing:
Evidence from the Bankruptcy Courts, 76 N.Y.U. L. REV. 375, 397-399 (2001);
Elizabeth Warren, Older Americans
in Bankruptcy (October 12, 2004)(working paper). See also, Teresa A. Sullivan,
Elizabeth Warren, Jay Lawrence
Westbrook, The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt (2001) at 165.
|Wednesday, 9 March 2005 at 19h 8m 41s|
Jim McCrery, congressman from West Louisiana
From the Kansas City Star, March 9, 2005:
Rep. Jim McCrery, R-La., the chairman of the panel's Social Security
subcommittee, said Walker was "just dead wrong" and that private accounts, if
coupled with benefit cuts, "can in fact solve the problems of Social Security."
He said it would be "counterproductive" for Bush to rule out private accounts
and urged Democrats to drop their demand that the accounts be dropped.
"Stop this nonsense," McCrery said. "I hope we will all calm down."
Dear Mister McSleasy.
You calm down. You stop this nonsense.
This is simple economics. If you remove from the total you weaken the
aggregate fund. Insurance works when more people put their money into one
fund. That's basic business school McCrery, or did you get your MBA in supine
The funds that are removed will get whittled away by brokerage fees -- which is
what happened in Chile and Great Britain when they went to private accounts.
And Great Britain wants to RETURN TO OUR SYSTEM.
Right now the overhead cost administering this insurance fund, is a mere 2
percent. With private accounts the overhead will rise to 20% or more. And
there will be no guarantee if the account loses money --something that happens
to 40% of mutual funds every year. So are you saying tough luck eating cat
food for at least 40% of our old people?
And when 4.2% gets removed, the employer will only payup on the remaining 2.3%,
further removing financial stability.
And what about the handicap, the disabled, and the children whose father's
die? Who will pay for them?
This is just a chance to pay for debts created by this Republican party (that
means you.) Bush invaded the Teacher's Pension fund when he was Governor, and
he wants to do the same as President.
It's disgusting. I can't believe that you think you are upholding the
constitution and act so slavishly in the interests of the billionaires and the
corporations they control.
But what does a political hack from Shreveport care? Your making your bills
sucking and slurping like a fiend.
It must taste good McCrery, but you are no patriot. You are either an idiot,
or a wolf with a good-ole boy smile. You are wrong sir. You are cruel and you
are wrong sir.
Shame on you, boy.
|Tuesday, 8 March 2005 at 20h 19m 39s|
Watching television regularly, eh?
How much does watching television promote degenerate behavior?
Of course, humans will always produce macabre reflections of themselves in the
actions of murderers, thieves, addicts, and other dysfunctional behavior.
This is not to say that we should blame society for the ills and actions of
certain individuals, BUT we must also realize that there will always be a
percentage of the larger population who are vulnerable or not as mentally
strong as others. A society which forces this percentage to confront
ridiculous and unnecessary stress or emotional disruption is asking for a chain
reaction. But providing for the basic needs of all people is seen as
socialistic. People are assumed to benefit by competiting with individuals,
or they fall by the wayside into some subservient realm because they can't hack
The bang-the-hammer-harder approach and its concomitant ideas about
survival-of-the-fittest mistake the individuals for the species. We are
no different than ants. We cannot live separated from the others, and our
survival depends upon everyone else being able to survive. Decisions must be
made for the good of the whole. When decisions are being made which are bad
for the whole, they are justified based upon a model which assumes that which
is good for the individual is also good for the whole. But since all are not
created with equal strengths and weaknesses, we cannot presume that all
individuals will be able (either physically or mentally) to benefit from any
arrangement which presumes that only the strongest will survive. This is true
when it comes to the species, whereby only the strong species are able to live
and continue to have offspring. When we discuss the intra-relations within the
members of the species however, we are mistaking the individuals for the
species. Within the species survival depends upon balance and shared
The philosophy of striving and getting ahead cannot understand balance and
shared responsibility because these ideas are not even on the mental map.
