December 22, 2010

+ Gingrich on lobbyists SUNDAYS 060101 + -DN!, January 4, 2006, 11:40:00 Ben Nighthorse Campbell saw indians in person. Despite at least 2 reforms, it seems that someone without good intent can find loopholes. Abramoff, being Jewish, how could he do that to people (indians) who are victims of the 400 year holocaust beginning with Columbus. -DN!, January 4, 2006, 11:40:24 -->


Governments have murdered and/or otherwise directly killed 262 million (262,000,000) men, women and children in the 20th century alone, and, by fiddling their fiat currencies, [CHOOSE BEST LINK FROM HERE:] often to the point of hyperinflation, impoverished at least another billion of us {and | while} retard{ed | ing} our standard of living by hamstringing trade [1], and they came close -- at least seven times -- to wiping out not only the human race, but every living thing on earth above the level of insects with their nuclear weapons. What's the offsetting positive value? [OBAMA ADMITS THE NUCLEAR FLY-OVER OF AMERICA There was a case when we had nuclear weapons flying across the United States and nobody knew about it. Gates did the right thing. Everyone can improve their nuclear security. -Obama on Nuclear Security Summit, C-SPAN, April 13, 2010, 17:05:17] [SOMEBODY (LAWRENCE BENTER?) MAKER OF "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" ETC. SAYS YELTSIN CAME WITHIN 5 MINUTES OF A RETALITORY NUCLEAR STRIKE TO A MISTAKENLY PERCEIVED US ATTACK. BILL MAHER'S REAL TIME, Friday, April 16, 2010]
Clinton Urges Senate Ratification of START Treaty
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is urging Senate passage of an arms control treaty with Russia following a delayed vote on the pact last week. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty calls for the US and Russia to cut their deployed arsenals to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 missile silos and bombers each. Democrats have moved a vote on the measure to next month to address Republican demands on preserving nuclear spending. Clinton said failure to approve the deal threatens national security.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "Our national security is at risk. There is an urgency to ratify this treaty, because we currently lack verification measures with Russia, which only hurts our national security interests. Our ability to know and understand changes in Russia's nuclear arsenal will erode without the treaty." --Headlines for August 12, 2010


"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." --Cicero - 55 BC

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. --Thomas Jefferson

The government, under the pretext of security and progress, liberated us [Native Americans] from our land, resources, culture, dignity and future. They violated every treaty they ever made with us. ... My words reach out to the non-Indian: ... Your own treaty, the one between yourselves and the government, is being violated daily; this treaty is commonly known as the Constitution. With us, they started a little at a time, encroaching on our rights until we had none at all. [2] It will be the same for the Constitution; We are ...embattled with ...a mindset that lusts for power and wealth at the expense of life. --Anniversary Statement from Leonard Peltier, Fri, 23 Jan, 2004


What story do textbooks tell about our government? First, they imply that the state we live in today is the state created in 1789. Textbook authors overlook the possibility that the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution, granting some power to each branch of the federal government, some to the states, and reserving some for individuals, has been decisively altered over the last two hundred years. The federal government they picture is still the people's servant, manageable and tractable. --James W. Loewen, LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, (New York, NY: Touchstone 1996), p. 215 & 216

Iconic "Tonight Show" host Johnny Carson as "Carnac the Magnificent" (his schtick is he answers questions sealed in envelopes before he sees them):

[Carnac, holding a 'hermetically sealed' envelope (kept in a mason jar on Funk and Wagnal's back porch since noon) to his forehead] "The answer is, 'Government of the people, by the people and for the people.'"

[Tearing open the envelope] "The question is, 'Describe an ancient legend.'"

A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit [by] governments of policies to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any human activity. ...Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggest? Why does intelligent mental process seem so often not to function? --The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Barbara Tuchman, 1984

Three Stooges or Government? VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

David Letterman from This Week, Aug. 20, 2006

There isn't any problem in the world so bad that a government can't make it worse. --Unknown

Everything the government touches turns to crap. --Legendary Beatle drummer, Ringo Starr

Trust Deficit
--Lost Faith in Institutions Hurts U.S. Outlook, WSJ, MARCH 28, 2010

It's only been a little more than 100 years since most people lived their entire lives without any contact with -- or need of -- government. --Neal Wright

A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. -- Dresden James

Government is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force; and like fire, it makes a dangerous servant and a fearful master. --George Washington

Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression. --Herbert Spencer, 1850.

I guess [investment banks] Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers weren't making their proper contributions. You know, this [is] kind of like the Mob, isn't it? Those who make the proper payments to the head don, they get to live (i.e. get taxpayer bailout money), and the others don't. It's such an unfair system all around. -- Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore

[MAY HAVE BEEN USED IN "LIARS AS LEADERS"] Why does corruption in government always surprise us? Why do we expect anything else from it? Government is organized force. It takes our wealth and makes war. And we think honest men would do that work? --Columnist Joseph Sobran

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable. --H.L.Mencken
A government is not the expression of the will of the people, but rather the expression of what the people will tolerate. --Kurt Tucholsky
Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. --Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
"The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime." --Voltaire
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. --Thomas Jefferson

What everyone knows: Governments Fail VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Various sources

"We don't read most of the bills." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Michael Moore, Farenheit 911

Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent. --H. L. Mencken

Government is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force; and like fire, it makes a dangerous servant and a fearful master. --George Washington

The government is not your friend. --Fox News's "The Judge" Andrew P. Napolitano

The fundamental sociological law of political parties (the term 'political' being here used in its most comprehensive sense) may be formulated in the following terms: "It is organization which gives birth tm the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy." --Lee Harris, The Iron Law of Oligarchy, Revisited

In India, the word public is now a Hindi word. It means people. In Hindi, we have sarkar and public, the government and the people. Inherent in this use is the underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from "the people." -- Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire

Governments represent their interests, not yours VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Democracy NOW! Nov. 24, 2006

Seminal linguist Noam Chomsky VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

clip from "Manufacturing Consent"


I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it. --Dwight D. Eisenhower

Veteran war correspondent Robert Fisk on governments and war VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Broadcast on Democracy NOW!, Oct. 20, 2005

Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism. --Ludwig von Mises

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. --Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Richardson: "I stand behind the sanctions." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Democracy NOW! September 22, 2005

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000!!!!!!!.TXt>

Happiness is more generally and equally diffus'd among Savages than in civilized societies. No European who has tasted savage life can afterwards bear to live in our societies. --Benjamin Franklin**, 1770 [3] 8 A NEW CHAPTER, Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. --Thomas Jefferson {ALMOST CERTAINLY USED ABOVE IN "Anarchy?? Or is it Spontaneous Order?"}

The Case Against Government


In this chapter, as the title suggests, we'll look at the case against government. We'll divide this into two aspects: The theoretical case against government and the actual case against government "from the record." We'll look at the theoretical case first. For convenience, we can divide the theoretical case against government into at least three areas: ^^w

Rhetoric versus Results

CAG: SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Governemnt protects us. SS. Mines are safe, oil companies pay for the spills, our food is safe, our water is clean, and the air safe to breathe. -Obama @ Carnegie-Mellon via. CNBC, June 2, 2010, 13:39:15 [GET THIS]

Making a "Case Against Government" sounds strange to most people. After all, we know government is our protector, and while bumbling and often incompetent, "its" intentions are good. Aren't they?

Well, as we now know, not only aren't the intentions of the coercive memetic machines called "government" good, they're likely, overall, inimical to "we the people" over whom they arrogate themselves power.

And we know the media's role in maintaining this "centralized political power" in the modern world. What this means is that there is a lot of rhetoric about the supposed benefits of governments -- remember as Noam Chomsky pointed out, [MORE PROPAGANDA IN A DEMOCRACY THAN IN A DICTATORSHIP].

So, I don't care much about the PR and rhetoric, and in this chapter, we will be looking almost exclusively at the actual results -- and the reasons these sorts of results are so consistent. For example:

El Paso City Council approved $110,000 to hire a private security firm to protect the police station. --HEADLINES!, Jay Leno, December 26, 2005, 23:55:21
|cm:**Another success story! |fn:

Subject: [Politics] Another success story! Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 1:59 PM From: "L. Reichard White" To:

Americans are the world's top consumers of cannabis and cocaine despite punitive US drug laws, according to an international study published in the online scientific magazine PLoS Medicine. + The study, released Monday, revealed that 16.2 percent of Americans had tried cocaine at least once, and 42.4 percent had used marijuana. ... the findings present comprehensive data on the patterns of drug use from national samples representing all regions of the world... + Drug use "does not appear to be simply related to drug policy," the researchers wrote, "since countries with more stringent policies toward illegal drug use did not have lower levels of such drug use than countries with more liberal policies." + In the Netherlands, where drug policy is more liberal than the United States, 1.9 percent of survey participants said they had used cocaine and 19.8 percent marijuana.... + And despite the US government's massive anti-drug efforts, the United States remains the world's top drug market... Americans are world's top drug users: study, Jul 1 12:07 PM US/Eastern

Health, happiness, & long life, Rick

Capture Theory , [4.74mb 27sec]>

CAP: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Big finance and big business capture big government and take over the regulatory apparatus. That's jungle capitalism. --Cornel West, Bill Maher's Real Time, 05-28-10 [DVD'D June 6, 2010, 05:53:34] FDR said in Madison Square Garden, "Government as organized money is as dangerous as organized mob." --Cornell West, Bill Maher's Real Time, 05-28-10 [DVD'D June 6, 2010, 05:53:34]

The government behaved like all the governments behave. They feel themselves and they act as partners and assistants of the conventional power structure. This has many reasons.... The most comfortable way to corrupt a politician is the method, illegal method, to pay them later, after office-after office, after leaving government, then hiring him for the board. And this is very popular here, a very usable way of, let's say, legalized corruption.... --Hermann Scheer (1944-2010): German Lawmaker, Leading Advocate for Solar Energy and "Hero for the Green Century" in One of His Final Interviews
--Retiring CFTC Judge: We Covered Up Market Manipulation, Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Symptoms of "Capture Theory?" +

Study: Lawmakers' Personal Wealth Increased 16% in 2008
A new study shows members of Congress saw a boost in personal wealth as the U.S. economy suffered the worst of the economic recession. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lawmakers' personal wealth increased an average 16 percent between 2008 and 2009. The number of millionaires rose to 261, nearly half the total members of Congress. The median wealth of a House member topped $765,000, while the average for a senator was more than $2.3 million. --Democracy Now!, Headlines for November 18, 2010

The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. ... The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of their bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. --Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, Speeches published as "The New Freedom," 1913
Introduction: An Overview of Deep Capture {} One of my best original pieces to ABAH. SEE THIS!!! {South Korean internet geeks trigger panic over US 'tainted beef' imports!!!!!.htm>} Wednesday, June 25, 2008

|cm: Chomsky on State Capitalism |fn: SEE: < |cm: CAP: Political democracy> below for meat

NOAM CHOMSKY: ...But the general-we do not have a capitalist economy. We have kind of a state capitalist economy in which the public has a role: pay the costs, take the risks, bail out if they get into trouble. And the private sector has a role: make profit, and then turn to the public if you get into trouble....

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it's a problem of the general dysfunction of formal democracy. I mean, there's a very substantial gap between public opinion and public policy on a host of major issues.... Elections are run as marketing extravaganzas, and that's not kept secret. So the advertising industry gives an award every year for best marketing campaign of the year. For 2008, they gave it to Obama. He beat out, I think, Apple Computer.... "We've been marketing candidates like commodities ever since Reagan, but this is the best we've ever done.... .

And if you look at the campaigns themselves, they're designed essentially by the advertising industry to sell the commodity-it happens to be a candidate-and they're pretty carefully designed so that you marginalize issues and you focus on what are called "qualities." In Obama's case, you know, soaring rhetoric and so on; in Bush's case, a nice guy and like to have a beer with him and so on. That's the kind of thing you focus on. Where do they stand on issues? Well, the public is mostly uninformed.... the public had almost no idea what Bush's stand was. In fact, a majority of Bush voters thought that he supported the Kyoto Protocol, because they support it, and he's a nice guy, so he must support it.

And elections are designed that way, and it makes good sense. I mean, the people who run the elections, they read the polls, and very carefully, in fact. In fact, they mostly the design them for their own interest.... --April 13, 2009, Noam Chomsky on the Global Economic Crisis, Healthcare, US Foreign Policy and Resistance to American Empire

|cm: CAP: Political democracy |fn:

AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think Obama chose to surround himself?
NOAM CHOMSKY: ...his constituency is basically the financial institutions. Just take a look at the funding for his campaign. I mean, the final figures haven't come out, but we have preliminary figures, and it seems to be mostly financial institutions. I mean, the financial institutions preferred him to McCain. They are the main funders for both-you know, I mean, core funders for both parties, but considerably more to Obama than McCain.
You can learn a lot from campaign contributions. In fact, one of the best predictors of policy around is Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of politics, as he calls it-very outstanding political economist... he describes elections as occasions in which groups of investors coalesce and invest to control the state. And he takes a look at the formation of campaign contributors, and it gives you a surprisingly good prediction of what policies are going to be. It goes back a century, New Deal and so on. So, yeah, it can predict pretty well what Obama is going to do. There's nothing surprising about this. It's the norm in what's called political democracy.
[FROM: ]
The late Milton Friedman agreed, calling for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. It was unnecessary, he argued: private companies would avoid taking risks with public health to safeguard their reputations and to avoid damaging class-action lawsuits. ... Paul Krugman : Anti-regulation agenda harms public, businesses, My opinion Paul Krugman, Tucson, Arizona | Published: 06.16.2008

Now, as exhibit A:

They [Chicago School economists led by Friedman] never had enough votes to abolish the FDA or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective. They did this in part by simply denying these agencies enough resources to do the job. --Krugman

And exhibit B:

"The Food And Drug Administration has 700 inspectors and lab personnel to monitor 53,000 food-processing plants and all imported produce. Plant inspections have slipped from once every three to five years in 1992 to once every 10 years today." -U.S.NEWS & World Report, Nov. 24, 1997, "O is for Outbreak," pg. 72

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let's drill down, as the current lexicon likes to say, and see what we find. Indeed, as Mr. Krugman suggests, FDA inspections have been approximately halved since 1992.

But halved from what? If we assume that previous government standards were pretty good, coming as they did from a long tradition of more aggressive inspections, we find the best they had to offer were inspections "once every three to five years." Does that, ladies and gentlemen, make you feel safe?

I can hear you thinking. "Well, once every three to five years is better than nothing."

No, it's not. It's worse than nothing.

Because, if you DO feel safe, clearly you've been fraudulently disarmed from taking responsibility into your own hands and taking food safety measures in your own home, looking for purity certification from a private company (which depends on its reputation for continued existence) -- Creekstone Beef perhaps -- etc.

You can't find such a private certification organization? That's because the "market" has been lulled into a false sense of security by those once-every-three-to-five-year "free" FDA inspections. Or the alternatives have been shut down by the captured government apparatus. As were Creekstone "mad cow" inspections.

So, "free" (you get what you pay for) government inspections are WORSE than nothing. Remember Alta Deena, Monsanto, Creekstone, etc.

P.S. The ultimate capture theory perversion is unfolding in S. Korea where the population is rioting against its government: Rather than protecting "they the people" from possible mad cow disease -- it is, instead, protecting U.S. meat packer foreign sales -- including Creekstone, precluded from inspecting every carcass it processed, remember -- by the FDA/USDA axis.


P.P.S. I know you wish the creature was watching the food instead of spying on us. Me too. And yes, the Democrats were plumb pitiful. Again. Voting for immunity for the telecoms yesterday and authorizing another huge chunk of your future income -- and the income of the kids, grand kids, and even the yet unborn too -- to fund those "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know you wish it were different. Me too. But, Pollyanna, it isn't. And never has been. Why would you believe it will be different in the future?

As a general rule economists have found that government regulation of industries harms consumers and often gives monopoly power to producers. Some of these findings were behind the widespread support of economists for the deregulation of transportation, natural gas, and banking, which gained momentum in the Carter administration and continued until halfway through the Reagan administration.... Biography of George J. Stigler (1911-91)

IO: IMRAN KHAN: ...I discovered that in our country [Pakistan] there's a tiny elite who has usurped the resources of the whole country. The whole country panders to this tiny elite. By the way, I belong to them. And the rich are getting richer. And the vast majority of people don't even have basic rights.... what is happening is, the elite has basically captured the government. Whether it's one party or the other, basically the interests are the same. And so, they come into government, and they plunder the country. They usurp the resources. And so, common people are deprived of all the basic needs... Pakistani Opposition Leader Imran Khan on Musharraf, Bhutto, and How the U.S. Has Undermined Pakistani Democracy, January 30, 2008 {-DN!, January 30, 2008, 11:46:34 }
The Indian elite [from India], like the elite anywhere in the world, finds it hard to separate itself from the state. It sees like the state, it thinks like the state, it speaks like the state. - Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire


When air monitors have been outlawed, only outlaws will have air monitors">

The Great Un-leveler What controls government

|cm:CAP: Lawmakers Outraged by FAA Safety Violations |fn:
All Things Considered, April 3, 2008 Investigators and whistleblowers testified before a House committee Thursday that the Federal Avaiation Administration has gotten too cozy with the airlines and failed to exercise the oversight required by law.
FAA inspectors say they were pressured to gloss over problems at major airlines, including Northwest, United and Continental, as well as at Southwest...
...First, Southwest Airlines grounded dozens of 737s because of missed safety inspections. Then last week, American Airlines and Delta had to cancel hundreds of flights after concerns about the airplanes' wiring. Wednesday, it was United's turn ...[FAA Inspectors] Bobby Boutris and Douglas Peters told their story to NPR.... "I had found a lot of inconsistencies with the [Southwest] records," Boutris says.... Boutris wanted to send a letter of investigation, but the supervisor refused.... in Boutris' particular circumstances, according to FAA rules, he was required to investigate further.... .
Boutris says he was blocked yet again by the supervisor, Douglas Gawadzinski... Gawadzinski was friends with a man named Paul Comeau, a former FAA inspector who had accepted a position with Southwest Airlines.... it wasn't long before the supervisory maintenance inspector told Boutris he was out and that his career was in jeopardy... .
This is where the second FAA whistleblower, Peters, became involved.
Peters was asked to review Boutris' Southwest investigation.... Peters says Southwest also began trying to interfere with his investigation by going behind his back to FAA supervisor Gawadzinski....
Peters says the problem at the FAA involves more than one rogue supervisor. He says higher-ups in the agency have known for three years that there were serious problems with aircraft maintenance inspections and have done nothing....
The FAA's announcement that four more airlines are now under investigation for failing to comply with federal maintenance regulation seems only to underscore Boutris' contention that other FAA investigators have been stymied by their supervisors.
Congress' reaction will determine a lot about future aircraft safety, Boutris says. "The flying public needs to know that we need their support. This way, we can do what we were hired for."... Lawmakers Outraged by FAA Safety Violations, by Kathleen Schalch, All Things Considered, April 3, 2008
Fascism Fascism

The natural trend of this "capturing" of government is toward fascism, that is, a close partnership between business and the state.

DAVE ZIRIN: Yes, Merritt Paulson, his father, Henry Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury, worth $700 million-that's a low estimate. And, of course, he named his son Merritt. I guess naming him "Legacy" would be too obvious. And-no, Merritt is a family name, but still it's somewhat comical. It's Dickensian, if you will. And Merritt Paulson has demanded-and received-hundreds of millions of dollars from the city of Portland. When people think of Portland, they think of the Pacific Northwest and what have you, but it's actually got incredibly high rates of poverty, very high rates of unemployment, very high rates of child poverty. And Merritt Paulson has taken public money to build a Minor League franchise out there. And it's-to me, it's a monstrous process, and that is only like the most obvious and weird example of it, but there are other examples that are even more disturbing.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But his father also-
DAVE ZIRIN: Is a partial owner of the team.
JUAN GONZALEZ: -is a partial owner, right? So we have a-
DAVE ZIRIN: Yeah, Henry Paulson is a partial owner of the team. So we are underwriting the sports ownership of Henry Paulson.... --Dave Zirin on "Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love"
Quality of Services

Since we're building "The Case Against Government" in this chapter -- and by this time, you probably have at least an inkling how horrendous the "big picture" of government is -- it's appropriate to {first } {examine | take a cursory look at} governments' primary product, legislation.

Where Laws Come From

the Commodity Futures Modernization Act... specifies that products offered by banking institutions could not be regulated as futures contracts.
This bill, by the way, was 11,000 pages long, was never debated by Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton a week after it was passed.... --Commentary, 7:28 AM, 19 Nov 2008, Alan Kohler, A tsunami of hope or terror?

In ^^w the 1970s and 1980s, I was active in the Libertarian Party of Nevada. Since I had a very adjustable schedule -- and knew the Vegas media at that time -- I was sometimes asked to escort visiting libertarians around to the various news outlets for interviews. One day I picked up a tall, jovial dude by the name of Larry Dodge from McCarran Airport and took him around for interviews. He was publicizing an organization known by the acronym of "FIJA." FIJA stands for "Fully Informed Jury Association."

In a nutshell, FIJA attempts to educate the general public -- jurors in particular -- of their power to nulify bad laws. This is called, logically enough, "jury nullification." The concept is that a jury may decide "not guilty" not only on the facts of the case (did the prosecution show convincing evidence) but also on the merits of the particular law itself.

Suppose a legislature passed a law requiring all Jewish people to wear a "Star of David," for example -- and someone was on trial for not wearing one. [4] Jury nullification allows any juror who thinks a particular law is a bad idea in such a case to vote "not guilty" regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Thus, even though the State proves as fact that our Star of David denier actually wasn't wearing his Star, any or all jurors can still vote "Not guilty!" based on the inappropriatness of the law itself.

In free practice -- that is, selecting juries in a truly random manner -- jury nullification not only protects us all from bad laws, but also protects minorities as small as 8% of the population from suppression -- as in the "Star of David" example above. How? Odds become good that any randomly selected twelve person jury will contain at least one member of any 8% minority. (One twelfth (1/12) of the population equals 8.3% of the population.)

This minority juror will likely nullify the supressive law by voting "not guilty" on the deficiencies of the law rather than on the facts of the case. This makes it expensive and untennable to enforce such laws -- since the juries keep throwing them out -- and this, defacto, nullifies them by making it impractical to enforce them. This is the final power to check bad, incompetent, or run-away government. And it rests in the hands of "we the people" when we become members of a jury.

The idea is as old as the jury system itself. It exists whether or not it is officially recognized or officially sanctioned. If you are ever a juror, you too can automatically exercize "jury nullification" on bad laws by simply but quietly voting "not guilty." You may want to remember this for future reference. [5]

In the process of ferrying Larry Dodge around Vegas, I got the privilege of sharing a few of his experiences. One in particular stuck with me -- and in a sense, forms the basis of this section. It seems that, as Larry tells it, he was in Georgia, dropping in and "cold calling" members of the legislature as was his habit when he traveled.

He happened on one particular Georgia legislator who he didn't know and had never met. When Larry introduced himself, the legislator "lit up," as Larry put it, shook his hand vigorously, said "You're that guy from the fully informed jury organization aren't you," and, "Boy am I glad to meet you!"

Larry's a very laid-back and modest guy, and he told me he was completely taken by surprise. "Heck," he said, "I'm lucky if I don't get thrown out of the office most times. Usually it's because no one ever heard of me or FIJA before. I had no idea what this guy was thinking. So I asked him," said Larry.

"Well," said the legislator, "your organization will help me cancel all the bad laws we pass."

"If they're bad laws, why do you pass them?" asked Larry.

"Because we don't know they're bad laws -- we don't read them."

Larry says he was taken aback and -- trying not to be offensive -- he asked, "Isn't it part of your job to read them?"

The legislator didn't miss a beat: "I've done a little math," he said. "If I did nothing but read the bills we vote on, I would only be able to spend about two hours reading each bill. AND, these bills are huge -- and usually in very obtuse legalese."

According to Larry, at that point the legislator gave him a humongous 600 plus page example to peruse. "That's how I know we pass bad laws," said the legislator, "Since I can't even begin to read them all, let alone understand what I'm reading, I just don't know which ones are bad. And to tell you the truth, I'm one of the more conscientious of my colleagues. That's where you and your organization come in -- to back-stop us poor over-worked politicians."

Unknown to me at the time, that story from Larry Dodge was the beginning -- but just the beginning -- of this subtopic, "Where Laws Come From."

A championship poker player I happen to have been married to had interned for a New York State congressman while she was in college. During lunch and coffee breaks, the congressman's gung-ho staff would get together and brainstorm catchy names of bills for "their" congressman to introduce in the legislature. The idea was, she said, that if he introduced bills with nifty-sounding names, he wouldn't appear to be a "do-nothing" legislator. They came up with a bunch of nifty names, and indeed, several with some of those exact names were actually introduced under the sponsorship of "her" congressman. A couple even got co-sponsors.

I asked her what was in the bills. She said she didn't know exactly, but that the content didn't seem to matter at the time. The titles of the bills were all that was important. She thought a couple of the law students on staff wrote up something to flesh-out the titles.

Over the years, Larry's story -- and Cathy's revelation -- settled into my world view, and from time to time I happened across evidence of this disturbing political subtext. For example - - -

Il the New Mexico Legislature's 1995 session, Sen. Duncan Scott, a Republican from Albuquerque, proposed an amendment to a psychologist regulatory bill offered by another senator. ...The amendment said: "When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant's competentcy hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.

"Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant's competency, the baliff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong."
The bill, with the wizard amendment, passed the Senate by voice vote and cleared the House 46-14. Unfortunately, Gov. Gary Johnson vetoed the legislation. --From the 1/26/96 editorial page of the Manchester Union Leader, with credits to the Western Journalism Center

And this from Pennsylvania - - -

HARRISBURG -- The chariman of the Senate Transportation Committee is asking Gov. Casey to veto a bill, approved by the House and Senate on Tuesday, requiring children under 12 years of age to wear helmets when riding bicycles.
What's noteworthy about the request is the chairman in question, Sen. Doyle Corman, R-Centre County, voted for the bill.
But Corman believes that the vast majority of the state's 50 senators are like him -- they had no idea they were enacting a mandatory helmet law when the vote was taken on Senate Bill 1823 late Tuesday night. ...
A sampling of lawmakers bore out Corman's theory that senators were unaware of what was in the bill. ..."I explained to [Gov. Casey in a letter], don't be fooled by the 50-0 vote," Corman said yesterday. "I believe almost everyone [in the Senate] did not know that feature was in the bill."
Armstrong, the Lancaster County senator, first heard about the helmet law when a reporter asked him about the measure.
"What helmet law?" Armstrong said.
He was not pleased when he learned he had voted for the law unknowingly, a few minutes before. --Senator asks Casey to veto bike-helmet legislation, Tim Reeves, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Correspondent, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1994

But not all such bills get a veto. The original USA PATRIOT ACT, [6] for example - - -

"...the problem with the [USA PATRIOT] bill that came to the floor of the House is that we didn't know what we were doing. No one knew what was in that bill." --Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), FOX NEWS, October 15, 2001, 16:23:41

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) confirms Hinchey's report. He told Kelly Patricia O'Meara in a December, 2001 Insight Magazine interview, "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." [7]

So, when Congress passed the original USA PATRIOT ACT, they didn't know what it was they were passing. According to Rep. Hinchey, here's how it happened:

" was a bad game of bait-and-switch. The Judiciary Committee had reported out a bill that had been worked on over a period of weeks. It came out of the Judiciary committee by unanimous vote. Then at the last minute, the leadership of the House switched that bill and produced another bill which no one had seen and only a handful of people had more than superficial knowledge of. And that was the bill that was put on the floor and we were asked to vote for it."

And vote for it they did: It passed in the House by a vote of 356 to 66, in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. (Russ Feingold was the only Senator voting against the bill -- known as HR 3162). Despite the fact noone quite knew what was in it, George W. Bush quickly signed it into law.

And, of course, this was by no means the first time Congress injudiciously passed a bill with momentous consequences without knowing what was in it. Try the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 where certain provisions were even declared secret. Then there was, 20 years later and related, "The Emergency Banking Act of 1933" which passed in an hour-and-a-half - - - and despite the hard money clause to the U.S. Constitution, took the U.S. off the gold standard -- in fact, made it illegal for U.S. Citizens to own gold.

So, there are LOTS of bills that get passed in the dark. How about a confession -- from the horse's mouth?

"We don't read most of the bills." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Michael Moore, Farenheit 911

CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w No one has read the FinCen bill. -Rep. Scott Garrett (R?-MY), CNBC, June 14, 2010, 06:21:05

CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Henserling: Would you favor getting rid of derivatives. We received this 2,000 page bill literally 2 hours before the conference committee. We reserve the right to read the bill. -CNBC, June 11, 2010, 10:08:17

These examples just scratch the surface, as you can imagine.

So you can get an idea from this just how well "our" government does at producing it's primary product, legislation. Are you suitably impressed?

But wait! No discussion of legislation would be complete without a look at lobbyists and "earmarks." Senator John McCain explains - - -

'Earmarks' for spending your tax dollars are secretly placed in spending bills by lobbyists VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

U.S. Senator John S. McCain, Meet The Press, Dec. 12, 2005

So, it seems, lobbyists sneak little "one liners" into the spending bills no one reads, mandating how appropriated funds will be spent. Bet if you let me do that, I'll have a new swimming pool in nothing flat. Heck, the sky's the limit.

But maybe you{'re one of those folks who} don't really think those one liners are funny - - -

MATT TAIBBI: Well, I think the American people just don't have any idea of what congressional procedure is like. If they knew the way that laws were made --or not made, in most cases --I think, you know, you might have people storming the Bastille. What's happened in Congress now is that the process is completely corrupted. ... There are no open debates, no open hearings. Anything you see on C-SPAN is all for show ... what happens in these committee hearings behind the scenes is that they're shoving earmarks in there ...little tiny provisions in a bill that are usually favors of some kind, basically a gift to the congressman's district. ...In the Clinton years, the last energy bill had 6,000 earmarks in it. In the Bush years, it had 15,000. So, you know, these are things that are never voted on in committee, that you never see debated, and it's all done behind the scenes. It's not democracy anymore. It's --you know, it's basically like an authoritarian system. -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006

Given this context, how many of the estimated 150,000 new laws passed each year in towns, states, and at the Federal level would you estimate are "bad" laws? And then there are those un-legislated regulations published into law in the Federal Register by un-elected bureaucrats: The Federal Register boasted 75,606 pages of new regulations in 2002, up from a high of 74,528 new pages in 2000.

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

How about a little comedy relief?

TALLAHASSEE ( -- A proposed law currently making its way through the Florida legislature might help you with what can be an embarrassing problem. Here's the bottom line, the bill would be a mandate that all eating establishment must have enough toilet paper when you go into the restroom. Proposed Law Looks to Wipe Out Problem
{} {} {} {}

Regulation & Inspection

REG: --Tyranny in the USA: The true history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin shops and supplement companies

--Retiring CFTC Judge: We Covered Up Market Manipulation, Wednesday, October 20, 2010 REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The crisis showed the flawed nature of our regulatory apparatus. FDIC's Sheila Bair to FCIC, C- SPAN2, September 2, 2010, 11:57:15> [GeT THIS]

CAG: SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Governemnt protects us. SS. Mines are safe, oil companies pay for the spills, our food is safe, our water is clean, and the air safe to breathe. -Obama @ Carnegie-Mellon via. CNBC, June 2, 2010, 13:39:15 [GET THIS] |cm:REG: PRED: Lazear (Kashkari):Can't regulate unanticipated |fn:PPT: + REG: PRED: PPT: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w We still don't have a great analysis of what went wrong and we need this -Ed Lazear, Neel Kashkari, CNBC, April 26, 2010, 07:44:35 + PPT: !!!! President's Working Group. We met every 6 weeks. The problems were unanticipated. It's hard to regulate the unanticipated. -Ed Lazear, Neel Kashkari, CNBC, April 26, 2010, 07:44:57 [GOT THIS] |cm:Ratings agencies (Moody's) perverted by government |fn:

===================== |cm:Ratings Agencies | European Close |fn: [0:04:08 CLIP 04]

Ratings agencies blaming banks, saying they made us do it. Everyone wants to blame everyone else.

Nearly every contract requires a rating from these rating agencies. The government prevented competition.

Why can't independent ratings agencies come in. A giant road block in the form of the SEC. SEC is on the side of the incumbent ratings agencies. AND now there are barriers to entry from other agencies. People are unwilling to go with the unknown quantity, even if it may be superior.


-CNBC, June 2, 2010, 11:32:03

|cm: Ratings Agencies |fn:

===================== RA: GAMB: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The ratings agencies are like all the stupid money goes with them. I'd think that makes more business for smart money like you. -Erin Barnett to Bill Gross, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 14:12:31

===================== FT: SO: RA: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w It's frustrating watching these hearings. You don't have to have the government putting it's thumb on the scale. People would buy the ratings. -CNBC, June 2, 2010, 16:12:39 + Suppose you could only buy your shirts and shoes from only two or three companies, that would be the same as they've done with these rating agencies. -CNBC, June 2, 2010, 16:13:34


REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Having the sellers pay the ratings agencies to rate their offerings didn't happen till the '70s. Once the rating was out there, it was tough to sell an update on an attrition basis. It's because the other business model -- investors paying for 'wasn't working' that caused this business model to evolve. -FCIC member Holtz-Eakin, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 06:29:23 REG: CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w How about government not requiring institutions, etc. to use ratings agencies? If you write into statutes that a bond or something has to have a certain rating, AAA, etc. you creat a demand for the service but not much competition. -FCIC member Holtz-Eakin, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 06:31:00

===================== |cm:!!!!Warren Buffett on ratings agencies. |fn: CLIP 03]

Why I made them subpoena me: Otherwise they would take me for granted. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:47:29

CM: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The ratings agencies obviously had a model and it said that house prices would go on forever, and that was similar to models by Fanny, Freddy, and me. Etc. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:48:19 + That was a huge flaw in the model. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:49:09 + Everyone was thinking the same thing. Who knew more about mortgages than Fanny & Freddy? They guaranteed 40% of mortgages at that time. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:49:45 + They were incapable of thinking opposite to everyone else. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:50:11

The market demands Moody's and S&P ratings, although I would rather shop around. The statutes are tied-into these two major ratings agencies. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:50:53 + Let's say you started a ratings agency and offered them at half price. I would love that -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:51:51 + Having a duopoly etc. lets them be independent. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:52:33

The two regulatory models. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:53:16

As a buyer of securities, we don't use ratings agencies, but the world has these ratings agencies. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:53:56

Is that business model gone? We HAVE to get a rating from Moody's and S&P. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:54:46

Moody's is no longer bullet proof and that's part of the reason I've been selling the stock. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:55:23 + I don't know the CEO of Moody's. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:55:46 + If I'd seen this coming, I would have sold at 60 or 72. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:56:09

Sorkin said you started selling after you heard Moody's got the Wells Notice. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:56:33

The housing bubble was the largest class of the American investmentors. Other things too, but houses were the largest asset class. -Warren Buffett, CNBC, June 2, 2010, 10:57:05

======= SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w I'm sceptical that complex rules are good. Basel showed how dangerous having one set of rules can be in bringing the whole system down. -Ken Posner, CNBC, June 14, 2010,

|cm:!!!!!PRED: Ken Posner, Rep. Scott Garret (R?-MY), Stalking the Black Swan |fn: [0:05:04min CLIP 11]

RA: SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w A black swan happens when too many people all believe the same thing. Breaking up the ratings agencies. We tried to legislate this, but it didn't work too well. There's not enough market and 2, the regulators say it has to be these two agencies. -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:51:03 + We need to break up S&P & Moody's. It's the regulators too. It's the whole system. -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:52:33 + PRED: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w We're going to be surprised by Black Swans in the modern world. -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:53:06 + PRED: The problem the Administration is facing is assuming uniform reactions. They assume the regulators can anticipate what will happen -- and it will be what happened last time. One source of information would be disastrous by causing another massive black swan. -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:53:45 + Fighting the last war won't work. Things are too complex. -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:54:39 + What will the next problem be? We're looking backwards and just adding to the 2,000 page bill. -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:55:01

<> -CNBC, June 14, 2010, 05:55:49 ======= |cm:RA: Einhorn on the ratings agencies. |fn: [0:12:03 CLIP 13]

S&P -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:43:01

The brand is ruined, have a problem from politicians, Europe is setting up its own rating agency to avoid using U.S. ratings agencies. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:44:16

You've written about this. Do the ratings agencies do any good for the average investor? You & Buffett don't use them. I don't think they are a public good, I think they're a public bad. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:45:14 + RA: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The active participants use them to identify mis-trades to the detriment of the more passive participants like for example, the pension funds which are forced to use the agencies -- like the pension funds who are forced to use them and get your pocket picked. They front-run the agencies. The fund managers who don't use them are favored. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:46:11

RA: WWWH: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Centralizing things puts pressure on the agencies to mess with their own ratings because in times of stress, giving a bad rating to any entity may be a death sentence. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:47:05

Municipalities will be buoyed based on Uncle Sam support. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:48:59

At a time of stress, the agencies first say everything is all right than pile on late, exacerbating the problem which is what happened with Greece. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:49:43

My worry is that The Government has made a lot of commitments to a lot of people for a lot of money over a long period of time. That means there is a much bigger structural deficit than ever before. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:50:28

The political will doesn't seem to be there. If you don't work it out before the SHTF, you have to work it out with creditors, which is harder. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:51:30

All governments have similar irresponsible fiscal & monetary policy which will lead to pressure on their currencies and that's why my trade into gold. Heading for the wall at accelerating speed but don't know where the wall is. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:52:34

If congress shut down the agencies, other methods would evolve. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:53:15 + WWWH: RA: SO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w What about Frank's bill that would assign an agency to each company? It wouldn't fix the structural problems of having the agencies centralized. What about Frank's bill that would have Government assign you a rating agency. -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:54:18

<> -David Einhorn, CNBC, June 3, 2010, 08:55:06 Less than one in ten U.S. mines are in compliance with Congressional mandated communications regulations. -Harwood, CNBC, April 6, 2010, 10:00:19
The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple. It operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences. --Andrew Gelman

Three gross examples should be enough here. First off, the regulators don't protect you. That would be the Madoff scandal, billed as "The Biggest Ponzi Scheme of the Century".

Next is the continuing story of the FAA, where as Marie Schiavo says, the regulators not only don't protect you, they add to the hazard. As she says, the FAA is known as "The Tombstone Agency" because it won't make changes till someone is killed -- and it was cited by the NTSB as a "factor or causal factor, one of the contributing factors in some 120 crashes" in the ten years from 1986 to 1996.

That is, the FAA was cited as a causal or contributing factor in an average of one air crash every month for ten years.

And, not only don't they protect you -- and pose a danger in themselves, they also prevent businesses from protecting you as in the CreekStone Farms situation (and Monstanto's BCT) where the agencies are directly captured by external interests and, in CreekStone's case, prevented from testing every cow for Mad Cow disease. And Monsanto uses the FTC to prevent competitors from advertising their products as BCT free.

Further, by giving you the false impression you are being protected "for free," these organizations often lull you into a false sense of security so you don't protect yourself. Worst of all, by lulling everyone into that false sense of security, these incompetent tired old corruptible night watchman "protective" organizations keep the most effective protection -- a "community watch" of alert individuals who all have the same interest in safety -- {at bey} asleep. "Caveat emptor" is checkmated.

It seems most people don't understand how the mass delusion of centralized protection severely attenuates the personal responsibility and warriness of the millions who's attention and vigilence would otherwise not only regulate bad guys, companies and even corporations, but put them out of business. Which protects even the ignorant and lazy.

David Cameron views the NHS as sacrosanct, but that is precisely what must be cut. It is anachronistic that you cannot obtain prescription drugs without going through a doctor - wasting everybody's time - as if doctors these days reach a better decision in two minutes than well-informed patients with an acute self-interest in getting the matter right. It is precisely this edifice that needs to be hacked down with a machete in a revolutionary rethink about the functions of the state. And not just the NHS either... --Britain and the PIGS -- Telegraph Blogs

Looking at the facts rather than the delusions, it shouldn't be any surprise these so-called "watchdogs" weren't designed to protect you in the first place.

"[U]nder the licensing provisions," says Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "we give the broadcasters an absolute federally supported and sustained monopoly which denies anybody else the right to broadcast who does not have a license." -"The 'Fairness Doctrine': Keep It Buried!" by Jorge Amador, THE PRAGMATIST, Feb. 1994, pg. 10
"Essentially airline regulation was an organized attempt to keep out competition." -Alfred Kahn, chairman and chief architect of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB),

The Russian Orthodox Church got a bill through the Russian Parliament prohibiting "foreign" missionarys because Billy Graham, etc. are luring Russians away from the Russian church. Yeltsin hadn't signed the bill yet. -CNN, July 15, 1993

They were designed to protect vested interests and big business. So things like the following should be no surprise - - -

In 97% of the complaints against cable operators, the FCC finds in favor of the operators and against the subscribers. -Dan Shaefer, R-COLORADO, hearing on REGULATION OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY, broadcast on C-SPAN, 20 May 1995
CAG: REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The notion of the prudential regulator. They'll know who owns what but that doesn't mean that we'll be any wiser about how to prevent systemic risk. -Former SEC regulator, CNBC, June 21, 2010, 08:45:41
|cm:SEC warned about Madoff, but ignored it |fn:

...consider the strange story of Harry Markopolos. Mr. Markopolos is the former investment officer with Rampart Investment Management in Boston who, for nine years, tried to explain to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard L. Madoff couldn't be anything other than a fraud. Mr. Madoff's investment performance, given his stated strategy, was not merely improbable but mathematically impossible. And so, Mr. Markopolos reasoned, Bernard Madoff must be doing something other than what he said he was doing.

In his devastatingly persuasive 17-page letter to the S.E.C., Mr. Markopolos saw two possible scenarios. In the "Unlikely" scenario: Mr. Madoff, who acted as a broker as well as an investor, was "front-running" his brokerage customers. A customer might submit an order to Madoff Securities to buy shares in I.B.M. at a certain price, for example, and Madoff Securities instantly would buy I.B.M. shares for its own portfolio ahead of the customer order. If I.B.M.'s shares rose, Mr. Madoff kept them; if they fell he fobbed them off onto the poor customer.

In the "Highly Likely" scenario, wrote Mr. Markopolos, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." Which, as we now know, it was.

Harry Markopolos sent his report to the S.E.C. on Nov. 7, 2005 - more than three years before Mr. Madoff was finally exposed - but he had been trying to explain the fraud to them since 1999.... And yet the S.E.C.'s cursory investigation of Mr. Madoff pronounced him free of fraud.

What's interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it. It wasn't just Harry Markopolos who smelled a rat. As Mr. Markopolos explained in his letter, Goldman Sachs was refusing to do business with Mr. Madoff; many others doubted Mr. Madoff's profits or assumed he was front-running his customers and steered clear of him.... --The End of the Financial World as We Know It, By MICHAEL LEWIS and DAVID EINHORN,, Published: January 3, 2009

Harry Markopolous vs. SEC, FTC, FBI, NASD, FINRA, etc. VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

House Financial Svcs Cmte on SEC, Feb. 4, 2009

But, suppose, just for the sake of argument, you got people who actually wanted to protect you - - -

[SEC has missed all the scandals and can't ever be expected to keep up] VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

CNBC, December 17, 2008

CAG: REG: Report: Madoff Claimed to Be "On Short List" to Chair SEC

The internal watchdog of the Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a detailed look at how regulators repeatedly squandered opportunities to uncover the massive $65 billion Ponzi scheme of the jailed financier Bernie Madoff. On Wednesday, the SEC's Inspector General issued a report describing five separate investigations into Madoff dating back to 1992. All of them went nowhere despite glaring warning signs, including one instance where Madoff was caught making false statements. Investigators chose to believe Madoff's assurances instead of following up. The report also reveals Madoff once claimed to have even been in line to head the SEC. In 2005, Madoff boasted to investigators he "was on the short list" to become the next SEC chair. He also successfully predicted that the now disgraced former SEC chair Christopher Cox would get the nod weeks before it was publicly announced. Madoff pleaded guilty for the Ponzi scheme in March and began serving a 150-year sentence in July. --Headlines for September 03, 2009

--The Madoff Files: A Chronicle of SEC Failure, Over and Over, Agency Skipped 'Basic' Steps to Find Fraud, Report Says, By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, September 3, 2009 Discussion on why the stock ratings agencies need to be reformed. And how! Erin Barnett? suggests that the homework should be done by investors themselves. Turns out that that can't be done easily because of laws. Toward end. Maybe 9:50am or so. RatingsAgencies_failed&can't_be_fixed--because_of_regulations_CNBC_090415.vob>


NEW FILE Christopher Cox trying to whitewash SEC

-SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:28:43

Are there other schemes like that out there? No answer. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:29:47

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w What bothers you most. Over decades, information had been brought to the agency and no action was taken. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:31:37

Can you guess? The 3,600 who work for SEC are great people. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:32:39

Will anyone get fired? Have to get the facts first. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:33:46

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Over a period of time, credible information was provided, and we want to make sure we understand how it was overlooked. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:34:34

We're working with SIPICS to find out how much money will come from that fund to help investors. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:35:47

The SEC has missed it so many times this decade. [DETAILS] -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:37:20 + Same old line. We'll investigate. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, December 17, 2008, 13:37:53

But, surely, the SEC must be a statistical fluke, an outlier, and the other "watch-dog" organizations must be much better?

--Salmonella outbreak sickens 388 across U.S.: CDC, Wed Jan 7, 2009 3:10pm EST
--CDC investigating salmonella outbreak in 42 states, By Miriam Falco, CNN Medical Managing Editor
--Peanut-Butter Recall Gets Even Uninvolved Marketers Talking, Blameless ConAgra, Hershey Join Kellogg and General Mills in Making Public Statements, By Emily York, Published: January 20, 2009

Greenspan: "Nobody can forecast." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

U.S. Oversight & Reform Committee, C-SPAN, Oct. 23, 2008

REG: CAP: Gasparino vs. Liesman: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^wWe have plenty of regulation. The securities industry, the most regulated industry in the world, is not responsible for this. -Gasparino, CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:35:38 There's a difference in having the laws on the books and the enforcement of those regulations. -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:36:41 We have dumb people enforcing the regulation. -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:37:33 Levitt was the greatest SEC regulator, but his regulations didn't stop 30 to 1 leverage. -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:38:05 The regulators didn't regulate right. They missed it. -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:38:39 Sarbannes Oxley, supposed to stop all these problems, but now we have this one. -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:39:10 The problem is the relationship with Washington and them able to get them to do things good for them. -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:39:36 Where was the S&P regulators? -CNBC THE CALL, November 20, 2008, 11:40:25

Why did corporations get class-action damage suites downgraded? They were too effective at keeping corporations under control. In fact, that's why businesses want to be regulated -- it is much less rigorous than free market control. Telecoms wanted to get protection from the "wild west" of the free market. [THAT'S EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER CHAPTER]|cm: FASCISM Faltering Economy Takes Center Stage |fn: DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: ...there is no such thing as deregulation. Everything has rules. Think about baseball, which is a trivial, a fun activity. Baseball regulates how many stitches are on the baseball. And all deregulation has meant for the last thirty years is new rules that favor those with the most money.

David Cay Johnston, former investigative journalist for the New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for his running investigation of the tax system. His latest book is titled Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). He is also author of the bestselling book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich-and Cheat Everybody Else. --Faltering Economy Takes Center Stage in McCain-Obama Debate, Democracy NOW!, October 08, 2008

But, surely, by this time, they've straightened it all out - - - |cm:Mary Schiavo |fn:FAA

My favorite example for quite awhile, though, has been Mary Schiavo of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. She revealed, among other things, that the FAA, the regulation bureaucracy with possibly the best reputation of any in the US government, was referred to by insiders as the "Tombstone Agency" because, according to Schiavo, "it will not make changes until there has been a major crash, until there has been a major loss of life" - - - if then. While Secretary of Transportation Jose Pina was saying ValuJet was safe, she was saying she wouldn't fly on ValuJet.

The problem was that, as U.S. Dept. of Transportation Inspector General, she was too credible to ignore. She came forward at the time of the Valu-Jet crash in the Florida swamps, and within two weeks had been forced out of the NTSB.

"Well, I can't say that it's politics with a capital P. Unfortunately sometimes it's just Washington politics. Bureaucrats get entrenched in a certain position or a certain stance or other people have certain interests in seeing things run the way they do and people get set in their ways and that's unfortunately sometimes the Washington story. In the instance of FAA oversight and inspection, these same issues were raised in hearing back in 1986 and change was promised and there were Congressional hearings and everybody went up to the hill and made a lot of promises and everyone thought everything was fixed. We had hearings again in 1991. Again everybody went up to the Hill, it was Washington politics with a small p. Promises were made. Everybody went away from the hearings feeling happy and the cameras were off and here we are in 1996, five years later, and the same issues are there again. Unfortunately it's kind of Washington at work and it does not do much to instill comfort and security in the traveling public." --Night Line, June 24, 1996: Interview by Chris Wallace of Mary Schaivo, Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Fourteen days later on July 8, 1996, Mary Schaivo submitted a letter of resignation from her position, returning to civilian life amidtst attacks from Congress accusing her of airing dirty laundry in public.

Three New Jersey townships --Upper Pittsgrove, Alloway, and Quinton-- have recently contracted to have elevator inspectors, reports the February Reader's Digest. There's only one problem: there are no elevators in any of the three municipalities.
Last June, the NJ Department of Community Affairs ordered all of the state's 567 towns to provide for elevator inspection service. A spokesman said the state cannot make exceptions to the rules --even for municipalities without elevators. "Otherwise," the spokesman said, "the Uniform Construction Code would no longer be uniform." --LP News, March 1993
April 18, 1966: 42 (of 58) elevator inspectors in New York City, New York are suspended without pay for alleged misconduct/suspected bribery. Some of those suspended also serve as amusement ride inspectors for the city. --The Roller Coaster Almanac Updated since 05/15/2002 Compiled by Dave Althoff, Jr. (
50 of 58 NYC elevator inspectors took bribes, often exceeding their $30,000 per year salaries. -CNN HLN, 04-24-97, 2:05pm EST
Fifteen of New York City's 24 plumbing inspectors -- including the top inspector and the top supervisors in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx -- were charged yesterday with extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars to approve projects throughout the city. Three former plumbing inspectors and a former boiler inspector were also charged. Plumbing Inspectors Are Latest Charged In New York Graft, WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM, NYT, June 26, 2002


CAG: The problems with regulation. Good regulation is always behind, bad regulation causes the problem. Accounting problems caused by mark to market as response to not marking to market.

REG: CAG: How law enforcement got involved because of imprecise everything -SQUAWK BOX, CNBC, October 20, 2008, 08:34:49 + The hedge fund guys were on the problems at ENRON, BEAR STEARNS, AIG, LEHMAN, etc. before the regulators. -SQUAWK BOX, CNBC, October 20, 2008, 08:35:36

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The regulators are now coming under scrutiny. The SEC's program that oversaw the Investment Banks. The SEC was guilty of sporadic enforcement of its regulations. -CNBC, September 26, 2008, 13:17:23 + + REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w SEC scraps the way they were investigating the investment banks. SEC knew about the dangers at Bear but didn't do anything about it and bureaucratic screwups and delays slowed things down. These screwups cost investors their money. SEC was examining all five banks since 2004. Cox claims voluntary programs don't work. -CNBC, September 26, 2008, 17:31:33 |cm: The Madoff scandal & how the SEC completely dropped the ball |fn:

NEW file REG: ABOLISH SEC (Madoff scandal)

-SEC, THE CALL, CNBC, December 15, 2008, 11:36:24

There are about 2,000 working at the SEC. Even if they had 5,000 it probably wouldn't work. -SEC, THE CALL, CNBC, December 15, 2008, 11:37:41

SEC should encourage law suits. The whistle blowers were even fired. John Mack of Morgan Stanley was being investigated and the whistle blower got fired. -SEC, THE CALL, CNBC, December 15, 2008, 11:38:24 + REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w SEC never enforced the risk/reserve regulations, which is one of the main missions of the SEC. -SEC, THE CALL, CNBC, December 15, 2008, 11:39:13 Within the first year of registration, the SEC is also supposed to investigate every new organization that registers as an investment advisor. In the case of the Madoff situation, which registered as an investment advisor, SEC didn't even do that. -SEC, THE CALL, CNBC, December15, 2008, 11:40:09 REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Santelli: Regulation by FTC = NONE with sign. Markets execute flawlessly. Will spend hundreds of billions on hearings, etc. -CNBC, September 17, 2008, 13:33:07

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Federal Reserve has finest staff in the country. Half of them PhDs. We give you the budget for that to foresee this. Cox wants more regulation. But the reality was you weren't enforcing the ones you had. There was a long line of warnings yet the SEC, the FED, etc. didn't act. -Waxman, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:51:01

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w A big part of the problem was failure to regulate these entities. Congress fell down on the job. -THIS WEEK, October 12, 2008, 10:22:05 + Frank; Not me. But from 2001 through 2006 when Congress was Can, we were trying to regulate Fanny & Freddy. We passed the bill and asked FHA, to do it. The Cans didn't pass any bill. -THIS WEEK, October 12, 2008, 10:22:37 The congress didn't do what it needed to do [NAMES NAMES] It's time to admit congress didn't do it's job. -THIS WEEK, October 12, 2008, 10:24:18 + What about the $150 billion stimulus package. -THIS WEEK, October 12, 2008, 10:25:05 + REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Frank; I couldn't fix things when I was in the minority. -THIS WEEK, October 12, 2008, 10:25:42

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w BARNEY FRANK -- banks have to use bailout money for lending. It would be illegal for them to use it for bonuses or buying other banks. [IDIOT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT MONEY IS COMPLETELY FUNGIBLE] -Barney Frank, POWER LUNCH, CNBC, October 31, 2008, 13:45:44 The excuse is that people don't want to borrow. There are borrowers out there. -Barney Frank, POWER LUNCH, CNBC, October 31, 2008, 13:48:00 Money is fungible. We'll look at their record and see if they have increased lending. -Barney Frank, POWER LUNCH, CNBC, October 31, 2008, 13:48:44 We believed they would lend. -Barney Frank, POWER LUNCH, CNBC, October 31, 2008, 13:49:24 Congressman can introduce bill to cut this money off at $350 billion, so they better behave or they won't get any more. -Barney Frank, POWER LUNCH, CNBC, October 31, 2008, 13:49:57

FUNGIBLE: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w You don't understand how governments work. -Barney Franks, CNBC, January 14, 2010, 14:10:41 + It all goes into and out of the same pocket. -Barney Franks, CNBC, January 14, 2010, 14:11:05 + You can't keep track of which dollar goes where. -Barney Franks, CNBC, January 14, 2010, 14:11:57

REF: Macroeconomic model builders have finally realized what Henry Hazlitt and John T. Flynn (among others) knew in the 1930s: FDR's New Deal made the Great Depression longer and deeper.... This realization on the part of macroeconomists comes in the form of an article in the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis," by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. This is a big deal, since the JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world.... --The New Deal Debunked (again), Daily Article by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
{FAA Accused Of Hiding Controllers' Mistakes!!!!!!.Txt>}

CAPTURE: REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w When were you folks regulating and controlling things. There was major opposition to regulation. Countrywide was giving loans, etc. to regulators and politicians. -GREENSPAN, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:10:01 Obama got more campaign donations from Freddy & Fanny than any politician in the last 20 years. -CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:11:40 + REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w See Oct. 6 hearing. Frank said let's role the dice. Maxine Waters said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -GREENSPAN, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:12:44 + Agressive law enforcement is necessary now more than ever. Cox & Snow. -CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:14:19

Did the GSEs cause the crisis? No, but they contributed significantly. -GREENSPAN, COX, SNOW, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:17:23 + Mortgage Brokers were regulated, but at the state level. -GREENSPAN, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:18:29 + Did you know that Freddy & Fanny were cooking the books, Mr. Cox? Sortta. -GREENSPAN, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:19:03 + SEC sued Freddy for fraud and won largest settlement in history. -GREENSPAN, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:20:30

REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Mr. Cox, where have you been all these years. You were criticized by McCain & Carly Farino -CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:22:11 + I wish we knew then what we know now. I have to live within the limits the government gives me. We couldn't regulate CDS because we didn't have the legal mandate to do that. -Cox, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:23:33 + There was a taskforce to investigate derivatives. What happened to that taskforce. You failed to support that taskforce. -COX, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:25:21 + REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w You even told us you weren't going to do that. I disagree. Risk Assessment had 7 when I took over and we now have 70. -COX, CSPAN, October 23, 2008, 11:26:22



{Salmonella probe adds foods served with tomatoes!!!!!!.TXt>} {Monday, July 07, 2008 }

As a general rule economists have found that government regulation of industries harms consumers and often gives monopoly power to producers. Some of these findings were behind the widespread support of economists for the deregulation of transportation, natural gas, and banking, which gained momentum in the Carter administration and continued until halfway through the Reagan administration.... Biography of George J. Stigler (1911-91)

Social Insecurity

UC: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Hanes: You're talking about people who save first and then buy [in China and emerging markets]? Well, you don't have the social security framework that you have in the west. When people don't have that, they tend to save. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, CNBC, October 29, 2008, 10:43:16 Russia has high inflation and aging population. -SQUAWK ON THE STREET, CNBC, October 29, 2008, 10:44:48 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:12:15 -0800 (PST) From: "L. Reichard White" View Contact Details View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert Subject: Re: [Politics] Privatization To:

Hi Tom!

I'm all for full disclosure of SS.

The government should come out and say, unequivocally,

"FICA is a tax, not a retirement fund. We spend the proceeds from that tax just as we spend the proceeds from the other taxes we collect -- income tax for example. We call this method of accounting "The Unified Budget" because of that fact.

"We MAY give welfare payments to older folks, the disabled, etc. if we choose to, but we don't have to. We can continue the FICA tax even if we choose to no longer fund these welfare payments -- or our successors find themselves unable or unwilling to fund them.

And, by the way, you are not required by law to pay the FICA tax."

Health, happiness, & long life, Rick

P.S. As you pointed out awhile back, Medicare is an even bigger problem.

--- "Thomas A. Shrack" wrote:

> Hi, Rick. > > I don't have time to do a full response to you and Bob right now, but > I might remind you that the "worthless IOUs" in the SS Fund are > actually Tresury securities "backed by the full faith and credit of > the U.S. government". Did they spend "the surplus"? No, the surplus > is still there --they borrowed against it with guaranteed repayment. > I realize that you don't put much faith in any government, but I > still think it's misleading for you to say that the surplus is spent, > much like it would be misleading for me to say my money market > account is spent" because the bank "gave all of the money away" to > borrowers. > > I'll also point out that Social Security (as you've said in the past) > is a system of taxation paired with a system of welfare. It is a > safety net, and if you talk about it like an investment strategy, you > are missing the point. > > Hopefully, I'll soon have time to re-read Bob's argument and more > substantively respond. > > Cheers, > Tom > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: L. Reichard White > To: > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Politics] Privatization > > > Oh crap!!

For many and various reasons, U.S. Social Security has turned out to be almost the perfect poster child for what's wrong with domestic government. Why? Because, among other reasons, it is the darling of almost everyone, Democrat and Republican alike - - -

Social Security is the most successful program ever produced by the U.S. Government. --Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Face The Nation, March 6, 2005
I agree with Chuck Hagel. Social Security is the most successful insurance program, the most successful retirement program in American history, probably in the history of the world. ... This is one of the greatest success stories of our time. --Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), Face The Nation, March 6, 2005

But suppose this "most successful program ever produced by the U.S. Government" this "most successful retirement program in American history, probably in the history of the world" was flawed? Or completely FUBAR? Or worse? Well, it is, and the tinniest tip of that ominous iceberg was also revealed on that same Face The Nation - - -

Social Security is, right now, $3.7 trillion in debt. --Sen. Chuck Hagel
The problems don't kick-in till 38 years from now. --Sen, Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), Face The Nation, March 6, 2005

Senator Hagel seriously understated the SS debt situation -- and Senator Boxer neglected the fact that, beginning in 2008, U.S. Government spendable income starts shrinking as SS payments to "boomer" retirement absorbs more and more of the F.I.C.A. "surplus" Uncle Sam is in the habit of spending. This will severely squeeze either the U.S. Government -- or the folks depending on a Social Security check. Which do you think is the most likely squeezee?

But suppose Sen. Boxer is right and the problems with, as she put it, "one of the greatest success stories of our time," "don't kick in till 38 years from now" -- which would be 2042. So, let's see, our generation puts the problems on later generations -- our kids and grandkids. As one of the more honest pols quipped awhile back, "We used to pay off the mortgage and leave our kids the farm; Now we mortgage the farm and leave our kids the payments."

As we'll see, there's a lot more wrong with so-called Social Security than merely its current abyssmal balance sheet. In fact, one of those things is that, realistically speaking, there isn't a balance sheet. Hang in there, you'll see what I mean.

But let's start with the basic design of so-called "Social Security." We all know it was intended as a retirement plan that was originally designed to help poor old folks. Right?

People wouldn't live long enough to collect "Social Security" VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, April, 2005

Yes, you heard that right: Dick Cheney (U.S. Vice President at the time) said, " 1935 the average life expectancy in America was about 60 years, meaning many people would not live long enough to become eligible for retirement benefits."

So, "many" people wouldn't live long enough to collect SS. But how many is "many?"

"When Social Security was passed in 1935, life expectancy was 61 and retirement age was 65. This was actuarially sound." -Ex US Senator Sam Nunn, Concorde Coalition, ABC's This Week, 3 August, 1997

So, when SS was designed -- to help poor old folks of course -- life expectancy was 61 but you couldn't retire and collect till you were 65. Four years after the actuarial tables said you'd probably already have been dead for about four years. You bet your ass that was "actuarially sound!"

And, even if you were one of those relatively few people who lived four years longer than average, you'd only start to collect. But how long would you live and so continue to collect? Long enough to collect the amount you'd paid in? To collect the amount you'd paid in plus interest?

Clearly, this program, as designed, produced a windfall for someone, and it wasn't poor old folks who had been conned into believing they had to pay into the system all their lives. Was it our "Silent Partner" robber barron banksters who engineered Social Security ^^win 1935, or was the design an "honest" mistake? Since I can't document it, I'll have to say I have my suspicions and leave it at that. Perhaps an astute and informed reader can help me educate myself - - -

Most Ponzi schemes are quite successful - - - for awhile.

The same "unified budget" ploy is used all over the government landscape. In the case of FDIC depositor insurance, for example:

--, FDIC Insurance Fund - It Doesn't Actually Exist 32 comments, by: Vernon Hill September 12, 2008
Think of the federal government as a gigantic [social] insurance company with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security. This particular insurance company, it turns out, has made personal promises to its policyholders that have a current value of $20 trillion or so in excess of the revenues it expects to receive. An insurance company with cash accounting is not really an insurance company at all," he added, "it's an accident waiting to happen. -Peter Fisher, U.S. under secretary of the Treasury for domestic finance, Russell On Gold, $20 trillion in the hole... Gold anyone?, Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, 22 November, 2002 {from -June 11, 2006, 04:06:26 }

CAP: REG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w How did the SEC miss this? SEC owes allegience to Wall Street. There's a revolving door between SEC and Wall Street. -MADOFF PONZI, CNBC, December 18, 2008, 21:18:11

|cm: Income Disparity |fn: HH Bernanke, July 2007 SS: SEN EVAN BAYH: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^wWealth had gone to the top part of economy. -, July 19, 2007, 11:35:19 + FICA: BERNANKE: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w It's difficult to solve. [BS. DITCH REGRESSIVE FICA] -BERNANKE DVD, July 19, 2007, 11:35:56 ++ SEN: How would you explain %15 capital gains vs wages is fair? What about -, July 19, 2007, 11:40:47 + BERNANKE: Can't comment. Tax code hasn't changed radically. -, July 19, 2007, 11:41:51 + Equity argument is taxed at corporate level. To facilitate risk taking, it's better to tax equity less. [Tax highest 1%] Complex issue, but the revenue benefit is very small. To really increase revenue, you would have to go lower. Marginal effect is beyond me now. -, July 19, 2007, 11:42:42

^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w SEN DODD: Income Gap has grown over 82 years. Since 1925. -, July 19, 2007, 11:44:50 + [CNBC: Effect of taxing rich. -, July 19, 2007, 11:46:49 ]

In Hindi, we have sarkar and public... Inherent in this use is the underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from "the people." ...the truly vanquished still look upon the government as mai-baap, the parent and provider. The somewhat more radical, those who still have fire in their bellies, see it as chor, the thief, the snatcher-away of all things. Arundhati Roy, *TIDE? OR IVORY SNOW?*, Public Power in the Age of Empire

CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w How do you feel about the U.S.? We believe what the American Administration does is separate from what the American people do. We believe they are peaceful and we love them. -, January 15, 2008, 11:28:45 White's Law of Halo Damping

There's another unintended cost of regulation in general as well: White's Law of Halo Damping.

White's Law, as per title, may be stated as,

"In any business enterprise, the perceived {anticipation | possibility} that a government may become involved, either with regulations or with subsidies, damps investments and/or safety improvements until the government's position becomes clear. In the case of "protective" functions, this also applies by lolling consumers into a false sense of security." --White's Law of Halo Damping
|cm: WLHD Baby rice warning; study finds high levels of carcinogenic arsenic |fn:
A third of baby food rice on sale in the UK tested by scientists has been found to contain so much inorganic arsenic, a human carcinogen, that it would be illegal in some countries.
A child eating three servings a day of the rice with the highest levels would have up to six times the maximum safe level of inorganic arsenic... "It is of considerable concern that food arsenic levels are not regulated in the EU," said Professor Andrew Meharg, who led the study. "Thirty-five per cent of the baby food we analysed had levels of inorganic arsenic that would make them illegal in China.''... But rice is also good at taking up arsenic from soil.... Baby rice warning: study finds high levels of carcinogenic arsenic, By Roger Dobson, Sunday, 30 March 2008 {}




{The Myth of National Defense!!!!!!!.TXt>} Butler Shaffer

DDH, PMA, etc. And include that "protection" is used AGAINST "we the people" and The Constitution.

SEE: < |cm: *****Pinkertons: The Devil made me > below

The Food and Drug Administration, which has responsibility for the safety of whole eggs, had never inspected the two Iowa-based facilities at the heart of the massive recall that began 10 days ago. Nor had the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. In the case of Wright County Egg, the company had a history of labor and environmental infractions, including one that stemmed from workers handling manure and dead chickens with bare hands.... --As egg producers consolidate, problems of just one company can be far-reaching
+ --The War on Food: Eggsactly What Is Going On Here? by Mac Slavo

Probe: Labor Dept. Fails to Safeguard Worker Rights

A new congressional probe says the government agency for enforcing labor laws has failed to protect workers. In a report set for release today, the Government Accountability Office says the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division hasn't adequately enforced violations of minimum wage, overtime and other labor rights. The study says agency officials mishandled nine out of ten cases brought by undercover agents posing as workers. Some investigators dropped cases simply because the accused employers didn't return their calls. Others waited months to respond to worker complaints and then said it would take another several months to act on them. The report says, "Labor has left thousands of actual victims of wage theft who sought federal government assistance with nowhere to turn. Unfortunately, far too often the result is unscrupulous employers' taking advantage of our country's low-wage workers." --Democracy Now! Headlines for March 25, 2009

|cm: Sampoong building collapse in S. Korea [MOMENTS TO DISASTER (program on Discovery? Chanel) Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:57 AM] |fn:

There was corruption in the building inspection services and as a result, 98% of S. Korean buildings had to be modified or rebuilt. "Build as if you were building for family and loved ones." suggests survivor. ==== So what happened in Seoul after the Sampoong disaster? The department store owners and the affiliated government officials were indicted. There was indeed a call for tighter regulations and oversight of the building codes and those who enforce them. It's not certain, however, if the new policies are working. Recent newspaper articles, memorializing the 10th anniversary of the disaster, decry the lack of enforcement of the legal codes instituted since then.... --, Explorer Blog - National Geographic Channel, « Search for Adam, Pyramids of Death », Collapse, Bill Swift - Associate Producer SEE the links from FF Bookmarks My history, 2008, Jan. 5th & 6th [Flinter farm attack] +

Poisoning Free Markets

When in Manila on a gambling trip, Grasshopper, chided me for over-paying the "Technicals" drivers. He told me I would ruin the market. He explained they would get used to higher prices and that would hurt all the other {drivers | riders}.

But there's an even more insidious way to poison the markets: Government regulation. Not the way you think, though I bet. If someone tells you they're taking care of a problem for free, you tend to let them, and drop your own efforts in that direction.


Worse, it causes all the other folks who would be on the lookout for problems to also relax in favor of the "free" protection. That's exactly the effect government regulation has.

Infrastructure and Government Services

Minneapolis bridge disaster. DN early Aug. 2007



Tuesday, September 11, 2007

c:\USR\Rattler & Rick\MEMETIC MACHINES\CONSPIRACY Bush nuke conspiracy Sept. 2007!!!!!!!.HTML

Friday, September 14, 2007 {

{} ALSO {} ALSO Diigo'd

Incompetent Government

Britain's fight against drugs 'a total failure' {}
Professor Pennington said: "Politicians get hung up on cleaning, but the major issue isn't environmental; it is people bringing the bugs into hospitals. Once the bacteria hit the floor they die off. The natural home of MRSA is either in infected patients or up the noses of the rest of us, so that is what they should be attacking."
[V-CLIP] McClellan lying. I WAS part of this propaganda. Keynes changed his mind. He said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do? " -Scott McClellan, MTP, SUNDAYS (June 1, 2008, 10:41:03)
[V-CLIP] ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w BUSH: "It was a war of necessity?" -Scott McClellan, MTP, June 1, 2008, 10:42:09
Bush WAS puzzled. -Scott McClellan, MTP, June 1, 2008, 10:43:01


US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP

So, how much do we pay for all this wonderfulness? As a first approximation to what government costs us, let's use the U.S.A. as an example. It turns out that a commonly used index is a direct front door to that first approximation.

The U.S. "Consumer Price Index" or CPI is an estimate of how much it costs people to live in the United States. Traditionally it has been prepared by the U.S. Government, particularly the "Bureau of Labor Statistics" or "BLS" and so it is a bit less than honest.

Now here's that official government-created CPI. Can you tell why I suggested it was less than honest? HINT: Goebbels: "Don't tell them then it will not exist."

Official CPI (no taxes)

Now here's the more honest CPI:

Unofficial CPI (INCLUDING taxes)

Did you notice the "Goebbels Gambit" difference?

It's that taxes aren't included in the government-prepared CPI, despite the fact they are everyone's main expense. In fact, according to this very conservative estimate, taxes amount to about 43% of your cost of living in the United States (2007 A.D.), which is the single largest expense you have, dwarfing the next largest, housing, which costs you "only" 24% by comparison.

So, our first approximation is that government costs you 43% of your cost of living.

However, governments don't keep honest track of their finances. In fact, they "cook the books" - - -

"The U.S. Government 'cooks the books'" says Dem. Chair
Howard Dean, ABC's This Week, Nov. 5, 2006
Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

So, according to 2004 presidential hopeful and Democratic National Chair (2008 A.D.) Howard Dean, the U.S. Government "cooks the books." And did you notice that Dean admitted that some of the "cooked books" problem is "from years and years and years of borrowing from the Social Security Trust fund which doesn't show up in the budget deficit?"

And, speaking of messing around with Social Security, here's another very troubling manipulation of Social Security. In the following graph, from the U.S. OMB (Office of Management and Budget), you can see the long-term manipulation quite clearly. On the graph, Social Security is called "Social Insurance Taxes." You see it as F.I.C.A. on your pay stub.

OMB Chart 2-6. Composition of Revenues


But even worse than that, they can't even manage to keep the cooked books straight:

Ten years after Congress ordered federal agencies to have outside auditors review their books, neither the Defense Department nor the newer Department of Homeland Security has met even basic accounting requirements, leaving them vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse. Federal agencies flunk their audits

      Actually, though, it's worse than that -- agencies of the government actually refuse to hire the outside auditors to do the job as mandated by Congress -- which is supposedly in charge.

In 1996, in an attempt to bring accounting standards within the executive branch closer to those of the civilian economy, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. It required all federal agencies to hire outside auditors to review their books and release the results to the public. Neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Homeland Security, has ever complied. Congress has complained, but not penalised either department for ignoring the law. All numbers released by the Pentagon should be regarded as suspect.... Chalmers Johnson, The economic disaster that is military keynesianism, Why the US has really gone broke

So things like this happen:

<9_billion_missing_in_Iraq_A_DN!070912.VOB> + <9_billion_missing_in_Iraq_B_DN!070912.VOB> -, September 12, 2007, 11:35:59

So, they can't even keep track of what they do with all that money you endorse over to them every April 15th - - -

Pentagon accounting. NOT!

And here's how bad it gets:

Congresswoman McKinney questions Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
U.S. House Armed Services Committee

So Congresswoman McKinney, in the process of asking U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld three questions says, "According to the Comptroller General of the United states, there are serious financial management problems at the Pentagon... Fiscal Year 1999, $2.3 trillion missing, Fiscal Year 2000, $1.1 trillion missing."

Indeed, losing $3.4 trillion (with a "t") dollars in two years would seem like "serious management problems." Wouldn't it? But the surrealistic question McKinney asks is, "Who has the contract today [for the Pentagon computers and software that lost the $3.4 trillion]...and how much have the taxpayers paid for them?"

Apparently this sort of loss is so "normal," asking about accountability -- or if they've found any of the missing $3.4 trillion -- isn't worth the bother. And, according to U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, the rest of the government doesn't fare much better -- the other bureaucracies are just smaller than the DOD, and thus, so are the results of their accounting, ah, foibles.

For example, how the U.S. Treasury Department gave out more than $700 billion in so-called "TARP" money at the beginning of the financial crisis that emerged in September, 2008 - - -

"The taxpayers will never know how the banks used that money..." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

CNBC, Squawk Box, Jan. 14, 2010

Who pays? [Jim Jones's Punch Bowl [How F.I.C.A. shifts the tax burden from the rich & corporations to the poor] ] CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Eventually we and our children are going to have to pay for it. -Martin Feldstine, SQUAWK BOX STREET, December 18, 2008, 08:21:07

{Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes!!!!!!!.TXt>} {Thursday, August 14, 2008}

The overall net result as of 2006 A.D. -- as far as anyone can tell: |cm: Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion |fn: from

The cost per U.S. household of unfunded promises made by federal, state and local government:

Medicare $255,280 Social Security $144,251 Federal debt $43,380 Military benefits $25,863 State and local debt $17,537 Federal civil- servant benefits $14,374 State and local retiree benefits $13,114 Other federal obligations $2,548 Total *$516,348*

Source: USA TODAY research; numbers rounded

... The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year -- far more than the official $248 billion deficit -- when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss -- equal to $11,434 per household -- is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006. ... Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. ... This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.

The Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board, which sets federal accounting standards, is considering requiring the government to adopt accounting rules similar to those for corporations. The change would move Social Security and Medicare onto the government's income statement and balance sheet, instead of keeping them separate.

The White House and the Congressional Budget Office oppose the change, arguing that the programs are not true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them. Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion

CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The president is being honest by inlcuding the cost of the Iraq war in the budget. -Power Lunch, CNBC, March 17, 2009, 13:12:12 Budget gimmicks aren't in order at this time. -Power Lunch, CNBC, March 17, 2009, 13:13:47 There is opposition to including the Iraq War in the budget. -Power Lunch, CNBC, March 17, 2009, 13:14:23

What's this mean to you?

Uniquely American? VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Mary Mornin & U.S. President George W. Bush, Omaha, Neb., Feb. 1, 2005

Of course, unfortunately, it's not "uniquely American."

Budget-cutting B.S.

Budget-cutting B.S.

{States may free inmates to save millions!!!!!!!.TXt>}

Externalities and Unintended Consequences



{Plague of bioweapons accidents afflicts the US!!!!!!!.TXT>}

-Iron Law HM: CAG: TBO:


Dunbar's Number The Iron Law go live
--Dunbar's Number The Iron Law go live {}
Iron Law of Oligarchy
Given the relatively large margin, I can't in all honesty say that those of you who donated made the difference. In fact, there is some doubt whether I even made the difference. I think I did, given the amount of money I raised and the amount of outside support I organized, but I can't be sure. Anyway, thanks ot all of you who donated. All of you can meet with the Congressman if you'd like. Just let me know.
Anyway, we won. Start drafting the bills you'd like to see introduced. How about "The Professional Gambler's Tax Relief Act of 2007?" --Bill, [Politics] we win, Wed, 8 Nov 2006 01:40:16 -0500,
The funds are paid into the central bank and disbursed to various government departments, or committees, and public sector companies in the hope that the capital spending targets are achieved. However, Colonel Qaddafi said that it doesn't happen like that: "It is like the cloud that fills the desert, and you think it is water, but when you reach it you find that it is nothing." He said that the people had lost confidence in the government and the public administration, and had grown to believe that the country's wealth was being systematically plundered for personal gain. Strangling the octopus of government,Mar 4th 2008,From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire

Murder, Mayhem and War

Allan Nairn: ... Obama seems to have killed more civilians during his first year than Bush did in his first year, and maybe even than Bush killed in his final year, because not only has Obama kept the machine set on kill, but he had his special project, which is Pakistan and Afghanistan. ... He had to go through what the New York Times once called the "presidential initiation rite," under which each president must, in their words, demonstrate his willingness to shed blood. Obama did that by saying, "I'm going to attack more vigorously Afghanistan and Pakistan." ...
... He has squeezed the Pakistani military to attack their own tribal and border areas with extensive civilian death and retaliation from the residents of those areas through a series of bombings across the major cities of Pakistan.
Likewise in Somalia, Bush backed Ethiopia in an invasion of Somalia, basically an Ethiopian-US invasion of Somalia. ... The already disastrous level of hunger and starvation is increasing. His body count probably exceeds that of Bush. --"Obama Has Kept the Machine Set on Kill"--Journalist and Activist Allan Nairn Reviews Obama's First Year in Office {EXTRACTED from: |cm:CAG: !!!!!!!!!!!Obama Has Kept the Machine Set on Kill>}
ALLAN NAIRN: ... the tactic of, you know, bombs in civilian places, like outside mosques, it was not originated by the current jihadists. ... that actual tactic dates back to times like when the CIA used it in Lebanon to try to kill a cleric, and they blew up people as they were leaving the mosque. They used a car-the US used a car bomb to do that.
Even aerial bombings, even bombings of airplanes, three of the biggest incidents before 9/11 were actually incidents of US culpability. In '76, a Cuban airliner ... death toll was ... Seventy-three, I think, something on that order-by Luis Posada Carriles, a longtime CIA operative, who was later indicted for terrorism. ... in '85, I believe, an Indian jetliner was blown up, almost-about 300 killed. The bombers were later found to have received training at a US camp in Alabama, US paramilitary camp ... The Iranian jetliner shot down by a US ship, the Vincennes, also with roughly 300 killed, in '88, the captain of the ship who did that, he got a medal from Bush Senior ...
So these tactics, you know, bombing civilian places, even blowing up jetliners specifically, are not new. And the US itself has used them.
... when bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center, ...he was basically using US targeting principles. ... We can see that that's wrong on this end. It's also wrong on the other end, when the US does it. ... and the US has often done it. For example, in Iraq, the US adopted what they called the El Salvador option, ... the El Salvadoran death squads of the 1960s and '70s, which is something I investigated extensively. And these were launched under the Kennedy administration ... and run by the US for decades. And similar operations were done in Iraq by the US ... The technical term the Pentagon used for it-uses for it is "manhunting." ...
But ... they end up killing massive numbers of civilians. ... They call it "bugsplat." ... On the opening day, [of Operation Iraqi Freedom] the printouts presented to General Tommy Franks indicated that twenty-two of the projected bombing attacks on Iraq would produce what they defined as heavy bugsplat-that is, more than thirty civilian deaths per raid. Franks said, "Go ahead. ... So that adds up to, you know, about 660 anticipated, essentially planned, ... negligent homicide, at the least, probably second-degree murder. ... that right there would give you a third of the World Trade Center death toll, just on the first day of the Iraq operation. And, of course, the Iraq operation has gone on. --"Obama Has Kept the Machine Set on Kill"-- Journalist and Activist Allan Nairn Reviews Obama's First Year in Office {EXTRACTED from: |cm:Bugsplat>}

--Palestinian Doctor, Peace Advocate Recounts Israeli Attack on Home that Killed 3 Daughters, Democracy NOW!, March 20, 2009 Niece [THIS IS RECORDED ON DemocracyNOW! dvd. MUST DO V-CLIP!!!!! IT IS VERY MOVING!!!!!!]

{Millions [of Brits] were in germ war tests!!!!!!!.TXt>}
My uncle volunteered and proudly served in Vietnam only to be used as a guinea pig for Agent Orange and to come back a junkie! So fuck this piece of shit government! I wish I believed in Hell so I could take some sort of comfort that they'd all be there! --erby1kabogey, comment on, Gulf of Tonkin: McNamara admits "It didn't happen."

CAG: PS: WWWH: East Timor ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Holbrook questioned by Narian. -, January 28, 2008, 11:47:13 + CAG: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Clinton & Carter administration up to eyeballs in fascilitating Indonesia murders. They trained the torturers. -, January 28, 2008, 11:52:23 + [V-CLIP] ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Nairn questions Clinton. -DN!, January 28, 2008, 11:53:52

Intergenerational Warfare

Here's what the pols -- well, at least one of them -- will admit to:

The deficit is a debt tsunami VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

U.S. Senator John McCain, Meet The Press, December 4, 2005

federal government as a gigantic insurance company > Intergenerational Warfare Google search Here's the developing thread on that "dynomite" idea of asking "what controls governments?"

It's really wierd - - - "Josh" (not his real name) is extremely intelligent, well-read, and a world traveler - - - BUT

I do think that the policies of the right are often greedy and callous. Having much faith in my fellow man I trust those who endorse them are just misguided, and once their eyes are open they will be won over. --Josh

I have a lot of faith in my fellow man too - - - BUT there are a few you have to look out for. And it's often hard to distinguish them from the rest. That's why W.C. Fields' advice is perfect:

"Trust everyone and always cut the cards."

Because there are psychopaths (not very many) and opportunists (bunchs) who will take advantage of easy money. When you don't have to worry about the cops, stealing -- that is, coercion -- is the easiest money. Especially when it's accepted as "normal." As in "taxation."

Organizations regularly grow up around money sources, just as animals gather around a water hole.

Organizations that can't use coercion may still take advantage and mis-behave to some degree. But, because they have to count on customers voluntarily coming to them again and again to get their "water," overall, they have severe limits on their misbehavior. Where "the customer isn't always right," she becomes someone else's customer.

But coercively funded organizations have no such controls on them.

What keeps them and the psychopaths and opportunists they attract under control?

Health, happiness, & long life, Rick --Why Does the World Feel Wrong? [IT'S RUN BY PSYCHOPATHS], by Will Groves, Exclusive to STR, January 27, 2009 + --Econ 210a: February 25, 2009: The Economics of Thugs with Spears Who Take Your Stuff

======= Got this response:

Hi Rick:

Thanks. I didn't get what point you were trying to make. (Something about opportunists, but I missed what opportunity you feared they were trying to take advantage of.)

Best, Josh

======== Sent this:

Hi Josh!

This is really educational to me.

It seems to be a kind of hysterical blindness to the fact that there aren't any significant controls on governments. My theories thus far are:

1. That fact is simply too threatening

2. The idea is too far outside the normal conceptual box created for us by the culture to make semantic sense to "normal" people.

3. In that we have accepted "government" as our champion, protector, mama, daddy, big brother, etc., recognizing it as uncontrolled and potentially evil would be a massive psychological betrayal

Or maybe it's simpler than that - - -

Maybe you just want to argue governments don't need to be controlled?

Or that there ARE significant controls on governments? What would they be?

Health, happiness, & long life, Rick

P.S. This side-thread is peripherally relevant to the problem of being poor, since, as we know, the poor, just like the rest of us, pay about half their income in taxes. Well, actually they pay more - - - because of the regressive nature of FICA. To governments -- which clearly don't return equivalent value. So, if they're controlled, it's clearly NOT by those of our fellow men that we can trust.

======= Then this back from Josh:

Hi Rick:

Well, it may be hysterical blindness, but I still haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Yes, I know it has to do how wicked governments are, and the earlier one had to do with opportunists, so I am putting two and two together and guessing that governments are the greedy opportunists? And I guess this was a warning not to put trust in my fellow man? Or something? Sorry, the old crystal ball has gotten smudged. Where did I put my lens cleaner?

Meanwhile, one of the functions of government is to provide the "significant controls." I am big on them puppies! Bush and Clinton and Papa Bush and Reagan, almost thirty years of stripping way the significant controls. Bring them back! That's one of the things we pay taxes for!

Took the words right out of your mouth? ;)




Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:46:28 -0800 (PST) From: "L. Reichard White" Subject: [Politics] Re:Culture of Poverty addendum -- a little help, please To: xxxxxx

Hi Josh!

What's so baffling? Is it the IDEA that governments need to be controlled?

Or MAYBE everyone except me understands how they're controlled? And it's so simple, poor dumb Rick must just be too dense to understand? I don't get it.

So, HOW are governments controlled? What keeps them in line?

Health, happiness, & long life, Rick |cm: Governments stingy: J. Carter & example |fn:

J_Carter_Gvt_stingy_NOW051106_eS.wmv [ALREADY IN THC VIDEO DIRECTORY] +

Nabeel Rajab: "The] Bahrain government is a friend of the Western countries-and the European and the American. They are very influential in this part of the world. Unfortunately, for the past many years with all these violations against human rights, European Union and the United States government did not play a positive role. There, always economics and the flow of oil were a priority, and the rights of human-the last thing they would talk about [is] the rights of people here." --Bahrain Intensifies Crackdown on Opposition, Human Rights Groups [^^w CONNECT TO JIMMY CARTER'S VIDEO CLIP SAYING GOVERNMENTS ARE STINGY & U.S. GOVERNMENT GIVES TO THOSE FROM WHOM IT CAN GAIN.]Income Disparity: Reverse Robin Hood

--The Great Divergence:  Trying to understand income inequality, the most profound change in American society in your lifetime. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine [EXCELLENT GRAPH SHOWS UPTREND DURING 'ROARING 20'S, DOWNTREND AFTER GREAT DEPRESSION, STEADY TILL ~1970 - - - WHEN NIXON CLOSED THE GOLD WINDOW] + + [SHOULD BE GOOD GENERAL SOURCE:] --Third World America : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News
...a more fundamental point is this: all these three parties agree with each other on the economic measures that have to be taken, i.e., massive cuts in social welfare public spending, which will hurt the poor, and to support the banking system and the financial system in this country. All three are agreed on that. All three political parties are agreed that the war in Afghanistan has to continue as long as the United States says it has to ... there are no differences in substance. So I'm just bemused when I hear talks of a progressive coalition. What is going to be progressive about it? All three parties are going to do more or less the same thing, which is attack the poor. --Tariq Ali on Britain's Political Deadlock, Gordon Brown's Resignation and Pakistan's Role in the Times Square Bombing Attempt
All locations of "RRH:" in -September 8, 2010

FROM PAGE 345: RRH: ILOO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w The rich benefit from the results of the loans -- airports, etc. The poor pay the taxes. -John Perkins, EHM, LinkTV, March 13, 2010, 15:21:08

FROM PAGE 349: RRH: ILOO: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Wolfowitz: Even developed developing countries find it useful to work with the World Bank. -John Perkins, EHM, LinkTV, March 13, 2010, 16:40:07 + We need to step-up lending. -John Perkins, EHM, LinkTV, March 13, 2010, 16:41:29

FROM PAGE 951: UNS: SS: RRH: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w What's realistic? What can we do first to get points on the board? Reform Social Security that wouldn't hurt current retirees. People are living longer so they can work longer. -Alice Rivlin & David Walker, CNBC, June 10, 2010, 08:16:58 + Don't eliminate it, but it's good program. -Alice Rivlin & David Walker, CNBC, June 10, 2010, 08:18:47

FROM PAGE 1138: RRH: HM: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w When the US economy meets a wall of debt that can't be paid back. [A debt trap.] A credit-based economy transfers money from the poor to the rich. How to sell debt is the key. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:15:42 + RRH: Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are transfered to the rich. ...Makes America look like a third world banana republic. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:16:58

FROM PAGE 1138: FOS: RRH: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Fanny & Freddy. Bear Stearns. Cramer hypin Bear Stearns saying leave your money there. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:27:24 + My colleagues didn't understand what they were up against -Dean Starkman. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:28:10 + Financial reporters were as much embeded as were the Iraq war embeded. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:28:41 + The media was captured by the financial organizations. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:30:06 + More media out-takes. Drop money into a hole in your back yard as well as these other holes. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:31:14 + Around the world. ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w A 50 state Katrina. RRH: Money transfered from poor to rich. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:31:56

FROM PAGE 1140: RRH: ^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w Trillions spent on "stimulus." Money pumped into the very organizations that caused the problems -- and put money into the hands of the rich again. Chanos: The bad guys are ahead of the cops every time. Will they ever get the bad guys. -PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIMES, LINK TV, August 25, 2010, 13:47:32 {Where Do You Stand on America's Wealth Spectrum!!!!!!.TXt>}

Wall Street Burger Joint Dishes Out $175 Burger!!!!!!.htm>} {Philly's $100 Cheesesteak!!!!!!.htm>}

< |cm: Letter to Howie (& Don)> below. Search for "Robin Hood"

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston has been closely tracking the nation's income gap in the pages of the New York Times. In 2004, he published the bestselling book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich-and Cheat Everybody Else....
AMY GOODMAN: Explain the wealth transfer.
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, I was struck, listening to the program from Kenya, where they talked about the president and his power [8] to give money to people, give land, and that's why many people identify with it. We have created in the United States, largely in the last thirty years, a whole series of programs-a few of them explicit, many of them deeply hidden-that take money from the pockets of the poor and the middle class and upper middle class and funnel it to the wealthiest people in America.... "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill)"
As a general rule economists have found that government regulation of industries harms consumers and often gives monopoly power to producers. Some of these findings were behind the widespread support of economists for the deregulation of transportation, natural gas, and banking, which gained momentum in the Carter administration and continued until halfway through the Reagan administration.... But a society which is geared to protect the rich and the corporations and actually is hammering the poor, increasing their burden, this is the reverse of what we thought was going to happen under the A.N.C. government.

Perhaps you're thinking this terrible record is unique to the United States Government -- or perhaps to this period in history -- or the particular leaders in charge? Maybe if we could just get the "right" folks in charge, everything would be O.K.?

Well, we can hope, but there's this with it's dirty thumb stuck deeply in the bouillabaisse:

10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields and your vinyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vinyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. {^^w ref to Polanyi & hides of bergdama, etc.}

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. --I. SAMUEL, 8, The Holy Bible, King James Version

So, since people as far back as the Israelites knew of the hazards of government -- and as historian Barbara Tuchman observed, "A phenomenon noticeable throughout history, regardless of place or period, is the pursuit [by] governments of policies to their own interests. Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than of almost any [other] human activity," why is it then, that we have them? If I've done my homework well, you probably already know, but perhaps haven't thought of it yet. Let's see - - -

A: Governments Are Non-economic Memetic Machines

MAIN POINT: Very difficult to control non-econo-memetic machines.

Until World War I, no government in history was ever able--even in wartime--to obtain from its people more than a very small fraction of the country's national income, perhaps 5 or 6 percent. But in World War I every belligerent, even the poorest, found that there was practically no limit to what government can squeeze out of the population. By the outbreak of World War I, the economies of all the belligerent countries were fully monetized. As a result, the two poorest countries, Austria-Hungary and Russia, in several war years could actually tax and borrow more than the total annual income of their respective populations. They managed to liquidate capital accumulated over long decades and turn it into war materiel.
Joseph Schumpeter, who was then still living in Austria, understood immediately what had happened. But the rest of the economists and most governments needed a second lesson: World War II. Since then, however, all developed and many developing countries have become "fiscal states." They have all come to believe that there are no economic limits to what government can tax or borrow and, therefore, no economic limits to what government can spend.
· · · ·
· · · ·
Traditionally, government, the political society, had available to it only such means as were granted by the civil society, and then only within the very narrow limits of a few percentage points of national income, which was all that could be monetized. Only that amount could be converted into taxes and loans, and hence into government revenues. Under the new dispensation, which assumes that there are no economic limits to the revenues it can obtain, government becomes the master of civil society, able to mold and shape it. Above all, by using taxes and expenditures, government can redistribute society's income. Through the power of the purse, it can shape society in the politician's image.
But also under the new dispensation it is only too easy to see national income as belonging to government, with individuals entitled only to whatever government is willing to let them have. · · · ·
The term "tax loophole," however, implies that everything belongs to government unless it has been specifically designated to be retained by the taxpayer. And whatever taxpayers retain, they retain only because government in its wisdom and generosity is willing to allow them to do so.
Of course, this became explicit only in the Communist countries. But even in the United States, especially during the Kennedy years, it was received wisdom in Washington, particularly among the bureaucracy, that all income belongs to government except whatever government expressly and explicitly permits the taxpayer to keep. ["Ask not what your country can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country." ed.] -Post-Capitalist Society by Peter F. Drucker, pg. 125->127
The belief that the fiscal state can effectively redistribute income, and thereby reform society through taxation and subsidies, has been decisively disproven. The least egalitarian countries are those that have tried hardest to redistribute income: the Soviet Union; the United States; Great Britain. All they accomplished was to give us the "pork-barrel state"--the most dangerous degenerative disease that the body politic is suffering from. So far no one knows how we can get rid of this legalized looting of the commonwealth. It may require constitutional innovations--perhaps a new public agency independent of both legislature and executive, which audits spending proposals and determines ehether this or that proposed outlay is actually in the public interest and compatible with public policy. (Such an audit woould resemble in the public sphere the "business audit" proposed in Chapter 3 for governance of corporations.) The idea will be called naive, not to say Utopian. Legislatures can be expected to resist any attempt to dicipline themselves. But in truth a good many legislators all over the world would welcome such an outside check on their undiscipline. {Larry Dodge's GA legislator! -LRW} They cannot apply it themselves--or believe they cannot do so--without being punished by the special-interest groups. But they also know that the pork-barrel process is undermining their own positions and their standing with their constituents, quite apart from destroying their self-respect. -Post-Capitalist Society by Peter Drucker, pg 164 & 165.

We mentioned in Chapter mm, Memetic Machines, it's difficult to control especially non-economic memetic machines. And we mentioned further that memetic machines often don't follow their own written rules. We suggested that a particularly egregious example was the organization called "The United States Government." Let's take a look.

Even though its elected officers (The President, Congress, etc.) take an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution every time they take office, they regularly ignore that oath. All wars since WWII are cases in point:

U.S. Constitution, ARTICLE. I. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives... Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power... Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water -The United States Constitution

This was clarified by founding father James Madison:

...the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. -James Madison

As far as how those taking oaths to uphold and defend The Constitution -- including the requirement that only Congress can declare war -- feel about it today, grandfatherly U.S. House Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) focuses in on it like a laser beam in a James Bond flick - - -

"I think it is a fact of modern history that declarations of war are gone. I think they are anachronistic .... Clearly the Constitution assigns the declarations of war function to Congress and only to Congress. But declaring war has consequences in a technologically advanced world that nobody wants to face .... Instead what you do is you call it a police action, as we did in Korea, or you call it something else, but you do not formally take that giant leap of declaring war." - Congressional Record, June 7, 1995

This means that the Korean "War" wasn't a war. Nor the Vietnam "War," nor the first Gulf "War," (so-called "Desert Storm"), nor the Iraq "War" (so-called "Operation Iraqi Freedom,"), etc.

Elsewhere Hyde goes on to explain that in general, "...the Constitution has been 'overtaken by events, by time' and is 'no longer relevant to modern society.'" [9] Certainly Mr. Hyde isn't alone in this attitude.

Another egregious example with probably even more momentous implications than having wars without declaring them:

In 1933, F.D. Roosevelt in cahoots with Congress and the Supreme Court, directly disobeyed the body of the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend by violating the hard money clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of The United States Constitution which specifies for good reason that "No State shall ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts?"

There were very good reasons for the hard money clauses: All previous experiments with paper money, including ones recently on the founders minds when they wrote The Constitution -- because they had been repeated in most of the thirteen colonies in their lifetimes -- had all come to a bad inflationary end. I will venture a rare prediction and suggest that there's quite a good chance that some version of a bad end has befallen the U.S. currency, and possibly the country, by this time (sometime after 2006 A.D.) as a result of unconstitutionally dropping hard money in favor of paper/megabyte money.

Do you pay your debts with gold and silver Coin?? I know I don't. Why not? [10]

The simple answer is that the non-economic memetic machine set up by the founders and specified by the U.S. Constitution no longer follows its written rules.

This sort of thing was fairly well anticipated by many of the skeptical founders -- and they tried to head it off at the pass. They insisted on having ten amendments attached to The Constitution before they would ratify it. They called those ten amendments, "The Bill of Rights." They feared that the new organization they were forming would grow out of control like all previous such organizations, and that its leaders would regularly try to "aggrandize their prerogatives."

They feared that that organization would gather more and more power to itself at the expense of "we the people" just as similar organizations had in the past. And so they included the Ninth and Tenth amendments in that "Bill of Rights." And looking at the Ninth and Tenth amendments is where you can best see how the memetic machine created by the U.S. Constitution has come to almost completely ignore the rules and restraints imposed on it by that founding document.

You can find them here:

Particularly notice Amendment IX and Amendment X. Together these two amendments clearly spell out the general boundaries of what the government may not do -- and where the real power lies. Particularly Amendment X limits the U.S. Government from doing anything not expressly specified in the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, those people comprising the United States Government do not have the power to do anything "not [specifically] delegated to [them] by the Constitution."

When were the Ninth and Tenth Amendments repealed? They weren't? Then where does the U.S. Constitution say the Feds can charter a private "National" bank (the "Federal Reserve")? Where does it say the FEDS can tell farmers what to grow and how to grow it (USDA), tell us, their employers, what drugs and other substances we can buy and use (FDA), form a national police force (FBI), arrogate themselves the right to tell us where and how we can work (OSHA)? Where does the U.S. Constitution say the government in D.C. can order the bombing and invasion of foreign countries without Congress declaring war? [^^w footnote war clause] Etc. etc. etc.?

Clearly the "servants" we hired made enough wiggle room for themselves -- and their silent partners -- to wreak "mischief" big time. And they now almost completely ignore the written rules they none the less swear to uphold and defend.

The government, under the pretext of security and progress, liberated us from our land, resources, culture, dignity and future. They violated every treaty they ever made with us. ... My words reach out to the non-Indian: ... Your own treaty, the one between yourselves and the government, is being violated daily; this treaty is commonly known as the Constitution. With us, they started a little at a time, encroaching on our rights until we had none at all. [11] It will be the same for the Constitution; We are ...embattled with ...a mindset that lusts for power and wealth at the expense of life. --Anniversary Statement from Leonard Peltier, Fri, 23 Jan, 2004

C: Governments Operate as Hierarchies

Information problems: OMDA, ignores important infopmation, etc.

Cost of Iraq war. We must get this administration to understand we can't afford this kind of things. We have to stop wasting money, we have to spend on transportation, health, things to make our people more productive, etc. -, November 8, 2007, 11:50:25 Rep_Loretta_Sanchez_JECC071108.VOB>
Part II: The Case Against Government -- From the Record
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing. -Ronald Reagan

Leslie Stahl: We have heard that half a million children have died [in Iraq as a result of the embargo]. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?
Then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it. -60 Minutes, May 12, 1996

Richardson: "I stand behind the sanctions." VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Democracy NOW! September 22, 2005

[Michael Moore]

Supplies were delivered to the Houma Indians, who had received no help (not even a visit) from the Red Cross or FEMA. A roof was put on their Cultural Center in Golden Meadows and a generator was provided to keep a years supply of seafood from spoiling in the sun. A man in Lefitte was found sitting on his porch, the house surrounded by four feet of water. A canoe-load of supplies was paddled to his doorstep by two of our volunteers. New Orleans evacuees joined our efforts. They served as our guides, leading us through now decimated communities and taking us to the areas of greatest need. You can read more of these in the diaries on my website.

The harsh truth that I must report to you is that the federal government and Red Cross relief efforts are still a disorganized, embarrassing mess with little or no help reaching most people -- this more than a month after Katrina. It is the freelance guerilla efforts like ours that are getting through. We aren't waiting for approval and we aren't stopping. We will make sure Bush and Co. pay for their failure later, but right now hundreds of thousands are homeless, hungry and in need of medical attention. And the rest of us have a responsibility to help them. We have joined forces with Saving Our Selves Katrina (S.O.S.), an organization that began as a temporary coalition of pre-existing community organizations. They are doing amazing work with volunteers and believe that concrete aid from community church-based organizations must fill the gaps when the government fails us. They have become, with your help, a bright light offering immediate relief to the families who have lost everything. Find out what SOS and other similar relief groups need, right now, from you. Thanks again, everyone, for lending a hand. We won't give up and we know you won't either. Yours,

Michael Moore

NYC's ACS admits 465 PRESUMED HIV positive kids under Child Welfare, mostly blacks and Latinos, were used as guinea pigs. -, May 2, 2005, 11:32:46 ACS head, well intentioned bureaucrat head of ACS says what the problem really is: If the community doesn't trust us, we'll lose funding -- but he has good plans to take responsibility for the kids. Sees it as an issue of public trust. -Commissioner John Manningly, DN! May 2, 2005, 11:53:53 Charges were that kids whose parents refused permission for treatment were removed to foster homes who would. -DN!, May 2, 2005, 11:55:19


The Tuskeegee blacks used as controls for treatment for syphilis

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, 'Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.' But isn't the opposite really the case? Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. -Mark Skousen
Some people think robbers and murderers are the main danger to our society. But you and I know that the real danger to our society, Mr. Bray, are people like you who don't pay their taxes. -Federal Judge Ritter to libertarian tax educator Carl Bray

Reference China Tax WSJ article (Appendix ac_China.HTM)
...the amazing thing is we are been taken over basically by a cult, eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow grabbed the government. Just how and why and how they did it so efficiently, will have to wait for much later historians and better documentation than we have now, but they managed to overcome the bureaucracy and the Congress, and the press, with the greatest of ease. ...You do have to wonder what a Democracy is when it comes down to a few men in the Pentagon and a few men in the White House having their way. ... as somebody said, the goal in the last month has been to separate the apostates from the true believers. That's what's happening. ... there's been a tremendous sea change in the government. A concentration of power. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh: "We've Been Taken Over by a Cult", Wednesday, January 26th, 2005
[POSSIBLY USED IN "MEMETIC MACHINES"] For me, it's just another story, but out of this comes a core of -- you know, we all deal in "macro" in Washington. On the macro, we're hopeless. We're nowhere. The press is nowhere. The congress is nowhere. The military is nowhere. Every four-star General I know is saying, "Who is going to tell them [the Bush administration -lrw] we have no clothes?" Nobody is going to do it. Everybody is afraid to tell Rumsfeld anything. That's just the way it is. It's a system built on fear. It's not lack of integrity, it's more profound than that. Because there is individual integrity. It's a system that's completely been taken over -- by cultists. Seymour Hersh: "We've Been Taken Over by a Cult", Wednesday, January 26th, 2005 {EXTRACTED from: -January 28, 2005, 04:26:37}
I believe in only one thing: liberty, but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone. -H. L. Mencken
HOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKS: Congress doesn't deliberate on many bills -- sections are tacked-on "essential" spending bills, etc., as stowaways. They get passed without debate. The so-called "national ID bill," requiring driver's licenses to be presented for gvt. svcs. was like that. Habeas Corpus suspended. Driving without a license -- people will have to do that now. -DemocracyNOW!, Families for Freedom, April 29, 2005, 11:52:04

Larry Dodge: No. Carolina legislator who thanked him for helping juries get rid of the bad laws he and fellows passed without reading them. + Ron Paul & Bernie Sanders etc. on the congress didn't read the patriot act - - couldn't because it wasn't available. + Conyers from Fahrenheit 911 (John Martin has a copy) telling Michael Moore to "Sit down my son" after Moore says "I thought you read the laws you passed." + Veto My Bill> -- PLEASE!

[VIDEO CLIP]? -Amnesty International's report claims U.S. is "The Gulag" of our age, as Gitmo proves. ALSO Sudan is the worst human rights violater -- the Government conspired against it's own people. U.S. rebuttal says such a report is pro-alQaeda. Also later, there are plans to build a wall around Baghdad to make it harder for resistance fighters to gain entry. -DemocracyNOW!, May 26, 2005, 11:04:03

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison |cm: Evolution of the hierarchist/warfare state |fn: In Hierarchy -- do we need it or Going Native?

Lowe -- history too much about the state (Howard Zinn?)

Stieger -- politicians "point with pride" and "view with alarm" -- then "they find a parade in progress, get in front, and pretend to lead it."

Robspierre leading parade he loses control of and gets executed under his own "law of the ??? third Parille"

Spontaneous order

Hunter-gatherers may engage in raiding and such but didn't engage in all out warfare where every male participated (Boehm -- [not the chimp quote I don't think])

Like wild chimpanzees (see Goodall 1986), mobile hunter gatherers live in groups that often tend to act in a proprietary way about the resources they use (see Kelly 1995). Furthermore, both types of society seem to refrain from all- out intensive warfare, in which all the males of two groups are willing to have it out and mutually inflict massive casualties (see Manson and Wrangham 1991; Boehm 1992). Further, both foragers and chimpanzees fail to temporarily combine their territorial groups in order to defend against or attack other such "confederations" (Boehm 1992).

How tribes declare war (Boehm excerpt from SN or could be Officer)

Paleface doesn't have patience to do above [in"Indian" tribal meets] (Officer).

War as we know it involves defending territory. At what point in history would it make sense to risk Uncle Aug and Brother Szaz to fight a war and defend territory?

BUT modern warfare - - -

Bertie Felstead -- We thought we were defending England. There wouldn't have been a war if it had been left to the people.

Goering -- people forced to do leader's bidding -- but WHY??

Kenichi -- old "fashioned leaders solving problems"

Merchantilism & Silent Partners

Switzerland's approach to war -- it's worked for {500 years} -- should be a clue.


The Government Is Not Your Friend

I took the name of this subsection from the theme of a book by a well-known news figure, regularly seen on FOX NEWS CHANNEL in the early 2000s. The theme of his book, " Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws" by former Federal Judge and FOX NEWS' "THE Judge," Andrew P. Napolitano (and implicit in the title itself) was, "The government is not your friend." We will expand on that theme just a bit -- and of course if you want a much more detailed account, at least on the legislative/judicial side of things, get Judge Napolitano's book. And while this legislative/judicial side isn't the only place the government isn't your friend, as you'll see, it's certainly a good place to start. Recalling that the founders had just had quite specific negative experiences with, from their view, unacceptable government, let's take a look at what they considered important in limiting their new government. We can make that judgement by looking at the contents of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known as "The Bill of Rights." We can judge the importance the founders placed on these ten amendments by the fact that they had to be included before enough states would even ratify the whole Constitution.

With that context in mind, let's see what the composition of those amendments was. In particular, how many of the ten bear on law enforcement and courts. We find that Amendments IV through VIII -- a total of five of the ten amendments in the bill of rights -- half -- have to do with what we now call "law enforcement" and with courts and trials.

Amendment IV deals with limiting government searches and seizures, Amendment V with "due process of law," guaranteeing the government must follow fair procedures in charging, trying, and jailing citizens -- and that no one can be forced to testify against themselves and the government can't steal private property. Amendment VI defines the make-up of juries, that the government can't conduct closed trials or present secret evidence or railroad a citizen who can't afford a lawyer. Amendment VII specifies jury trials for common law [civil] trials. Amendment VIII prevents the government from imposing excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

So fully half of the Bill of Rights -- with the aid of the writ of Habeas Corpus -- protects against government abuse of its legal apparatus. This mostly comes from the British tradition forced on "King" John by Magna Carta in 1215.

Why? In Merry Olde England -- as elsewhere -- it became common for the state and politically influential -- particularly royalty and the rich -- to use the police and courts to disappear those they disliked or found, shall we say, "inconvenient."

The fact that Habeas Corpus -- as well as "due process" -- was scrapped in dealing with "enemy combatants" such as those held in Guantanamo is fairly well known, but, based on the treatment of three U.S. citizens -- Jose Padilla, Yaser Hamdi, and Shafiq Rasul -- that it may no longer apply to U.S. Citizens isn't. And even though the Democrats have vowed to restore Habeas Corpus 2007 A.D.), until they do, it and Amendments V and VI are in danger of joining the another parts of the U.S. Constitution no longer used by The Government.

It's also fairly well known that the GW Bush administration through the NSA and CIA spy programs, completely scrapped the U.S. Constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government is not your friend in the courts or in its use of the police powers.

Who cares and what does it matter? Well, as of 2004, an all-time world record of one in 32 Americans is in prison, on probation or on parole, being "supervised" by the "justice" system.

Charge stacking, plea blackmail, serial prosecution. The process is the punishment. Wen Ho Lee "My Government Versus Me" pg. 9 Don't trust gvt. or anyone who works for it.

Napolitano "The government is not your friend."

Richard Jewel & "Gag, Demonize & Destroy"

V_Clip from I gave FBI 5 minutes> to question me. That was a mistake to talk to them at all. -DN!, October 6, 2005, 11:20:36 & If I could find myself in prison for 76 days charged with these death penalty charges, it could happen to anyone. -Gitmo Chaplin James Yee, DN!, October 6, 2005, 11:58:29

The Case Against Government


Chainsaw Al Dunlap: The organization with the biggest??? a bloated balance sheet and products nobody wants.
Drucker: The organizations that need the bottom-line discipline most = gvt.
Fox's 'Judge' pens blockbuster 'The gvt is not your friend'!!!!!!!.txt>

DEBT (44.2 TRILLION -- NOW 71 TRILLION SEE Speeches ignore impending U.S. debt disaster>

James Baker's Double Life!!!!!!!.Txt>

1. They don't do their homework (Wizard bill, USA Patriot Act--Hinchey, etc.)

2. They not only don't protect us (DisMything I:Protected My Ass & Protected My Ass -- The Sequel), they don't have to -- and they make our lives more dangerous (drug laws cause 60% of property crime, messing with foreigners cause 9-11 type events) -- and try to prevent us from protecting ourselves (anti self-protection laws). US had 10 chances to avert 9/11 >

2A. Marie Schiavo & "regulating" the airlines -- and what regulating the airlines is all about & the long runway airport for Tyson where guy tells who favors are really done for. Michael Moor: The Big One, claims corporate welfare is five times as large as social welfare. Their "regulation" protects industry, not "we the people."

According to a story broadcast on PBS July 3, 2004, 07:55:39, a large mid-west meat packing company, after market testing the idea, set up a private lab to test every cow they processed for "mad cow disease" so they could assure absolutely disease-free beef. This only added about two cents per pound to the cost of their products. But the USDA outlawed the process on the basis that if the practice caught on, all meat packers would have this extra expense which would then increase costs of beef.

|cm: Ky. meatpacker's plan rejected |fn: from

Creekstone Farm Premium Beef meatpacking plant in Arkansas City, Kan ... plans to test every animal for mad cow disease were rejected by USDA officials. ...

"We want a level playing field for all companies based on science," said Gary Webber, director of regulatory affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

The American Meat Institute, the meatpacking industry's trade association, opposes 100 percent testing, calling it an unnecessary expense. ...

On a recent trip to Japan, Fielding [Tyson Food's COO] said he saw the effects of the discovery of mad cow disease -- known formally as bovine spongiform encephalopathy -- firsthand. Grocery stores hang signs above meat counters telling consumers the beef has been BSE tested. Workers wearing "Aussie Beef" aprons gave away free samples of Australian beef.

For Creekstone, which exports as much as 25 percent of its brand-name beef, the loss of overseas markets was devastating. ... Fielding fears if the ban on exports forces small packers out of business, the result with be further consolidation in an industry that is already top-heavy. Eighty percent of the beef this country eats comes from four meatpackers. Ky. meatpacker's plan rejected, Feds block mad cow tests , Campbellsburg company will challenge ruling {EXTRACTED from: } Appendix ac, Monsanto captures FDA and FTC {C:\temp\PARKED\Ron Paul Town Hall 2.flv INCLUDES AT ABOUT 18 MINUTES THAT IT'S ILLEGAL FOR PHYSICIANS TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL DEALS OR TAKE INSURANCE ON PROCEDURES TO AVOID MALPRACTICE SUITS}

ONly 31% of doctors have been checked for competency in the last three years. Medical boards lack the money and personnel to check more. -Pittsburgh CBS Channel 2 Noon News, January 1, 2008, 12:23:57

1 of 5 drugs approved by FDA from 1975 thru 2000 were either withdrawn from the market or a "black box" warning was added to the marketing material of the drug. Don't use newly approved drugs, except "break-through" drugs, at least for five years. -Dr. Wolf, Germany admits Namibia genocide, Saturday, 14 August, 2004, 19:40 GMT 20:40 UK

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust." 1. All history concerning CIA intervention in foreign countries is summarized from William Blum's encyclopedic work, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995). Sources for domestic CIA operations come from Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen's The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1997).

      2. Coleman McCarthy, "The Consequences of Covert Tactics" Washington Post, December 13, 1987. A Timeline of CIA Atrocities, By Steve Kangas {EXTRACTED from: -August 20, 2004, 18:32:35}

But we soon learned that management is needed in all modern organizations. In fact, we soon learned that it is needed even more in organizations that are not businesses, [like] government agencies. These organizations need management the most precisely because they lack the discipline of the "bottom line" under which business operates. -Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society, (New York: HarperBusiness 1993), pg 43

Peter Fisher: [12] "Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company with a sideline business in national defense and homeland security. This particular insurance company, it turns out, has made personal promises to its policyholders that have a current value of $20 trillion or so in excess of the revenues it expects to receive. An insurance company with cash accounting is not really an insurance company at all," he added, "it's an accident waiting to happen." -Peter Fisher, U.S. under secretary of the Treasury for domestic finance, Russell On Gold, $20 trillion in the hole... Gold anyone?, Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, 22 November, 2002

"Our Enemy The State" Albert J. Nock

MUST SEE |fn:Greenspan, Insanna/McCain, Steiger, Lucier, Kamin, Douglass


[LINK TO: Perot, John Chancellor, Russia, Auto industry, etc. etc. FASCISM: ALIVE, WELL and LIVING -- EVERYWHERE! ????]

EXCELLENT SOURCES & MORE: Cajuska in Check Prior store; Son on McNeil Lehrer; The Lazy Bear; "What socialism proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is that if you give a man a chance to sit on his ass and do nothing, he will." Also proven by the first Thanksgiving. + + |cm:******We'veBeenThisWayBefore |fn:ER 5-star: We can't control gvts -- they're not market sensitive I think we've been this way before @Galearis Posted by: journeyman Date: March 20, 2002 at 10:09 Message id: 6792

Hi Galearis!

I enjoy nearly all of your posts (If I claimed I enjoyed all of them, I'd lose my reputation!!) Yea, I know, "What reputation."

First I'm not a Libertarian; I'm a libertarian. In short I believe you should be free to do anything you please as long as you don't directly harm anyone else or their property -- or interfere with their equal rights to do anything they please. In the lib vernacular, that translates into a free-market (not capitalist -- the two are incompatible) economy, strict respect for civil liberties, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Sounds a lot like the classical liberals doesn't it?

My problem with the institutions of government is they can't be controlled. I think this is the way we've been before. See, if I don' like the products, prices, or even the way my local grocery treats the poor, I can go to another grocery. And the grocery knows I can do this, so they are always going out of their way to satisfy me and their other customers. WE have the upper hand because we control the purse-strings. Not so with governments -- they get their money at, essentially, the point of a gun, and because of that quirk, there's little we can do to control these organizations. And government minions know this, at least subliminally. That's why "DMV" is synonomous with "abyssmal service," for example.

Under the best of circumstances, good intentions lose out to lethargy. And things are rarely under the best of circumstances. Seeing that managers of any type conform to their fiduciary responsibilities is always a problem. Enron is just the most recent reminder.

But in the end, Enron got it's "comeuppance" and went belly up because it's managers grossly violated this fiduciary responsibility.

Enron was finally "corrected" and controlled by market forces -- even in the face of fascist-capitalist-socialist-government-(military)insustrial complex wishes to the contrary.

Thus, from my "environmental" perspective, governments ALL are subject to convergent evolution: They all converge on totalitarianism because the "tax quirk" means they are free to serve the interests of the fiduciaries and their agents at the expense of the interests of the people whose interests they are supposed to protect.

The only way to have a government that can be controlled is to have a government without any taxation. I would whole heartedly support such a government, and should a movement for one evolve, I would spend every free minute helping it out in any way I could.

High and liberal regards, journeyman C:\USR\Rattler & Rick\NastyGvt\Has the U_S_ Government Committed War Crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, by Robert Higgs!!!!!!!.TXt

Because of government-inflicted injustices. [HOW FREE MARKETS CONTROL ENTERPRISE -- BUT NOT GOVERNMENTS J-manAtER Licensure in general @ SLATT, Flinter, ALL Includes the supersecret-supersensitivity clip on mal-practice data base ]

Licensure in general @ SLATT, Flinter, ALL Posted by: Journeyman Date: August 9, 2001 at 16:37

Hi again SLATT!
The "state" is incompetent in almost anything it does because there are no equivalent controls on it to the controls on a free market.
What controls a "free market" is the customers - - - if they don't like the results, the enterprise loses it's customers and goes quitely out of business.
This force keeps constant subliminal pressure on all market-controlled organizations to deliver what ever their customers want at the lowest price they can.
Of course we don't have any free markets here in the U.S. -- or anywhere else, but that's another story.
If you want some organization to tip you off to bad services or practictioners, etc. the last place you want to look is to government. It is the main organization in the whole world that is almost completely immune to control by it's "customers" and the lousy services we get at inflated prices are the predictible result. Also the services we don't want but get anyway - - - at inflated prices!!
Businesses quickly learn that rather than governments protecting customers against businesses, they can easily use government to protect businesses from customers.
Trust me on this, I can back it up.
My favorite example, quite apropos since you brought up a medical incident, is medicine.
First consider who is being protected from whom and by who in the following:
*Supersensitive supersecrecy*
At UNISYS Corp.'s defense group computer facility in
Camarillo, Caif., workers are putting final touches on a new
data bank set to go on line within the next six months. The
computer system will house information so secret that even
high-ranking government officials will have no direct access
by telephone links. Instead, information will be entered by
hand from sealed, written reports and, upon request,
distributed to qualified personnel via the mail--perhaps in
double-wrapped envelopes that will not give away the nature
of their contents.
What information could be so sensitive? Nothing less
than a national compilation of all professional reprimands
against individual physicians, dentists and other health
care practitioners along with detailed accounts of any
malpractice payments made by these practitioners.
Last week the federal government published its
description of the new system, stirring controversey for its
decision to deny individuals and health care advocacy groups
access to the computer's contents. Physician organizations
want the data kept out of non-physician hands for fear they
will be misinterpreted by consumers. Patient advocates
counter that such information could help people choose
health care providers. -_SCIENCE_ _NEWS_, October 28, 1989,
Biomedicine News Notes, p. 284.
There were about 7 different types of medicine practiced in early 1900's -- including the one we've been left with, what I call the "cut, slash and burn" school, wasn't doing too well in competition with the other six.
They got smart and hired Teddy Roosevelt's nephew (I think) to do a report on how great it was. Whether or not he took the money under false pretenses I don't know, but he wrote a glowing report which they used to get the other six outlawed --- by licensure.
You may recognize some of the other types from history. Homeopathic medicine and Chiropractic are the only ones to survive the coup.
And this is the template for licensure, not the exception.
Remember if your local food store gives you bad service or any reason what-so-ever, you can go to the other food stores and you don't have to pay your old store in taxes either. You're in control in a market situation but not in a government situation.
For that reason, if you want certification of proficiency (or warning of malpractice) you want a market-based inspection service (underwriter's lab started that way and Consumer Reports is excellent -- and could probably add doctor certification), not a government Driver's License certification knock-off!
There are plenty of other examples in other fields as well.
But I have to duck out mostly -- leaving town for a week or so and have stuff to do.
P.S. We've been so brainwashed into believing in government, it takes quite awhile to uncover the con and even longer to accept that we were conned. Took me many years, and I'm still working on it.
P.P.S. Flinter, I agree with you completely!

They Don't Deliver - - -


"The Index of Social Well-Being," prepared annually by Fordham University, largely based on how a society treats its most vulnerable members such as children, shows that America's social well-being, as measured by government figures, dropped from a high of 77.5 in 1973, and has been falling ever since, to a low of 37.5 in 1994. The index shows a consistent decline of well-being extending through both Republican and Democratic administrations. -Synopsis of presentation by Dr. Marc Miringoff of Fordham University, CNN Today, Oct. 14, 1996 [13]

C:\USR\Rattler & Rick\AMERICA AS IT IS\34_6 Million U_S_ People in Poverty in 2002 - Report!!!!!!.TXT

Because They Operate as a Selfish Clique - - -

ALL money earmarked for victims goes to bureaucrats>
The Chinese government, after ignoring the plight of 60 peasant children orphaned as a result of their parents deaths caused by AIDS acquired from dirty needles during a government blood drive (because the blood could be sold for hard currency), closed the orphanage finally funded by private money. The excuse was that the building, called "The Sunshine School," didn't have a building permit. The real reason was that the 60 peasant children had become a cause celebre -- and a money maker. Now all donations for these children go into government coffers. -NWI 6/5/2004

And it Was Designed That Way - - -

"When Social Security was passed in 1935, life expectancy was 61 and retirement age was 65. This was actuarially sound." -Ex US Senator Sam Nunn, Concorde Coalition, ABC's This Week, 3 August, 1997

|cm: *****Greenspan Cautions on Baby Boomer Benefits* |fn: from

JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) -Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday that the country will face "abrupt and painful" choices if Congress does not move quickly to trim the Social Security and Medicare benefits that have been promised to the baby boom generation.

      Returning to a politically explosive issue that he has addressed a number of times this year, Greenspan said that it was wrong for the government to hold out the promise of more retirement benefits than it is capable of providing.

      He said this issue was particularly critical given the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers born in the two decades after World War II.

      "As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered," Greenspan said ...

      "If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels," Greenspan said. "If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful." ... Greenspan, as he has done previously, suggested that one possible fix would be again raising the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits, which currently is being gradually increased from 65 to 67. Greenspan has said perhaps retirement age should be continually adjusted as life expectancies incpease. ...

      "Though the challenges of prospective increasingly stark choices for the United States seem great, the necessary adjustments will likely be smaller than those required in most other developing countries," he said, noting that Europe and Japan will have a much higher proportion of retirees to current workers in coming years. *Greenspan Cautions on Baby Boomer Benefits*, By MARTIN CRUTSINGER,, Aug 27, 3:42 PM (ET) {EXTRACTED from: -September 2, 2004, 08:28:30}

THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems. ... In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role." CIA gives grim warning on European prospects, NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN, Soctland on Sunday, Sun 16 Jan 2005 |cm: Protected My Ass

They Can't and Won't Protect Us

Police and the courts:

Police State>

Foreign protection:

New York City's Mayor and Time's Man of The Year Rudy Giuliani: "Short of closing down America and closing down the city of New York, it would be impossible to entirely prevent terrorism." -quoted by Brian Jenkins, CNN Live, 19 Feb. 1998, 2:04pm
The US is vulnerable to chemical, biological, nuclear attack, according to a Congressional report to be released next week. Such an attack against the U.S. is impossible to prevent. -ABC Evening News with Tom Brokow, 8 Jul 1999, 6:36:38 PM EST
U.S. Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: "Needless to say, we do worry that they will make a terrorist attack on the United States. They already did. They've threatened to do more. They will do more whether we do what we're doing or whether we don't do what we're doing." -November 13, 2001, 15:01:13
former CIA Officer Gene Poteat: Even if you had knowledge of the exact [9-11] targets, it would be difficult to stop such an operation. {Is it the fault of the American people of forgoeing certain security measures?-Haines Yes. }-{Gene Poteat, former CIA Officer, }CNBC, September 12, 2001, 08:34:38
An anti-terrorism expert claims, "Two out of
three terrorist attacks succeed." -MSNBC, 7 Aug 1998, ~11:40:24 AM EDT
Desert Storm General Norman Schwartzkopf: ~"There is no way to stop a dedicated terrorist who is willing to pay the price." -MSNBC, 8 Aug 1998, ~11:04:34 AM EDT
What's so hard about defending against terrorists?>
Unknown bomber(s) explode a bomb near Wall Street, blowing the front windows out of a building during a nearby police anti-terrorist exercize. -CNN HLN, 11-09-97, ~4:08pm EST
More Non-protection> Magnet for Corruption --By Sibel Edmonds on 5/4/2009 1:41PM , SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not, The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security

HM: CAG: TBO: --U.S. to Lose $400 Billion on Fannie, Freddie, Wallison Says -

The Case Against Government In Clips



~"As you know, programs which are easy to begin or expand, are difficult or impossible to eliminate once a constituency develops which profits from them and so develops a vested interest in maintaining the status quo." -Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 29 Jan 1998

Steiger's Law:

Sam Steiger is a former six-term US Congressman from Arizona. This means he served in the US House of Representatives for some 12 years. He ran for governor of Arizona on the Libertarian ticket in 1984. He's a genuine gentleman rancher and has the "people's touch." At a talk given July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party "CANDIDATE'S CONVENTION" in Las Vegas, Nevada, he suggested what he modestly called "Steiger's Law." He stated it as:

"People involved in a structure spend more time and energy maintaining that structure than in working toward its goals."

During a question period, I asked him "How much more?" After a moment or two of thought, he suggested about 85% was spent maintaining and about 15% working. He added with a twinkle, "But that's only if it's a very good organization." Thus for me, Steiger's Law became:

"People in a very good structure spend 85% of their time and energy maintaining the structure and only about 15% working towards its stated goals."

This clearly applies to government organizations in particular, and is the basis of one of the main problems we have with them.

This directly suggests Steiger's Corollary:

"People within a structure divorced from market forces will expend more time and energy defending it than can economically be spent by people outside the structure attempting to modify or eliminate it."
This is because the power of the consumer, in this case, to just say "No" is not a factor.
The corollary applies mostly to governments ... -Anon

For example - - -

"The people who protected the Commerce Department the last time around were Commerce Department bureaucrats who actually set up a Commerce Department war room to fend off spending cuts." -Jim Lucier of Americans for Tax Reform, CNBC Inside Opinion, 19 Dec 1996, 12:17 PM EST

~"The main opposition for the abolition of the Energy Department comes from the Energy Department bureaucrats." -Rod Gramms, R-Minnesota, FNC, 29 Jan 1997 ~2:15 PM

This is repeated over and over in government -- and often on behalf of government's corporate clients as well. That explains the 27,000 or so registered lobbyists prowling the halls of government, flushing out special favors for their mostly corporate employers. And with Greenspan's observation above, we end up with this - - -

Ron Insanna: "You tried last year to get rid of some of this corporate welfare --- what is it, twelve people in congress voted for it, voted with you? ...
U.S. Senator John S. McCain: "You know Ron, we proposed elimination of about $60 billion in pork over seven years, over seven years, $60 billion [less than $10 billion per year, a very tiny part of the $1.6+ trillion 1996 Federal Budget -lrw] --- and we got 24 votes. And you know it is just incredible because we picked the twelve most egregious examples of corporate pork as come up with not by me, but by the Cato Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute who are at different ends of the political spectrum --- And frankly we got 24 votes and that's a long long way from 51 [needed to win a vote in the 100 person U.S. Senate -lrw]." -CNBC Inside Opinion, 06 March, 1996, ~12:04 EST, Ron Insanna (RI) & Sen. John S. McCain (JSM), R-ARIZONA

Which situation implies - - -

Kamin's 4th Law: Governments will grow until destroyed by war or revolution.

And - - -

Mangrum's corollary: If not destroyed by war or revolution, governments will continue to grow until they crush the population which supports them.


His [Richard Bonney's] approach borrows from Joseph Schumpeter's thesis...that early modern "countries" underwent a transition from "domain state" to "tax state," whereby sovereigns expanded their fiscal reach beyond the medieval ideal of living from the revenues of the royal domain. ...Tax states, they argued, could falter and break down through loss of confidence or institutional paralysis, and thus did not represent the endpoint of fiscal development. Rather, it is the modern "fiscal state," where institutions and structures allow for self-sustained growth and development, that represents the culmination of revolutionary changes. Furthermore, they held that crisis might occur within a given fiscal system and affect its shape or scope, but that only revolutionary upheaval could cause transition from one system to another. The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe, c. 1200--1815. Edited by Richard Bonney. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xii, 527. $110.00.,Mark Potter a1,a1 University of Wyoming

Which explains Frederick Douglass' observation - - -

Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. -Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

But maybe there's still hope - - -

Hume's paradox as stated by Chomsky: In any society, the population submits to the rulers, even though force is always in the hands of the governed. Chomsky also suggests that, "Ultimately the governors, the rulers, can only rule if they control opinion --no matter how many guns they have. This is true of the most despotic societies and the most free, [Hume] wrote. If the general population won't accept things, the rulers are finished." PFRM: Hume's paradox The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (Interviews with Noam Chomsky) Copyright 1994 by David Barsamian SEE also Media's Role
There are [four] kinds of tyrants: some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance, [others by "divine right"]. Although the means of coming into power differ, still the method of ruling is practically the same. The tyrant has nothing more than the power you confer upon him to destroy you. How does he have any power over you except through you? Tyrants need only be deprived of the public's continuing supply of funds and resources. Resolve to serve no more! and you are at once free. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer. Then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. -Etienne de la Boetie 1553 France

Raw Materials

|cm:British Gvt looses computer disks with key info on 25 million |fn:

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said: "Let us be clear about the scale of this catastrophic mistake - the names, the addresses and the dates of birth of every child in the country are sitting on two computer discs that are apparently lost in the post, and the bank account details and National Insurance numbers of 10 million parents, guardians and carers have gone missing. ... He urged the government to "get a grip" and said it was the "final blow for the ambitions of this government to create a national ID database" as "they simply can not be trusted with people's personal information" .... "After this disaster how can the public possibly have confidence in the vast centralised databases needed for the compulsory ID card scheme. {} UK's families put on fraud alert |cm: Letter to Howie (& Don) |fn: August 28, 2007, 06:49:29

Hi Don, Howie!

So far everything you have sent me from Rick White or Larken Rose has been nothing more than emotional ranting., Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:58:00 -0400

Well, I can't speak for Larken directly, but he seems quite logical to me.

And all I've seen from Howie -- so far -- is unfounded assertions, based on unreasonable (and often non conscious) assumptions about the institution of government. And completely incorrect assumptions about so-called "anarchy." Which strongly suggests to me that someone has watched WAY too many spaghetti westerns and uncritically accepted way too many government-compensated "historians" at face value.

Does "government" work? Clearly anarchy does - - - the human race evolved under "anarchy" for it's whole history until about 10,000 to 13,000 years ago. The period during which we've experimented with "government" is thus very short -- in archaeological time, a mere drop in our 4 million year or so bucket. And undoubtedly, being an intelligent species -- and seeing the absolute shambles governments make ("Everything the government touches turns to crap." --Ringo Star), we will move back towards our more natural state -- which, as history proves, works a lot better than "government."

Now many people, being propagandized -- and based on many unfounded cultural assumptions -- inadvisedly argue that the MATERIAL progress in the last 10,000 or so years is due to government. That's exactly like arguing that wet pavement causes rain.

Far from being caused by government, the material progress over the last 100 centuries is due to the evolution of division of labor made possible by trade -- in tandem with the evolution of the use of indirect trade using money. It's that indirect trade, requiring "money," that makes the large modern populations -- and high standard of living -- possible.

Howie, what's the history of governments and money?

So, far from causing progress (or even wet pavements), governments are parasites, made possible by the wealth created by division of labor, trade, and money. That is, wealth causes government, not the other way around. Governments do nothing necessary to add to that wealth creation, and in fact, interfere with it big time.

And steal large chunks of it -- more and more as time goes by. And, having abbrogated its basic founding document, namely the hard money clause, the U.S. Government is parasitic not only on the living, but on the yet unborn. The government debt (euphemistically called the "national" debt) has now crossed the $9 trillion mark, and the unfunded promises it's made are somewhere in the neighborhood of $72 trillion.

Government's most noticable interference with trade -- and thus interference with wealth creation -- is caused by the unholy alliance between business and governments, which in one of its more benign forms we call "mercantilism." Which evolves into a less benign form we call "fascism." This unholy alliance between business and government is as old as government itself, and pissed THE free trader, Adam Smith, off so much he burned all his work just before his death.

So, Howie, I don't have to convince you anarchy works -- we have approximately 4 million years of prehistory that proves it does else we wouldn't be here. You need to prove government adds to human well-being and back up your assertions -- outside the area of The Paper Aristocracy, which is excellent and certainly educated me (thanks!!) -- with more than just your government-schooled opinion.

So, I need some sort of equation that shows the clear depredations caused by the inherently parasitic organizations called "government" are off-set by some good that they do. In fact, that they, on net, increase human well being more than they damage it. Personally, I wouldn't want the job of attempting to put that equation together. But perhaps you haven't viewed the record of "government" dispassionately yet?

The problem began (in this country) in the 1930s when the majority of people were convinced that they could get something for nothing from the government. This leads them to vote for the candidate who favors more government intervention with their rights. You have to go to the people and tell them that the government does not rob from the rich and give to the poor; it robs from the poor and gives to the rich., Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:58:00 -0400

Indeed! You've nailed another depredation universal to governments. Governments regularly act as reverse Robin Hoods, like clockwork. Only I'm a little less charitable: Governments ALL, over time, come to rob from nearly everyone, waste most of what they steal, and give back almost exclusively only to the rich and politically connected, particulary well symbolized by those 27,000 paid lobbyists stalking the halls of congress, spooking out special favors and subsidies for their employers, paid for with YOUR tax money.

And, in contrast to the conservative hallucination, most of the welfare money doesn't go to those poor and downtrodden. Because those who employ lobbyists are usually not the poor and downtroden. As a result, in fact, corporate welfare is about five times as much as social welfare.

And even more unfarily, the cost of government -- including that corporate welfare -- has been shifted onto the poorer folks because of constantly increasing ungraduated (lefties use the word, "regressive" of course) FICA taxes and the $110,000 cap on that tax. You can see the results (and an explanation) in the government OMB graphs about halfway down the page here:

Notice that income from "Social Insurance Taxes" (FICA) have been steadily increasing (paying about 12% of the cost of government in 1956 increasing to about 45% in 2004) while "Corporate Income Taxes" have been steadly shrinking (paying about 28% of the cost of government in 1956 decreasing to about 10% in 2004).

I rest our case. The U.S. Government is a reverse Robin Hood, and only the politically connected and some of those rich enough to afford one of those lobbyists make out. This is true of ALL governments eventually.

The current tax burden, by the way, is about 50%, and government is thus by far the biggest expense anyone has. See here:

So I am going to put to you the question that I have put a few hundred times in our discussion. How come the country with the most government (in the sense of most complex structure) has turned out to be the best? And all of the anarchist societies have failed. Remember, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that, when you study an anarchist society, it will be extremely poor; it will be engaged in continual war with itself; it will likely practice such institutions as human slavery, human sacrifice or cannibalism, and it will pretty certainly be illiterate. Remember the Indian brave. He got his name (from the white man) because he was very brave in standing up to the tortures which the Indians inflicted on each other., Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:58:00 -0400

Ah, most of those "foregone conclusions" are the result of all those movies you've been watching, Howie.

We've already proven that government doesn't work (and more to come) so all that's left is to clear up a few misconceptions about tribes and small groups, particularly in juxtaposition to "modern" governments.

I hardly have to mention that the United States had massive slavery until 1860 or so. Slavery among tribes is (and was) rare, and often inspired by white slaver money. As was paid by the Yankee slavers, for example.

And cannibalism is an extreme rarity among tribal people. As is torture. But both sure are dramatic, thus, in the movies, you get amplification as a result of "the dramatic imperative" (drama is imperative if the media is to make money). And as far as torture goes, I have just two things to say: Abu Ghraib. Guantanimo. (Shhhhhhhh. We won't mention all the black CIA torture sites Gonzales'd into existence all around the world.)

And there's the quaint notion that tribes were always fighting. In fact, the white-man, particularly in his military hierarchies, was nearly always more blood thirsty by far than most tribes. See "Rain, Kropotkin and Y2K -- Reel Human Nature" for more on both tribes as "war wimps" and "The Dramatic Imperative" -- here:

As far as "human sacrifice" among tribes that's another of those things amplified by the media's "dramatic imperative." Personally, I consider that war and particularly the draft is human sacrifice. And I bet your mind apparently slipped right over the figures I sent awhile back - - - I remember the first time I saw 'em. 40 million killed in wars is bad enough. But it took me years to confront the enormity of the fact that governments in the 20th Century alone killed over 300 million men, women, and children, about 262 million of them, their own citizens. WITHOUT benefit of war. See here:

As far as tribes being at war with themselves, what about the U.S. Civil War? AND the U.S. Government has been at war or at least attacking someone every year for the last 50 years. And according to Carl Sagan, based on the Congressional record, as of 1988, the U.S. Government has invaded foreign countries at least 130 times:

Excluding World Wars and expeditions to suppress piracy or the slave trade, the United States has made armed invasions and interventions in other countries on more that 130 separate occasions, including China (on 18 separate occasions), Mexico (13), Nicaragua and Panama (9 each), Honduras (7), Colombia and Turkey (6 each), the Dominican Republic, Korea, and Japan (5 each), Argentina, Cuba, Haiti, the Kingdom of Hawaii, and Samoa (4 each), Uruguay and Fiji (3 each), Guatemala, Lebanon, the Soviet Union and Sumatra (2 each), Grenada, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Chile, Morocco, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Syria, Iraq, Peru, Formosa, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam [the list is based on compilations by the House Armed Services Committee]. > The Common Enemy by Carl Sagan, Parade Magazine, Feb. 7, 1988 & Ogonyok Magazine (Soviet Union) March 12, 1988.

Of course, there have been a few additions to the 130 counted by Sagan in 1988 -- Grenada, Panama, Iraq (1991), Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq (2003) etc. Currently (2004) the U.S. has more than 300,000 troops stationed in foreign countries [14] -- and an FBI presence in over 60 countries.

For a more thorough -- if more controversial -- list of U.S. interventions, see

TERRORISM: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS: JOY OF KILLING From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan (and to Iraq), Compiled by Zoltan Grossman

Now what was that you said about tribes fighting all the time?

When they did fight -- usually to protect their friends and family -- the native Americans were better fighters in general than were the better armed but poorly motivated soldiers they fought. Thus Geronimo, The Little Big Horn - - - and the shame of Wounded Knee.

But at any rate, tribesmen were happier than the whiteman. But don't take it from me. How about Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson?

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. --Thomas Jefferson
Happiness is more generally and equally diffus'd among Savages than in civilized societies. No European who has tasted savage life can afterwards bear to live in our societies. --Benjamin Franklin**, 1770 [15] 8 A NEW CHAPTER, Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine

But then, perhaps you don't believe that happiness is more important than physical stuff? OK.

Division of labor is what makes life, at least on the physical plane, "better" through specialization and trade. You don't need governments for that. In fact, quite the contrary. Long distance trade was practiced long before large governments existed. In fact, if you like Hayek,

What led the greatly advanced civilisation of China to fall behind Europe was its governments' clamping down so tightly as to leave no room for new developments, while, as remarked in the last chapter, Europe probably owes its extraordinary expansion in the Middle Ages to its political anarchy (Baechler, 1975:77) --F. A. Hayek, THE FATAL CONCEIT The Errors of Socialism, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1988), p. 44 & 45

There are many other examples -- pre-Columbus trade between Ohio and Mexico, for example. See "500 Nations."

In fact, mercantalism, which pissed off Adam Smith because it kept cropping up, the unholy alliance between business and government -- usually evolves into full-blown fascism -- and stifles trade and competition by design.

If you believe the most violent is the best, then I guess for the time being, "we" Americans win -- we still have about 6,000 nukes targeting men, women, and children around the world. AND we needlessly dropped two, within three days, on civilians, not to mention firebombing 60 or so Japanese cities -- and Dresden, Germany.

Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise. George Washington knew that - - -

Government is not eloquence, it is not reason; it is force. And like fire, makes a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

If things other than being the victim and funding source for the biggest baddest bully and thug in the world are more important to you however, you might want to consider that you, as all of us, have been the victim of massive propaganda. That propaganda amounts to the absurd notion that the organization that takes half of our income and delivers inferior services -- when it delivers any at all, is the source of all war, has killed 260 million civilians, threatens the world with nuclear annihilation, counterfeits money wholesale, and interferes with trade is not only defensible, but desirable. I no longer believe that propaganda.

You (or Rick White or Larken Rose) are not going to convince me until you answer my objections by use of reason. And I find your silence on this issue very telling. If something works, then it is probably true. If something does not work, then it cannot be true., Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:58:00 -0400

I agree! And the record is clear: Government doesn't work.

The insoluable problem is, of course, there are no market controls on governments, and no viable substitute for them. Voting every few years for two pre-chosen "Manchurian" candidates is quite clearly no substitute for continual voluntary and easily changeable buying decisions made by countless individuals daily in the context of free market competition. Thus governments are inherently and perpetually literally out of control. AND inherently uncontrollable. It shows, doesn't it?

So, until you can show me an equation that proves government is worth it's horrendous price -- or show me how it can possibly work at all, I'll maintain my current beliefs. Ah, maybe you might want to rethink things a bit too?

You are not going to convince me until you answer my objections by use of reason. On second thought, reason isn't enough. As you can see, it's going to take a lot of research as well.

Health, happiness, & long life, Rick

P.S. To the extent that governments seem to work, it's because they don't stifle free trade in free markets. How many bureaucrats does it take to make an economy work? None. The market will take care of it. Unless governments and bureaucrats interfere.

P.P.S. I can't resist sending the following along:

What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureauc­racy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profiteering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole. The Great Iraq Swindle, How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury,, From Issue 1034, Posted Aug 23, 2007 8:51 AM

|cm: From "IS THE USA PATRIOT ACT PATRIOTIC?" Wizard Bill, etc. |fn: from

      Now what could be more patriotic-sounding than "USA PATRIOT" Act? Of course we must keep in mind that it's a political product from the same folks who gave us the "Bank Secrecy Act" and "Social Security," among others.

      Actually the PR folks in the Bush Administration outdid themselves with this one -- "USA PATRIOT" is an acronym for the bill's official jaw-breaking name, The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Bill.

      No, I'm not making this up.

      But "Is it patriotic?" is the question. And we have an initial problem . . .

"And the problem with the [USA PATRIOT] bill that came to the floor of the House is that we didn't know what we were doing. No one knew what was in that bill." -Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), FOX NEWS, October 15, 2001, 16:23:41

      I'm not making that up either - - - Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx) confirms Hinchey's report. He told Kelly Patricia O'Meara in a December Insight Magazine interview, "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." [16]

      Yep, that's right, when Congress passed the "Uniting and Strengthening America" bill, they didn't know what it was they were passing. According to Rep. Hinchey, here's how it happened:

" was a bad game of bait-and-switch. The Judiciary Committee had reported out a bill that had been worked on over a period of weeks. It came out of the Judiciary committee by unanimous vote. Then at the last minute, the leadership of the House switched that bill and produced another bill which no one had seen and only a handful of people had more than superficial knowledge of. And that was the bill that was put on the floor and we were asked to vote for it."

      And vote for it they did: It passed in the House by a vote of 356 to 66, in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. (Russ Feingold was the only Senator voting against the bill -- known as HR 3162).

      Of course, this is not the first time Congress has injudiciously passed a bill without knowing what was in it. Try the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 where certain provisions were even declared secret. Then there was "The Emergency Banking Act of 1933" which passed in an hour-and-a-half - - - and despite the hard money clause to the U.S. Constitution, took the U.S. off the gold standard -- in fact, made it illegal for U.S. Citizens to own gold.

And of course we have the run-of-the-mill gaffs that are regularly passed by political bodies here in the united States. Like the so-called "Wizard Bill," passed by the 1995 New Mexico legislature requiring that when a psychologist or psychiatrist testified at a competency hearing they must wear a cone shaped hat imprinted with stars and lightinging bolts, and when they speak, "the baliff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong."

      Regarding passage of the Uniting and Strengthing America Act, Rep. Hinchey went on to say, "I don't think it was a good idea, frankly, to vote for a bill that is in danger of jeaprodizing civil liberties in ways in which we just don't understand," and -- apparently caught-up in a paroxysm of understatement -- "I don't think it's a good idea for the congress to pass a bill it hasn't seen, hasn't read, doesn't know the contents of and a bill that goes deeply into individual liberties and constitutional rights."

      Anyone hear a Chinese gong sounding somewhere? |cm: Worst Congress Ever |fn: from

*MATT TAIBBI: ... One of the things that this congress has done is drastically reduce the number of what's called "open rules," ...bills that make it to the House floor in a form that allows congressmen to debate them and offer amendments to them. There was a time back in the late '70s when about 75% of the bills that made it to the floor were open rules. ... By the time the Democrats ceded control in '94, that number was about 30%. This year, there were no open rules, except for appropriations bills, which are always open. So, we've seen the last of those kinds of openly debated bills in Congress. ... -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006

*MATT TAIBBI: ... traditionally, in Congress, there's been a power-sharing agreement. ... the two parties always worked together to make up major legislation. ... that doesn't happen anymore. ... --by law, they have to have one conference that includes Democrats. They'll have a five-minute meeting, where the Democrats are there. They'll take a picture, and then they'll kick the Democrats out, and they'll hold the real meeting later, and they won't tell the Democrats where it is.'s really like, you know, an elementary school thing... so the Democratic minority member will have to go around Congress literally searching for the conference, knocking on doors, saying, "Are you inside"? ...And this kind of stuff happens at every level, at every stage of the congressional process now. -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006
*MATT TAIBBI: ...the Democrats wanted to hold a meeting on the PATRIOT Act in the Judiciary Committee, so they asked James Sensenbrenner, who is the chairman --he's this famously dictatorial congressman from Wisconsin --and he said, "Yeah, sometime in the future," ...
Then, late on Thursday night, he says, "Okay, you're on for tomorrow morning at 9:00." So the Democrats have to scramble all their witnesses, get everything prepared overnight, but they do. ... Well, they start having their hearing, and Sensenbrenner ... tries to gavel the hearing to a close before everyone's done. The Democrats said, "No, we're not finished." So Sensenbrenner ... literally got up, walked across the room, shut the lights off, shut the microphones off, and closed the door behind him, leaving the Democrats with all their witnesses just sitting there in the dark. You know, again, this is stuff that you would expect in an elementary school, not in the Congress. I used to live in Russia. Even the Duma wasn't this bad... -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006
*MATT TAIBBI: *Well, I think the American people just don't have any idea of what congressional procedure is like. If they knew the way that laws were made --or not made, in most cases --I think, you know, you might have people storming the Bastille. What's happened in Congress now is that the process is completely corrupted. ... There are no open debates, no open hearings. Anything you see on C-SPAN is all for show ... what happens in these committee hearings behind the scenes is that they're shoving earmarks in there ...little tiny provisions in a bill that are usually favors of some kind, basically a gift to the congressman's district. ...In the Clinton years, the last energy bill had 6,000 earmarks in it. In the Bush years, it had 15,000. So, you know, these are things that are never voted on in committee, that you never see debated, and it's all done behind the scenes. It's not democracy anymore. It's --you know, it's basically like an authoritarian system. -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006
*MATT TAIBBI: ... there are eleven appropriations bills every year. This congress has failed to pass more than three on time in any year since Bush has been elected ... When you don't pass appropriations bills on time, what ends up happening is that they end up dumping everything from all the remaining unpassed appropriations bills into one giant omnibus bill that gets passed usually in the last two days of the congressional year. ... They're two days away from their Christmas vacation, and then they get literally an 8,000-page bill, lands on their desk ... and nobody knows what's in these bills --nobody, not even, in most cases, the people who wrote them ... -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006
*MATT TAIBBI: ... there's a real fear in Congress that a lot of these new processes are not going to change if the Democrats take control of the Congress ... There's so much more money involved in the process now. There are so many more campaign contributors, and they figured out so many new ways to get to the congressmen, you know, like with these golf junkets that you hear about with Jack Abramoff and that kind of thing, lobbyists writing legislation for the congressmen. ... -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006
*MATT TAIBBI: ... a company called Weststar wanted to get a provision put into the energy bill, and internal company documents were released, emails saying that they had been told by Republican leaders that they needed to donate $58,000 to the Congress to get this provision passed. When you consider that $58,000 is the cost for a single favor, and the energy bill [15,000 earmarks remember]--over $115 million from energy companies were donated to Republican politicians that year --that tells you that a lot of favors are being bought in this congress.
And so, it's known in Congress that if you want to get something into a bill, you just have to pay for it. And, you know, congressmen openly talk about this, and it's a total corruption of the system. -- Worst Congress Ever, Matt Taibbi, Democracy NOW!, Friday, October 27th, 2006

President GW Bush admits government failed VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

ABC NEWS via Democracy NOW!

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Face The Nation, January 1, 2006

So former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich thinks we need to bring government into the 21st Century by speeding things up. But we already know, because of the ways hierarchies work, the OODA (or Boyd) loop, etc. that this isn't possible. And people instinctively know this - - -

Government fails, small entities compensate VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

Face the Nation, December 25, 2005

So, nearly everyone knows that government doesn't work. The problem is, they also regularly believe it can be fixed. We know that governments must operate as hierarchies if they are to retain Centralized Political Control."centralized political authority," remember. Thus the very essence of governments mean they CAN'T be fixed, and the obvious conclusion is to move back to local egalitarian networked solutions -- like each entity having it's own disaster plan, voluntarily coordinated with other nearby entities.

Air traffic controllers as examples on the edge: Too much info.

Mayor of Atlanta, Ga., says dealing with FEMA is like talking to a brick wall. -DN!, October 14, 2005, 11:10:25

Dead body in New Orleans shown still laying after two weeks. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:13:53 + Amy can't get ANY authorities to pick up the body. EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF HIERARCHY AT WORK. Cops keep repeating, "You'll have to talk to our public information officer." -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:16:38 There are shorter versions too. +

Pecking-orders foster sloth after Katrina VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

DemocracyNOW!, October 24, 2005

And, if you listen carefully, California Governor Arnold Schwrzenegger recognizes the problem -- and implicitly, one of the reasons "government" simply isn't the answer - - -

Gov. Schwarzenegger: Paternalism at its best VClip ?

Click here if video doesn't play after a bit.

ABC This Week, April 23, 2006

Prof. John Clarke, Loyala. People's International Tribunal on Katrina aftermath. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:26:57 Bush Administration has failed to protect us from a predicted disaster, neglected people on roofs, etc. + Grass roots vs. hierarchy. Details on how much was wasted, like truck drivers who were paid $54/hr. to wait for instructions. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:28:45 + People going back to houses had to do it illegally 2.5 weeks after Katrina. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:29:54 + The struggle is between the grass root organizations and the powers that be. If we had been left alone, we could have saved ourselves. That's not what bureaucracy etc. is all about. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:33:22

I feel something I never thought I'd see. The people who were supposed to assist us were there, but they wouldn't help us. Fireman said they only had enough water for themselves. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:34:50 + Conditions on the New Orleans Parish Prison. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:35:53

Mentions the anthrax scare and how all those congressional white folks were granted all possible treatment. Compare that with how they treated those who work in post offices, where two died. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:43:55 + You expect U.S. Government to treat everyone the same, but black farmers, etc. didn't get treated the same. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:48:51 + Communities don't trust the gmvernment or Red Cross. -DN!, October 24, 2005, 11:50:54 80% of New Orleans underwater and no electricity. -DN!, January 2, 2006, 18:31:13

The sickest, oldest, youngest, etc. left behind. -DN!, January 2, 2006, 18:31:46

People chanting "Help! Help! Help!" etc. -CN!, January 2, 2006, 18:32:14

Pictures of Food and water stockpiled but they won't give it to us. -DN!, January 2, 2006, 18:30:54

Federal officials have played almost no role. FEMA's Brown didn't even know there were thousands in the Super Dome. -DN!, January 2, 2006, 18:33:49

Boloxi and small towns still not taken care of. -DN!, January 2, 2006, 18:35:12

I saw three official boats, but saw far more from local volunteers. -DN!, January 2, 2006, 18:35:31



Though an indispensable requirement for the functioning of an extensive order of cooperation of free people, money has almost from its first appearance been so shamelessly abused by governments that it has become the prime source of distrurbance of all self-ordering processes in the extended order of human cooperation. The history of government management of money has, except for a few short happy periods, been one of incessant fraud and deception. --F. A. Hayek, THE FATAL CONCEIT The Errors of Socialism, [Cap. emphasis added] (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1988), p. 103. return

[2] See Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy The State for a good synopsis of how this gang of robbers and murderers operates. return

[3] "Benjamin Franklin's Marginalia, 1770," in Labaree, ed., Franklin Papers, Vol. 17, p. 381. return

[4] Columnist Vin Suprynowicz was declared Nevada's most dangerous man for asking a Nevada Attorney General candidate what he would do if the legislature passed a "Star of David" law. The AG candidate said it was his job to enforce the laws, not to judge them and so he would indeed enforce it. return

[5] If you were curious enough to check out this endnote, you may want to look into the ins and outs of being a nullifying juror here -- or you could wait till we get to it in the linked section. Because of manipulatory evolution, it's not as straight forward as you might think. return

[6] USA PATRIOT is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." return

[7] Police State, Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Insight Magazine, Posted Nov. 9, 2001, Issue Date: December 3, 2001 return

[8] MAINA KIAI:... But within that whole specter of the election, then we must address the question of presidential powers. One of the reason there's so much animosity is that the presidency in this country is an imperial presidency.... people do not want to be away from that power, at the elite level, because they want to use that power to enrich themselves;... Our president... can call parliament to sit any time he wants to. He can send them home any time he wants to. He can give you land if he wants to. He can give you citizenship if he wants to. He can give you property if he wants to. He can do anything. He can appoint you to any job if he wants to. So it's the whole mess of it that's led to a crisis, and because this power has been abused seriously for the last forty-four years in this country.... Kenyan Opposition to End Demonstrations, Launch Economic Boycott return

[9] Source: U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), P.O. Box 1776, Lake Jackson, TX. 77566, (979) 265-3034 return

[10] You don't transact in "gold and silver coin" because on April 5, 1933 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued infamous Executive Order #6102 . With EO #6102, Roosevelt, that outlaw and traitor to his country, not only stole our ancestor's gold, he made it illegal to own. Despite the allegiance he swore to The U.S. Constitution when he took his oath of office, Roosevelt turned gold into a "controlled substance" -- as if it were cocaine or heroin. return

[11] See Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy The State for a good synopsis of how this gang of robbers and murderers operates. return

[12] Peter Fisher's current job is to sell other people on the idea of buying U.S. bonds and T-bills!! Before that, he ran the super-secret "Working Group on Financial Markets," otherwise known as the "Plunge Protection Team," or "PPT." If Fisher isn't an ultimate insider, none exist. return

[13] As of 1998 the index had stabilized, Miringoff still stated that "Despite a range of stated differences in philosophy and policy, neither political party has been able to achieve significant progress in social health over 25 years." Since, the index has again declined. return

[14] At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. -Laurence M. Vance, The U.S. Global Empire, return

[15] "Benjamin Franklin's Marginalia, 1770," in Labaree, ed., Franklin Papers, Vol. 17, p. 381. return

[16] Police State, Kelly Patricia O'Meara, Insight Magazine, Posted Nov. 9, 2001, Issue Date: December 3, 2001 return

Clause 1: No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; --United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1

Total Contents
In Clips
L's Articles