Striving and getting ahead only concern themselves with behavior mechanisms,
points of strategic value, and how best to defend the perimeter. In this
mindset, the belief that the individual creates society is only a reflection of
the world view that comes from striving and getting ahead. The idea of balance
extensively lessens the importance of the sacred perimeter and creates
mechanisms which are not bent upon getting ahead, but of sharing and
cooperation. The idea of team degenerates into an egotistical competition of
teammates. Although the team can function well enough under this condition,
the ideas and roles of the teammates are not the same, much as the friendly
neighborhood police force is different from a corrupt, pugnacious and
autocratic version of the police force. The roles of our institutions lose
touch with their purpose by this polarity of individualism.
Where does such a rampant individualism come from? You got it. Television. A
gaining percent of the daily time we spend incorporating into our attention the
actions of acted roles and commercial advertizements paid for by huge
corporations. There is a decrease in the attention span spent cognizant of
those in our community. Where and how we get the daily news is just as
important what the news is. The cultural display of ourselves, the morals we
like to embellish, the cherishing of heros and heriones has degenerated into
stars and fantasy lifestyles, and moral self-righteousness. Commercials depict
us as slavish nicompoops, crafty idiots, or suave players in the game of life.
We watch as we applaud ourselves and as we point fingers and try to have
everything nailed down to one short paragraph so that we can provide for the
watchers -- at this very second -- that which alludes the grasp and cannot be
captured. But we have it right here, only on the Itz Happenin Now channel.
And thusly a certain portion of our selves and minds grow an attachment to this
display of culture and twisted commercialism. We presume that we can filter
out the silliness, but nevertheless the attachment is formed whenever a thought
occurs in response to stimuli. Gradually we are pulled away from the mutuality
of the species, and slowly we are trained to adhere to the survival-of-the-
fittest mentality, and slowly we lose the balance and shared responsibility
because we begin to respond to the evolution of decades through the medium of
the TV which has portrayed those decades.
We cannot presume that our species will remain the same when we are interacting
with new mediums of communication and machines, including this very computer
upon which these words are read -- and typed. Every tool brings benefits and
dependencies, but no tool has ever had the power of television to shape the
mind without a context based upon a false here-and-now reality. What you see
on TV is somewhere else, and may have happened at some other time. Or it is
many different points of time in the past that get chopped up into a final
version. When you read, your mind produces its own mental imagery and
thoughts. The combined video-audio experience that is television and
cinematography however provides everything, so there is no development of
mental imagery and thoughts, only an emotional reaction to images and thought
packages, and a memory of what you saw and heard, not what you thought about or
Did I answer the question?
|Monday, 7 March 2005 at 14h 23m 17s|
The Law of cultural development
Citizens, denizens of urbanity, bucolic holdovers of rural
time to reveal the Law of Cultural Development.Who we are as a people is
directly proportional to what we pay attention to regularly, and how the
rewards of society are distributed.
That being said, you have to ask : what justice and sanity makes it reasonable
to assign wealth to the luck of birth? This is not really a moral question.
It is not that it is bad to be rich. There is nothing wrong with having money
and living well without concern for food, clothing, and shelter. But why
should this just be the luck of birth, and what happens when the surplus funds
get used to gather more money?
Money is created to represent all the wealth obtained and transformed from the
Earth's natural resources. Essentially the number of people in the world or
community who desire or need the resources exchange the bills of commerce. So
when large amounts of it accumulate into smaller groups this means that more
people have less and less control over their own well-being, and are subject to
the whims and desires of those who control the way the resources are
We assume that wealth is a reflection of success and hard work, which is often
true. The majority of millionaires work very hard for their funds, and are
just as often only a bad sequence of events away from bankruptcy. Wealth is
not in itself a reflection of unworthy accumulation. Those who take on larger
responsibilities, those who are responsible, reliable, and who work hard should
be well paid. But what does it mean when the rewards of financial accumulation
also accrue to those who gain control of funds to where they are no longer ever
in danger of bankruptcy because they are too large to fail. Billionaires do
not go broke.
Our society does not like to discuss the issue of power. Instead we gloss over
the issue with the automation of the free market economic system. All those
who are wealthy have obtained that status because they were efficient providers
of goods and services, or they were talented and determined. But what if we
speak of men who are talented at duplicity and manipulation that are determined
to accumulate more power? These are the nascent beginnings of aristocracy.
And what happens when the developing aristocracy decides to collectively
relinquish any responsible relationship with the society, building gated
communities from which they occassionally leave while being driven by a
chauffeur. This is not a process that develops over a couple of years, but
rather after a couple of generations.
The final analysis is this : there is equal danger between a bureaucratic
corrupt government as there is the rise of an aristocratic order. There is no
difference between the one and the other when the aristocracy does not live the
lives of the common people. Despotism is not just something government
creates, as certain liberterians would ascribe as their root philosophical
understanding. Despotism occurs when power accumulates in the hands of a few.
The sycophants and psychopaths who decorate the enterprises of dictatorship are
the same people, whether they are exploited by political hacks or the
aristocratic regime of a few plutocrats.
|Wednesday, 2 March 2005 at 9h 7m 48s|
Mind fiends who call themselves righteous
The fiends of mind-warped opinion are just power addicts and
They hire themselves into huge pyramids of talking smack addicts, all of them
bent on kissing ass and playing mind-games while each they try to claw over one
another, smiling and high flying when in the spotlight.
They are like high school debate club addicts. They don't care about right and
wrong. They confuse manipulation with reason because all they care about is
victory and money when they dip in and out like glossy sharks waiting for the
precise moment to strike, pondering the slithering words which will prepare the
victim for the stiletto.
So when you pose heartfelt and reasonable objections that have solid details,
don't expect them to listen trying to understand your point of view. That is
you. Not them. They are sniffing for weaknesses. They are quickly throwing
up objections like fighters in a boxing ring. They see having a discussion as
a combat which results in a victory, rather than an event which results in a
common understanding; or as some moment to play their cards right, to put forth
the smoke-screen amongst their other fellow confabulators; or plot with them.
Oh, they are the first to denounce, ridicule, and vilify the philosophy of what
they perceive as an opposition because it is the core of their believe system.
Ask them what they believe in and notice that the result is not rooted in
details, or is often stated with a "I just don't believe that..." They run
their mouths on and on about being "fiscally conservative" or "fair-minded" but
look the other way at wasted money and corruption.
It's all talk. Nestled next to their strident hypocritical, self-righteousness
is an amorphous ambiguity, able to twist and distort every argument, even lie,
because the goal is victory not understanding.
These people are dangerous, but the self-promoting sycophants are allowed
mouthpieces of vast influence. They sit around (and go around) acting like
their rampaging banter is the equivalence of insightful conversation. They
beam a pompousness that resembles children proud of their new "poopy," and
every moment for them is another re-enactment of that time they took their
first shit. And really, they hate themselves. Which is yet another, darker
reason for their vigilance over victory. They have to win because the
consequences are but too dire. They talk the talk because they have to tell
themselves that others have problems, and that that which they denounce is not
And they will keep talking until some "big daddy" kicks them where it hurts,
whence they transform into pitiful and driveling, like slime gladly able to
still cling to the brick wall. Yes it is slime that is holding the attention
of an audience of fools. They have merely put up the illusion of themselves,
and the audience believes.
|Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 19h 6m 8s|
Okay like, it’s really quite simple, you know, but, well, this might
take a while to explain. You see. It all started sometime in the past,
although I can’t offer you any particular date, or specific time when the said
event occurred. Rather, it was just something that all of a sudden became
realized. The thing was there all along, and still is, always will be, and so
on and so on, and so on. Then, one day – or one moment – the realization of
what the thing was or could be appeared like a sudden burst of fire, and the
mind burned with the seething realizations, millions of beads of water pounding
upon the stone, falling from the waterfall 200 feet above.
This thing is called life. You cast yourself into the unknown
thoughtlessly, completely driven by the habits of sheer will. Every now and
then a little morsel of understanding appears, every now and then there are
painful breeches when we have to try and understand what is quite non-
understandable. During these situations there are no words which completely
describe anything, only emotions which don’t make any sense. In our often
deranged irrational attempts we use to feebly try to solve that which is
unsolvable, because these are great wounds and take time to heal, and crying is
the only way we know how to heal.
I said it was really that simple.
Crying is the only way we know how to heal.
|Tuesday, 8 February 2005 at 0h 1m 58s|
How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a lightbulb?
There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its' conditions are improving
Any reports of its' lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the
There is no shortage of filament.
That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the
Why do you hate freedom?
|Thursday, 27 January 2005 at 9h 23m 41s|
Freedom-loving blind bats
Listening to Republicans speak of themselves, you get
party is one big love-fest when they refer to themselves as "freedom loving."
But since "freedom is not free" then where, I ask, is the love or the freedom?
Freedom loving. What a joke. Oh they love freedom alright. Let me explain.
They love freedom so much that senior citizens are not free to purchase cheaper
drugs from Canada. When asked why, the representatives of the "freedom-lovers"
say that imported drugs are not safe, but fail to mention that many of the
drugs drug companies sell are imported from Canada. So you can only import
drugs if you are a corporate Drug company.
Ah, ha. Freedom for corporations and wealthy investors only.
Oh and freedom is so loved that they bribed Republicans on the floor of the
House to get the Medicare rape bill passed. Republican legislators were not
free to vote as the wanted, and had to have their arms twisted by Dennis
Hastert and Tom DeLay for 3 hours.
So Republicans in Congress are only free to do as the leadership tells them, or
they get the cold shoulder and are ostracized.
And then the Bush administration was free to lie about the real costs of the
medicare rape bill. The head administrator who audits medicare was threatened
with his job if he revealed the true costs. Tax payer money was used to make
news videos with fake news reporters speaking gloriously of the great new
medicare bill. This is apparently called freedom of speech, but all of it is a
grand hoax to bilk the tax-payers and sell our nation to the front corporations
controlled by wealthy investors.
And don't give me that "everyone can buy stock and invest in corporations"
nonsense, because although true, you can't compare a small $500,000 investment
to a trust fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There are millions of
small investors vulnerable to the big players, no different than the millions
of consumers vulnerable to the big corporations.
And because "freedom is not free" we have to have military excursions into
choosen middle eastern nations that have lots of oil. We have to lie about the
reasons and promote forged documents about non-existent yellowcake Uranium
sales from Nigeria, because freedom also included the freedom to lie. And
freedom is no doubt being installed now by the massive fire-sale of Iraq to
corporations and administration cronys who hired imported cheap labor and
export profits without reinvestment. Corporations who provided supplies to our
freedom-fighters were not able to provide adequate supplies, but were free to
skim off their profits -- since freedom is not free you see.
And elections are free when we call them free, ignoring all of the polling
booths that are bombed and all of the trade union leaders that are getting
assassinated by "operatives." Because the people are free only when they
accept their corporate masters, and when they pull the levers to choose for one
of the acceptable government candidates. Is it important that only 50% of the
population will vote? Is it important that Iraqi's had to register to vote
before they got their food rations? Not according to the Republican ink-
fingers who blame our bad foreign policy on
the "insurgents","terrorists", and "dead-enders" who hate freedom -- or at
least the current version. The people are free to drink untreated water, to
breathe the radiation and the toxic waste created by the military bombs dropped
from the freedom-loving Americans. We killed more people in Iraq because of
the war and the 10 year economic boycott than Saddam did as the freedom-hating
dictator. But freedom is worth the cost I'm sure. And after all, freedom is
not free, right?
This is the freedom to exploit and profit at the expense of the localities
being exploited, who get to watch the profits made from their resources leave
the nation to freely find other investments and make more profit.
These freedom-lovers are oxymorons. They blind themselves and sing hymnals of
praise about a glorious cause, using words that have no underlying contextual
validity. There are plenty of killers who justified their murdering with
convoluted self-serving reasoning.
Which freedom are they talking about? The freedom to lie, cheat, murder, and
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS