By DAN STRUMPF and KIMBERLY S. JOHNSON, AP Auto Writers Dan Strumpf And Kimberly S. Johnson, Ap Auto Writers – 34 mins ago
NEW YORK – General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday as part of the Obama administration's plan to shrink the automaker to a sustainable size and give a majority ownership stake to the federal government.
"Our agreement with the U.S. Treasury and the governments of Canada and Ontario will create a leaner, quicker more customer and completely product-focused company, one that's more cost competitive and has a competitive balance sheet," CEO Fritz Henderson said at a news conference in New York. "This new GM will be built from the strongest parts of our business, including our best brands and products."
The Detroit automaker said warranty coverage, service and customer support will continue uninterrupted, plants will continue to make cars and trucks, and employees and essential suppliers will continue to be paid. GMAC Financial Services said in a statement that it will continues to provide automotive financing to GM and Chrysler dealers and customers.
GM will follow a similar course taken by smaller rival Chrysler LLC, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in April. A judge gave Chrysler approval to sell most of its assets to Italy's Fiat, moving the U.S. automaker closer to a quick exit from court protection, possibly this week.
The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM. The Canadian government would take 12.5 percent, with the United Auto Workers getting a 17.5 percent share and unsecured bondholders receiving 10 percent. Existing GM shareholders are expected to be wiped out.
The Pontiac, Mich., and Wilmington, Del., assembly plants will close this year, while plants in Spring Hill, Tenn., and Orion, Mich., will shut down production but remain on standby. One of the idled plants will be retooled to build a small car that GM had originally planned to build in China.
The company plans to cut 21,000 employees, about 34 percent of its work force, and reduce the number of dealers by 2,600. (Any cuts in CEO's or their multi million dollar salaries? )
"There is still plenty of pain to go around, but I'm confident this is far better than the alternative," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "It's a new beginning, it's a rebirth, it's a new General Motors."
GM shares fell as low as 27 cents in Monday morning trading, their lowest price in the company's 100-year history, but rebounded to rise 13 cents from Friday's close to 88 cents in afternoon trading. The bankruptcy filing represents a dramatic downfall for GM, which was founded in 1908 by William C. Durant, who brought several car companies under one roof and developed a strategy of "a car for every purse and purpose." Longtime leader Alfred P. Sloan built the global automaker into a corporate icon.
When GM failed to do so by a March 31 deadline, Obama forced out CEO Rick Wagoner and replaced him with Henderson.
It was an all-out sprint to Monday's filing, as GM quickly sought to nail down deals with its union, bondholders and sell off brands and along with most of its Opel operations in Europe in an effort to appear in court with a near-complete plan to quickly emerge as a leaner company with a chance to become profitable.
In the U.S., the UAW's ratification of concessions, announced Friday, will save GM $1.3 billion per year. The new deal freezes wages, ends bonuses and eliminates some noncompetitive work rules.
It also moves billions in retiree health care costs off GM's books. In exchange for its ownership stake, (Great so retirees get worthless stock in lieu of healthcare. Seems like a fair trade.) Higher health care costs alone accounted for a $1,500-per-car cost gap between GM and Japanese vehicles. (National single payer health care would solve this problem. Hello!!!!)
GM will offer buyouts and early retirement packages to all of its 61,000 hourly workers as it plans to shrink overall employment. The company also has about 27,000 white collar employees. In contrast, GM employed 618,000 Americans in 1979, more than any other company.
But just cutting labor and overhead costs won't be enough to save the company. It also has been working to streamline its engineering and design, as well as standardize many parts so they can go into multiple models. (Taking money away from engineering and design? Are you kidding me? How can their priorities be so out of whack?)
So, what isn't getting any media coverage is the hedge funds and credit swap derivatives that helped push the auto companies into bankruptcy. The very same people like Goldman Sacks and other financial institutions bet against the auto companies solvency. If the government bailed out GM and Chrysler like they did so many Wall Street companies, Congressmen and their lobbyist clientele would have lost money. As it stands Wall Street hedge funds that our tax payer dollars subsidized, are going to clean up while the UAW takes it in the shorts, Joe six pack laborer loses his job and any stock they owned in the company is pretty much worthless.
Where's the outrage?! Where's the 60 minute expose'? Why aren't any of the media outlets covering this scam?! WTF?!
DaG Out
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Open letter to Dick Cheney
Dear Mr. Cheney, (once appointed and once unlawfully elected ex vice president of the United States)
You sir, are a lying, military service dodging chicken shit actively doing all you can to undermine a duly elected president of the United States, and our national security with your persistent pessimistic fear mongering. You show a true lack of class the way you berate a sitting president elected by a vast majority. It is classless at best and treasonous at worst. During your time as vice president, if a former president or vice president would have been half as critical of your administration as you are of the current one, they would have been labeled traitors, terrorist appeasers, and condemned for demoralizing the troops.
As I'm sure you are aware: in May 2001, several months before 9/11 the Bush administration announced that you were to head our country's task force on domestic terrorism, energy, and global warming. While in this capacity you never as much as organized a single meeting with other department heads involved with our national security. Even though memos and reports chocked full of warnings and Intel on suspicious activity were presented to you, the secretary of state, and the president.
For example: FBI memo from summer 2001 was released that warned of the dangers of Middle Eastern men going to flight school and gaining skills to hijack planes, and the dangers of the al Qaeda network carrying out such hijackings. Moreover, the arrest of Zacarias Moussaouri, the alleged 20th al Qaeda hijacker, in Minnesota in late August 2001, who had been taking flying lessons and acting suspiciously, should have raised warning signals. Over the summer of 2001, there had been reports that there were dangers of an airplane terrorist attack on the G8 economic summit in Genoa that GeorgeW. Bush attended. There were reportedly so many intelligence reports circulating in summer 2001 of the dangers of imminent terrorist attacks on the U.S. that a government official Richard Clarke, charged with coordinating anti-terrorist responses, warned FBI, aviation, INS, and other crucial government agencies to be on the highest alert and not to take vacations during a six week period over the summer. John Ashcroft, U.S.Attorney General, was ordered to take government jets instead of commercial airlines and the FAA passed down several alerts to the commercial airlines.
And now you have the balls to show your face again and again taking credit for 7 years without another terrorist attack on our soil. Under your watch sir, our country experienced the worst terror attack in our history. Why don't you ever take responsibility for the gross lapse in security that preceded 9/11? We continually hear you and your ilk complain that those who don't agree with you suffer from a September tenth mentality. It seems to me that it was you that either knowingly or unknowingly disregarded warnings. Then after 9/11 when you crawled out from the safety of your underground bunker, began the fear mongering in order to terrorize the American people and their representatives into rubber stamping every disgusting piece of legislation you wanted passed. You rail against Obama and claim that his desire to close Guantanamo and cease the enhanced interrogation has somehow made us less safe. Hogwash. Your neo-con cabal that chose to invade 2 sovereign countries is what has made us less safe. (Afghanistan, in the failed attempt to capture one man and Iraq because it had " good targets" and the rebuilding contracts for your buddies would be enormous)
If heaven forbid this country is attacked again I for one will place the blame solely on your shoulders. I figure if you can say that Obama's efforts to undo immoral policies you help put in place is making out country more susceptible to a terrorist attack with no evidence or logical basis for your assertion then I can say that your ignoring of good solid police and intelligence work holds you directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Instead of perpetuating the myth that your administration's civil rights abuses and pre-emptive war is what has kept us safe why don't you tell the truth? Since 9/11 their have been several terrorists plots thwarted in other countries as well as this one and in every single case it was FBI and police work that uncovered the plot.
Most recently:
May 21, 2009 Posted: 9:35 am May 21, 2009
Four homegrown Muslim terrorists on a mission from hell were arrested last night as they planted what they thought were high-powered plastic explosives at two Bronx synagogues, authorities said. The men were also allegedly plotting to use a Stinger missile to shoot a military plane out of the sky in upstate New York immediately after the bombings. Mayor Bloomberg said, "The good news is that the NYPD and the FBI did exactly what they're trained to do and they prevented what would have been a terrible event in our city."
As far as your Hawkish war rhetoric is concerned, it amazes me that you can talk so tough and use our service men as pawns in your game of military industrial complex chess. It amazes me because you never served a day in the military. The only SOB in your neo-con hierarchy that did serve was Rumsfeld, and he was a only a flight instructor and a naval aviator during peace time. So now I must call you a chicken shit chicken hawk.
In closing, your ridiculous defense of torture sickens reasonable people and has been proven over and over again by experts in the field to be counter productive. We now know why you subverted our justice system in order to get it accomplished. You are an neither a patriot nor an honest man, Dick Cheney and this world would be a better place without the likes of you. Now please crawl back under the rock from which you came.
Sincerely,
DaG
You sir, are a lying, military service dodging chicken shit actively doing all you can to undermine a duly elected president of the United States, and our national security with your persistent pessimistic fear mongering. You show a true lack of class the way you berate a sitting president elected by a vast majority. It is classless at best and treasonous at worst. During your time as vice president, if a former president or vice president would have been half as critical of your administration as you are of the current one, they would have been labeled traitors, terrorist appeasers, and condemned for demoralizing the troops.
As I'm sure you are aware: in May 2001, several months before 9/11 the Bush administration announced that you were to head our country's task force on domestic terrorism, energy, and global warming. While in this capacity you never as much as organized a single meeting with other department heads involved with our national security. Even though memos and reports chocked full of warnings and Intel on suspicious activity were presented to you, the secretary of state, and the president.
For example: FBI memo from summer 2001 was released that warned of the dangers of Middle Eastern men going to flight school and gaining skills to hijack planes, and the dangers of the al Qaeda network carrying out such hijackings. Moreover, the arrest of Zacarias Moussaouri, the alleged 20th al Qaeda hijacker, in Minnesota in late August 2001, who had been taking flying lessons and acting suspiciously, should have raised warning signals. Over the summer of 2001, there had been reports that there were dangers of an airplane terrorist attack on the G8 economic summit in Genoa that GeorgeW. Bush attended. There were reportedly so many intelligence reports circulating in summer 2001 of the dangers of imminent terrorist attacks on the U.S. that a government official Richard Clarke, charged with coordinating anti-terrorist responses, warned FBI, aviation, INS, and other crucial government agencies to be on the highest alert and not to take vacations during a six week period over the summer. John Ashcroft, U.S.Attorney General, was ordered to take government jets instead of commercial airlines and the FAA passed down several alerts to the commercial airlines.
And now you have the balls to show your face again and again taking credit for 7 years without another terrorist attack on our soil. Under your watch sir, our country experienced the worst terror attack in our history. Why don't you ever take responsibility for the gross lapse in security that preceded 9/11? We continually hear you and your ilk complain that those who don't agree with you suffer from a September tenth mentality. It seems to me that it was you that either knowingly or unknowingly disregarded warnings. Then after 9/11 when you crawled out from the safety of your underground bunker, began the fear mongering in order to terrorize the American people and their representatives into rubber stamping every disgusting piece of legislation you wanted passed. You rail against Obama and claim that his desire to close Guantanamo and cease the enhanced interrogation has somehow made us less safe. Hogwash. Your neo-con cabal that chose to invade 2 sovereign countries is what has made us less safe. (Afghanistan, in the failed attempt to capture one man and Iraq because it had " good targets" and the rebuilding contracts for your buddies would be enormous)
If heaven forbid this country is attacked again I for one will place the blame solely on your shoulders. I figure if you can say that Obama's efforts to undo immoral policies you help put in place is making out country more susceptible to a terrorist attack with no evidence or logical basis for your assertion then I can say that your ignoring of good solid police and intelligence work holds you directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Instead of perpetuating the myth that your administration's civil rights abuses and pre-emptive war is what has kept us safe why don't you tell the truth? Since 9/11 their have been several terrorists plots thwarted in other countries as well as this one and in every single case it was FBI and police work that uncovered the plot.
Most recently:
May 21, 2009 Posted: 9:35 am May 21, 2009
Four homegrown Muslim terrorists on a mission from hell were arrested last night as they planted what they thought were high-powered plastic explosives at two Bronx synagogues, authorities said. The men were also allegedly plotting to use a Stinger missile to shoot a military plane out of the sky in upstate New York immediately after the bombings. Mayor Bloomberg said, "The good news is that the NYPD and the FBI did exactly what they're trained to do and they prevented what would have been a terrible event in our city."
As far as your Hawkish war rhetoric is concerned, it amazes me that you can talk so tough and use our service men as pawns in your game of military industrial complex chess. It amazes me because you never served a day in the military. The only SOB in your neo-con hierarchy that did serve was Rumsfeld, and he was a only a flight instructor and a naval aviator during peace time. So now I must call you a chicken shit chicken hawk.
In closing, your ridiculous defense of torture sickens reasonable people and has been proven over and over again by experts in the field to be counter productive. We now know why you subverted our justice system in order to get it accomplished. You are an neither a patriot nor an honest man, Dick Cheney and this world would be a better place without the likes of you. Now please crawl back under the rock from which you came.
Sincerely,
DaG
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Grunch by Bucky Fuller
Fee-fie-fo-fum I smell the blood of a Britishman Be he alive or be he dead I'll grind his bones To make my bread.
There is no dictionary word for an army of invisible giants, one thousand miles tall, with their arms interlinked, girding the planet Earth. Since there exists just such an invisible, abstract, legal-contrivance army of giants, we have invented the word GRUNCH as the group designation--"a grunch of giants." GR-UN-C-H, which stands for annual GROSS UNIVERSE CASH HEIST, pays annual dividends of over one trillion U.S. dollars. GRUNCH is engaged in the only-by-instrumentsreached-and-operated, entirely invisible chemical, metallurgical, electronic, and cybernetic realms of reality. GRUNCH's giants average thirty-four years of age, most having grown out of what Eisenhower called the postWorld War II "military-industrial complex." They are not the same as the pre-World War II international copper or tin cartels. The grunch of giants consists of the corporately interlocked owners of a vast invisible empire, which includes airwaves and satellites; plus a vast visible empire, which includes all the only eighteen-year-old and younger skyscraper cluster cities around the world, as well as the factories and research laboratories remotely ringing the old cities and all the Oriental industrial deployment, such as in Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. It controls the financial credit system of the noncommunist world together with all the financial means of initiating any world-magnitude mass-production and -distribution ventures.
By making pregraduation employment contracts with almost all promising university science students, it monopolizes all the special theoretical know-how to exploit its vast inventory of already acquired invisible know-how technology. Who runs GRUNCH? Nobody knows. It controls all the world's banks. Even the muted Swiss banks. It does what its lawyers tell it to. It maintains technical legality, and is prepared to prove it. Its law firm is named Machiavelli, Machiavelli, Atoms & Oil. Some think the second Mach is a cover for Mafia.
GRUNCH didn't invent Universe. It didn't invent anything. It monopolizes know-where and know-how but is devoid of know-why. It is preoccupied with absolute selfishness and its guaranteed gratifications. It is as blind as its Swiss banks are mute. Much, much more about GRUNCH later on.
When blimp photographs are taken of giant stadia packed full of rock-concert or football fans, we get an idea of what 100,000 people look like. We all think of Hiroshima as the worst single killing of humans by humans. That was about a 75,000-capacity-coliseum-full. Each day of each year, year after year, a 75,000-capacity-stadiumfull of around-the-world humans perish from starvation or its side effects, despite an annual average 5-percent world food-production overage of the amount of food adequate for the total world's population. This daily kill of innocents dwarfs the awful Auschwitz killing. GRUNCH did not bring this about, but it could very profitably bring it to an end. Just because it is possible does not mean that it is easy. With the computers' guidance, however, and some executive vision, courage, initiative, and follow-through, it can be done very profitably in terms of money and lasting kudos for GRUNCH and prohumanity enterprise. It would cost only 3 percent of Grunch's annual dividend earnings to not only feed all those now starving to death but also to alleviate the dire poverty around the entire planet, since the population explosion is occurring strictly amongst impoverished people. Such a world initiative on the part of Grunch would eliminate one of the two great threats to humanity's continuance on planet Earth: nuclear bombing and overpopulation. The great communism vs. capitalism, politico-economic world stand-off assumes a fundamental inadequacy of life support to exist on our planet. So too do the four major religions assume that it must be you or us, never enough for both. Jointly the two political camps have spent $6.5 trillion in the last thirty-three years to buy the capability to kill all humanity in one hour.Jointly, we Earthians have always had adequate physical resources to take care of all humanity but lacked the metaphysical know-how resources with which to employ effectively the Earth's physical wealth. Adequate knowhow could only accrue through trial-and-error experience combined with synergetically acquired wisdom, altogether employed with absolute faith in the intellectual integrity omni-lovingly governing regenerative Universe. However, in 1970 our cornucopia of ever more swiftly accruing know-how overflowed and its content integrated synergetically, so that we may now care for each Earthian individual at a sustainable billionaire's level of affluence while living exclusively on less than 1 percent of our planet's daily energy income from our cosmically designed nuclear reactor, the Sun, optimally located 92 million safe miles away from us and safely interlinked with us by photosynthesis, wind, rain, wave, and all other weather behaviors.In technology's "invisible" world, inventors continually increase the quantity and quality of performed work per each volume or pound of material, erg of energy, and unit of worker and "overhead" time invested in each given increment of attained functional performance. This complex process we call progressive ephemeralization.
In 1970, the sum total of increases in overall technological know-how and their comprehensive integration took humanity across the epochal but invisible threshold into a state of technically realizable and economically feasible universal success for all humanity.This actual but invisible threshold crossing began in 1969 when humans' scientific knowledge and technological ingenuity, backed exclusively by adequate citizens' tax-raised government financing, learned how to do so much with so little as to be able to place humans on the Moon and return them safely to Earth. Other typical 1970 to 1980 manifests of our option to do so much with so little as to be able to take care of all humanity were:
1. The single-flight delivery and installation of a 140foot-diameter, 23,000-square-foot-floor-space, stainless steel and aluminum geodesic dome at the mathematically exact South Pole of our planet, together with its capability of carrying the snow loads of complete burial;
2. The rocket-launched satellites able to relay Eartharound TV and other programs;
3. The solar system's planetary inspection by TV-communicating, Earth-dispatched explorer satellites;
4. The computer revolution, and its progressive miniaturization;
5. The laser-beam and its many capabilities, such as its color-TV-reading of polished disc records;
6 . MacCready' s successful human-muscle- powered, over-the-English-Channel flight; and
7. His subsequent Paris-to-England, exclusively by direct-Sun-powered flight; and finally,
8. That MacCready's ninety-five-foot-wingspan plane weighed only forty-five pounds due to its carbon-fiberalloy structuring and mylar skinning.
In 1970 it could, for the first time, be engineeringly demonstrated that, applying the most advanced knowhow to the conservation and use of the world's resources, we can, within ten years of from-killingry-to-livingry reoriented world production, have all humanity enjoying a sustainably higher standard of living than any humans have ever heretofore experienced. It could further be demonstrated that we can do this while simultaneously phasing out all further Earthians' use of fossil fuels and atomic energy.Humanity is so specialized and these epochally significant technological facts are so invisible that it seems an almost hopeless matter to adequately inform humanity that from now on, for the first time in history, it does not have to be "you or me"--there is now enough for "both" --and to convince humanity of this fact in time to permit it to exercise its option and save itself.There is now plenty for all. War is obsolete. It is imperative that we get the word to all humanity--RUSH--before someone ignorantly pushes the button that provokes pushing of all the buttons.What makes so difficult the task of informing humanity of its newborn option to realize success for all is the fact that all major religions and politics thrive only on the for-all-ages-held, ignorantly adopted premise of the existence of an eternal inadequacy of life-support inherent in the design of our planet Earth.That it is possible for us all to win--and how--is what Grunch of Giants is about. (Grunch of Giants is an intimately related sequel to Critical Path, published by St. Martin's Press, New York, 1981.)
DaG Out
There is no dictionary word for an army of invisible giants, one thousand miles tall, with their arms interlinked, girding the planet Earth. Since there exists just such an invisible, abstract, legal-contrivance army of giants, we have invented the word GRUNCH as the group designation--"a grunch of giants." GR-UN-C-H, which stands for annual GROSS UNIVERSE CASH HEIST, pays annual dividends of over one trillion U.S. dollars. GRUNCH is engaged in the only-by-instrumentsreached-and-operated, entirely invisible chemical, metallurgical, electronic, and cybernetic realms of reality. GRUNCH's giants average thirty-four years of age, most having grown out of what Eisenhower called the postWorld War II "military-industrial complex." They are not the same as the pre-World War II international copper or tin cartels. The grunch of giants consists of the corporately interlocked owners of a vast invisible empire, which includes airwaves and satellites; plus a vast visible empire, which includes all the only eighteen-year-old and younger skyscraper cluster cities around the world, as well as the factories and research laboratories remotely ringing the old cities and all the Oriental industrial deployment, such as in Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. It controls the financial credit system of the noncommunist world together with all the financial means of initiating any world-magnitude mass-production and -distribution ventures.
By making pregraduation employment contracts with almost all promising university science students, it monopolizes all the special theoretical know-how to exploit its vast inventory of already acquired invisible know-how technology. Who runs GRUNCH? Nobody knows. It controls all the world's banks. Even the muted Swiss banks. It does what its lawyers tell it to. It maintains technical legality, and is prepared to prove it. Its law firm is named Machiavelli, Machiavelli, Atoms & Oil. Some think the second Mach is a cover for Mafia.
GRUNCH didn't invent Universe. It didn't invent anything. It monopolizes know-where and know-how but is devoid of know-why. It is preoccupied with absolute selfishness and its guaranteed gratifications. It is as blind as its Swiss banks are mute. Much, much more about GRUNCH later on.
When blimp photographs are taken of giant stadia packed full of rock-concert or football fans, we get an idea of what 100,000 people look like. We all think of Hiroshima as the worst single killing of humans by humans. That was about a 75,000-capacity-coliseum-full. Each day of each year, year after year, a 75,000-capacity-stadiumfull of around-the-world humans perish from starvation or its side effects, despite an annual average 5-percent world food-production overage of the amount of food adequate for the total world's population. This daily kill of innocents dwarfs the awful Auschwitz killing. GRUNCH did not bring this about, but it could very profitably bring it to an end. Just because it is possible does not mean that it is easy. With the computers' guidance, however, and some executive vision, courage, initiative, and follow-through, it can be done very profitably in terms of money and lasting kudos for GRUNCH and prohumanity enterprise. It would cost only 3 percent of Grunch's annual dividend earnings to not only feed all those now starving to death but also to alleviate the dire poverty around the entire planet, since the population explosion is occurring strictly amongst impoverished people. Such a world initiative on the part of Grunch would eliminate one of the two great threats to humanity's continuance on planet Earth: nuclear bombing and overpopulation. The great communism vs. capitalism, politico-economic world stand-off assumes a fundamental inadequacy of life support to exist on our planet. So too do the four major religions assume that it must be you or us, never enough for both. Jointly the two political camps have spent $6.5 trillion in the last thirty-three years to buy the capability to kill all humanity in one hour.Jointly, we Earthians have always had adequate physical resources to take care of all humanity but lacked the metaphysical know-how resources with which to employ effectively the Earth's physical wealth. Adequate knowhow could only accrue through trial-and-error experience combined with synergetically acquired wisdom, altogether employed with absolute faith in the intellectual integrity omni-lovingly governing regenerative Universe. However, in 1970 our cornucopia of ever more swiftly accruing know-how overflowed and its content integrated synergetically, so that we may now care for each Earthian individual at a sustainable billionaire's level of affluence while living exclusively on less than 1 percent of our planet's daily energy income from our cosmically designed nuclear reactor, the Sun, optimally located 92 million safe miles away from us and safely interlinked with us by photosynthesis, wind, rain, wave, and all other weather behaviors.In technology's "invisible" world, inventors continually increase the quantity and quality of performed work per each volume or pound of material, erg of energy, and unit of worker and "overhead" time invested in each given increment of attained functional performance. This complex process we call progressive ephemeralization.
In 1970, the sum total of increases in overall technological know-how and their comprehensive integration took humanity across the epochal but invisible threshold into a state of technically realizable and economically feasible universal success for all humanity.This actual but invisible threshold crossing began in 1969 when humans' scientific knowledge and technological ingenuity, backed exclusively by adequate citizens' tax-raised government financing, learned how to do so much with so little as to be able to place humans on the Moon and return them safely to Earth. Other typical 1970 to 1980 manifests of our option to do so much with so little as to be able to take care of all humanity were:
1. The single-flight delivery and installation of a 140foot-diameter, 23,000-square-foot-floor-space, stainless steel and aluminum geodesic dome at the mathematically exact South Pole of our planet, together with its capability of carrying the snow loads of complete burial;
2. The rocket-launched satellites able to relay Eartharound TV and other programs;
3. The solar system's planetary inspection by TV-communicating, Earth-dispatched explorer satellites;
4. The computer revolution, and its progressive miniaturization;
5. The laser-beam and its many capabilities, such as its color-TV-reading of polished disc records;
6 . MacCready' s successful human-muscle- powered, over-the-English-Channel flight; and
7. His subsequent Paris-to-England, exclusively by direct-Sun-powered flight; and finally,
8. That MacCready's ninety-five-foot-wingspan plane weighed only forty-five pounds due to its carbon-fiberalloy structuring and mylar skinning.
In 1970 it could, for the first time, be engineeringly demonstrated that, applying the most advanced knowhow to the conservation and use of the world's resources, we can, within ten years of from-killingry-to-livingry reoriented world production, have all humanity enjoying a sustainably higher standard of living than any humans have ever heretofore experienced. It could further be demonstrated that we can do this while simultaneously phasing out all further Earthians' use of fossil fuels and atomic energy.Humanity is so specialized and these epochally significant technological facts are so invisible that it seems an almost hopeless matter to adequately inform humanity that from now on, for the first time in history, it does not have to be "you or me"--there is now enough for "both" --and to convince humanity of this fact in time to permit it to exercise its option and save itself.There is now plenty for all. War is obsolete. It is imperative that we get the word to all humanity--RUSH--before someone ignorantly pushes the button that provokes pushing of all the buttons.What makes so difficult the task of informing humanity of its newborn option to realize success for all is the fact that all major religions and politics thrive only on the for-all-ages-held, ignorantly adopted premise of the existence of an eternal inadequacy of life-support inherent in the design of our planet Earth.That it is possible for us all to win--and how--is what Grunch of Giants is about. (Grunch of Giants is an intimately related sequel to Critical Path, published by St. Martin's Press, New York, 1981.)
DaG Out
Scatter Shooting
Bill Oreily's guests read from cue cards. After many viewings of this republican propanda television show that pretends to be fair and balanced. It becomes painfully obvious that the "No spin" cycle is very unbalanced. All you need do is watch an interview with a "man or woman of the people" who professes to have the dirt on Obama or any one who is not a republican and you can see their eyes reading from a scripted cue card as O'reily questions them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kangagroo court: In a 5 to 4 decision Supreme Court Sides With John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller in 9/11 Detainee Abuse Case.
Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani national and Muslim, who in November 2001 was detained “solely because of his race, religion, and national origin, and for no legitimate reason,” according to court documents. Two months later, he was moved to a holding facility in Brooklyn, where he was in solitary confinement for more than 150 days without a hearing, his lawsuit alleges. He said he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse, including unnecessary strip searches. On the day he entered solitary confinement, he says, he was thrown against a wall, kicked in the stomach, punched in the face and dragged across a floor by federal prison officers. He was cleared of any involvement in terrorism and was deported in January 2003 after pleading guilty to fraud and being sentenced to a year and four months in prison.
"The complaint does not show or even intimate, that petitioners purposefully housed detainees in the ADMAX SHU due to their race, religion or national origin," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. "All it plausibly suggests is that the nation's top law enforcement officers, in the aftermath of a devastating attack, sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available until the suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity."
The court's liberal justices — David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens — dissented from the court's opinion.
"There is no principled basis for the majority's disregard of the allegations linking Ashcroft and Mueller to their subordinates' discrimination," Souter wrote.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Iqbal and found Ashcroft and Mueller liable. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses the 2nd Circuit and shuts the door on the possibility that others can bring similar lawsuits. It is painfully clear that not only is our country divided right down political party lines but, our Supreme court as well. The right votes one way and the left votes the other. Our court system used to be the great equalizer between those with wealth, power, and influence and those with none of the above. It's a sad state of affairs when the legal pursuit of justice can so easily be corrupted by obvious political allegiances. If the old Axum
" divide and conquer" holds true, then we will be or already have been . . .conquered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In 2003 under Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon published Bible verses on top-secret intel reports. In a lengthy article on Donald Rumsfeld’s rocky tenure as Defense Secretary, GQ published never-before-seen cover sheets from top-secret intelligence briefings produced by Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. Starting in the days surrounding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the cover sheets featured inspirational Bible verses printed over military images, “and were delivered by Rumsfeld himself to the White House” to the president, “who referred to America’s war on terror as a ‘crusade,’” GQ writes. Below are some examples of the Bible quotes (view the images here):
“Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” [The quote appears over an image of a tank at sunrise]
“Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” [The quote appears over an image of a soldier in Baghdad]
“It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” [The quote appears over an image of Saddam Hussein]
“Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, The nation that keeps faith.” [The quote appears over an image of tanks entering an Iraqi city]
GQ’s Robert Draper writes that when colleagues complained to the Pentagon official who came up with the cover sheets, he replied, “‘my seniors’ — JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself – appreciated the cover pages.”
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Spending by oil and gas companies lobbying politicians on Capitol Hill jumped a whopping 64% between 2007 and 2008. From $82million to $126.8 million. No wonder the speculators are back: Over the past 2 weeks oil prices have skyrocketed again. Just today the price of west Texas crude went up $1.75 a barrel. We have already seen a .50 + increase at the pump in the past month. So, I guess that it's going to happen all over again. Just like it did under Bush these arseholes hedge fund sonsofbitches are going to be allowed to artificially inflate the price of oil, until at a time of their choosing when they sell off those stocks and make another killing while you and I get screwed. We can only pay the price at the pump we have neither the connections nor the capital to be able to play along with these investors. Oh by the way, many of the speculators are using the money that we the tax payers just gave them in the bail out. WTF!?! The oil lobby has been given a 10 billion raise Oil And don't give me that BS about the approaching holiday, summer vacation, and the Sunoco refinery fire in Pennsylvania. I ain't buying what you're selling. It's a conspiracy plain and simple. Now where'd I put that foil hat?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Turd Blossom Karl Rove and those on the right have gone from the statement that "We do not torture!" to " We only tortured because it works." to "Exactly what did Nancy Pulosi know about torture and when did she know it?" You got to hand it to 'em. They are the masters of evasion and pointing the spotlight someplace else.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Keep singing that old Beatles tune: "It's getting better all the time."
DaG Out
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kangagroo court: In a 5 to 4 decision Supreme Court Sides With John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller in 9/11 Detainee Abuse Case.
Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani national and Muslim, who in November 2001 was detained “solely because of his race, religion, and national origin, and for no legitimate reason,” according to court documents. Two months later, he was moved to a holding facility in Brooklyn, where he was in solitary confinement for more than 150 days without a hearing, his lawsuit alleges. He said he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse, including unnecessary strip searches. On the day he entered solitary confinement, he says, he was thrown against a wall, kicked in the stomach, punched in the face and dragged across a floor by federal prison officers. He was cleared of any involvement in terrorism and was deported in January 2003 after pleading guilty to fraud and being sentenced to a year and four months in prison.
"The complaint does not show or even intimate, that petitioners purposefully housed detainees in the ADMAX SHU due to their race, religion or national origin," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. "All it plausibly suggests is that the nation's top law enforcement officers, in the aftermath of a devastating attack, sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available until the suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity."
The court's liberal justices — David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens — dissented from the court's opinion.
"There is no principled basis for the majority's disregard of the allegations linking Ashcroft and Mueller to their subordinates' discrimination," Souter wrote.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Iqbal and found Ashcroft and Mueller liable. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses the 2nd Circuit and shuts the door on the possibility that others can bring similar lawsuits. It is painfully clear that not only is our country divided right down political party lines but, our Supreme court as well. The right votes one way and the left votes the other. Our court system used to be the great equalizer between those with wealth, power, and influence and those with none of the above. It's a sad state of affairs when the legal pursuit of justice can so easily be corrupted by obvious political allegiances. If the old Axum
" divide and conquer" holds true, then we will be or already have been . . .conquered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In 2003 under Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon published Bible verses on top-secret intel reports. In a lengthy article on Donald Rumsfeld’s rocky tenure as Defense Secretary, GQ published never-before-seen cover sheets from top-secret intelligence briefings produced by Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. Starting in the days surrounding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the cover sheets featured inspirational Bible verses printed over military images, “and were delivered by Rumsfeld himself to the White House” to the president, “who referred to America’s war on terror as a ‘crusade,’” GQ writes. Below are some examples of the Bible quotes (view the images here):
“Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” [The quote appears over an image of a tank at sunrise]
“Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” [The quote appears over an image of a soldier in Baghdad]
“It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” [The quote appears over an image of Saddam Hussein]
“Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, The nation that keeps faith.” [The quote appears over an image of tanks entering an Iraqi city]
GQ’s Robert Draper writes that when colleagues complained to the Pentagon official who came up with the cover sheets, he replied, “‘my seniors’ — JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself – appreciated the cover pages.”
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Spending by oil and gas companies lobbying politicians on Capitol Hill jumped a whopping 64% between 2007 and 2008. From $82million to $126.8 million. No wonder the speculators are back: Over the past 2 weeks oil prices have skyrocketed again. Just today the price of west Texas crude went up $1.75 a barrel. We have already seen a .50 + increase at the pump in the past month. So, I guess that it's going to happen all over again. Just like it did under Bush these arseholes hedge fund sonsofbitches are going to be allowed to artificially inflate the price of oil, until at a time of their choosing when they sell off those stocks and make another killing while you and I get screwed. We can only pay the price at the pump we have neither the connections nor the capital to be able to play along with these investors. Oh by the way, many of the speculators are using the money that we the tax payers just gave them in the bail out. WTF!?! The oil lobby has been given a 10 billion raise Oil And don't give me that BS about the approaching holiday, summer vacation, and the Sunoco refinery fire in Pennsylvania. I ain't buying what you're selling. It's a conspiracy plain and simple. Now where'd I put that foil hat?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Turd Blossom Karl Rove and those on the right have gone from the statement that "We do not torture!" to " We only tortured because it works." to "Exactly what did Nancy Pulosi know about torture and when did she know it?" You got to hand it to 'em. They are the masters of evasion and pointing the spotlight someplace else.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Keep singing that old Beatles tune: "It's getting better all the time."
DaG Out
Thursday, May 14, 2009
EVIL
Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
The Neo-con plan was simple, (even "W" could understand it): Use the 9/11 act of terrorism to terrify Americans and rally support for the invasion of Iraq. Build a case for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, mention Sadam and 9/11 in the same sentence, and the power of suggestion will do the rest. Even after co-opting Collin Powell and staging a media extravaganza of propaganda most members of Nato weren't buying what they were selling. The American media however, lined up in droves to jump on this march to war band wagon. Embedded journalist chomping at the bit to be on sight when WMD were discovered. Only one problem with this simple plan . . .there were no WMD's. What now?
Back to square one. The Bush administration must establish a connection between Sadam and Al Qaeda. Get captured terrorists to sign statements stating that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were buddy buddy and that Saddam knew and helped perpetrate 9/11. After repeated conventional interrogation of enemy combatants, not one would cooberated that assumption. So, the vice decider and his henchmen ordered the torture of those combatants. t the legal authority from the attorney General's office and the justice department to beat a confession out of the prisoners. Former POW and current Sen. John McCain knows a lot about that kind of thing. Torture may not give you reliable information that will help you prevent a terrorist attack but, it damn sure will get a prisoner to confess to whatever you want. In order to cover their collective asses, the Bush /Cheney administration sought to redefine the word torture. One of the Attorney General's top assistant lawyers John C. Yoo began writing memos doing just that. Not only calling torture "enhanced interrogation methods" but, unequivocally making it clear that extreme measures were well within the authority of the president. Much like the Nixon philosophy,: . . .if a president does it . . .then it is not illegal. By raising the "torture" bar, this nation could torture a person without actually breaking the law. In 2005 debated the legality and merits of torture with Norte Dame's prof. Hassel. Here's an excerpt:
They go on to say that al-Libi, also known as Ali Mohammed Abdelaziz al Fakhiri: ...later made up a story about links between al Qaeda and Iraq to avoid torture while in the custody of a third country, according to a 2006 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report.
U.S. media have reported that Fakhiri provided the account to interrogators in Egypt, where he was sent by the United States in January 2002.
Egyptian officials were not immediately available for comment.
Fakhiri was later returned to U.S. custody and withdrew his accusations about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda in January 2004, the U.S. committee report said.
He initially told his interrogators that he 'knew nothing' about ties between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden and he 'had difficulty even coming up with a story' about a relationship between the two." The Newsweek report explained that "his answers displeased his interrogators - who then apparently subjected him to the mock burial. As al-Libi recounted, he was stuffed into a box less than 20 inches high. When the box was opened 17 hours later, al-Libi said he was given one final opportunity to 'tell the truth.' He was knocked to the floor and 'punched for 15 minutes.' It was only then that, al-Libi said, he made up the story about Iraqi weapons training."
The committee found that in the run-up to the Iraq war the U.S. intelligence community based assessments about possible Iraqi training of al Qaeda largely on evidence from Fakhiri.
The paper [Libya's Oed] said former friends of Fakhiri cast doubt on his reported suicide, arguing that the former mosque preacher from the coastal Ajdabiya town knew suicide is prohibited by Islam.
Al-Libi recanted the story in January 2004, although George Tenet, the former director of the CIA, wrote later: "The fact is, we don't know which story is true, and since we don't know, we can assume nothing."
Clive Stafford Smith from Reprieve, said: "We are told that al Libi committed suicide in his Libyan prison. If this is true it would be because of his torture and abuse, if false, it may reflect a desire to silence one of the greatest embarrassments of the Bush Administration.
"Reprieve has been exploring tentative contacts with al Libi, and his death may have been a result of the pressure to allow him to speak openly about his torture."
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
The Neo-con plan was simple, (even "W" could understand it): Use the 9/11 act of terrorism to terrify Americans and rally support for the invasion of Iraq. Build a case for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, mention Sadam and 9/11 in the same sentence, and the power of suggestion will do the rest. Even after co-opting Collin Powell and staging a media extravaganza of propaganda most members of Nato weren't buying what they were selling. The American media however, lined up in droves to jump on this march to war band wagon. Embedded journalist chomping at the bit to be on sight when WMD were discovered. Only one problem with this simple plan . . .there were no WMD's. What now?
Back to square one. The Bush administration must establish a connection between Sadam and Al Qaeda. Get captured terrorists to sign statements stating that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were buddy buddy and that Saddam knew and helped perpetrate 9/11. After repeated conventional interrogation of enemy combatants, not one would cooberated that assumption. So, the vice decider and his henchmen ordered the torture of those combatants. t the legal authority from the attorney General's office and the justice department to beat a confession out of the prisoners. Former POW and current Sen. John McCain knows a lot about that kind of thing. Torture may not give you reliable information that will help you prevent a terrorist attack but, it damn sure will get a prisoner to confess to whatever you want. In order to cover their collective asses, the Bush /Cheney administration sought to redefine the word torture. One of the Attorney General's top assistant lawyers John C. Yoo began writing memos doing just that. Not only calling torture "enhanced interrogation methods" but, unequivocally making it clear that extreme measures were well within the authority of the president. Much like the Nixon philosophy,: . . .if a president does it . . .then it is not illegal. By raising the "torture" bar, this nation could torture a person without actually breaking the law. In 2005 debated the legality and merits of torture with Norte Dame's prof. Hassel. Here's an excerpt:
Hassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
I'm sorry, even in the "24" fantasy world of Jack Bower, I can see no justification, legal or otherwise to crush the testicles of a person's son. Maybe I'm just too much of a softee because I have two sons. Now, crushing a person's testicles in order to get them to tell you where the ticking time bomb is located is another matter. It is not right but that could be justified in order to save lives but we're talking about torture in order to illicit a false confession to justify an impetuous man child's ego and his sycophants greed. Not to mention the lies told to get our country into an unprovoked illegal War that killed thousands of Americans and Iraqis.Now, the shit hits the fan and the country is in an uproar. The EVIL Emperor Dick Cheney is on as many news outlets as he can possibly get on. He's spouting off about how Obama is making our country less safe and how torture saved American lives. Neither of which is true. In fact the direct opposite is true. Information gathered from a tortured terrorist actually led to an ambush where American soldiers were killed. At first I thought that Cheney's statements were just sour grapes but, upon further review it seems to me that these appearances are his pre-emptive strike on the truth coming out as to the extent of the torture. An Australian news source has printed the pictures that Obama refuses to release. They are gory and graphic examples of brutal torture that turns the stomach. The pictures show prisoners with sliced skin pulled back with forceps, cigar burns on their bodies, and blood streaming from the mouths.
Today we learn that Libyan Islamist whose fabricated testimony about al Qaeda was used by the United States to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq has killed himself in his Libyan jail cell, a Libyan newspaper reported on Monday."They go on to say that al-Libi, also known as Ali Mohammed Abdelaziz al Fakhiri: ...later made up a story about links between al Qaeda and Iraq to avoid torture while in the custody of a third country, according to a 2006 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report.
U.S. media have reported that Fakhiri provided the account to interrogators in Egypt, where he was sent by the United States in January 2002.
Egyptian officials were not immediately available for comment.
Fakhiri was later returned to U.S. custody and withdrew his accusations about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda in January 2004, the U.S. committee report said.
He initially told his interrogators that he 'knew nothing' about ties between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden and he 'had difficulty even coming up with a story' about a relationship between the two." The Newsweek report explained that "his answers displeased his interrogators - who then apparently subjected him to the mock burial. As al-Libi recounted, he was stuffed into a box less than 20 inches high. When the box was opened 17 hours later, al-Libi said he was given one final opportunity to 'tell the truth.' He was knocked to the floor and 'punched for 15 minutes.' It was only then that, al-Libi said, he made up the story about Iraqi weapons training."
The committee found that in the run-up to the Iraq war the U.S. intelligence community based assessments about possible Iraqi training of al Qaeda largely on evidence from Fakhiri.
The paper [Libya's Oed] said former friends of Fakhiri cast doubt on his reported suicide, arguing that the former mosque preacher from the coastal Ajdabiya town knew suicide is prohibited by Islam.
Al-Libi recanted the story in January 2004, although George Tenet, the former director of the CIA, wrote later: "The fact is, we don't know which story is true, and since we don't know, we can assume nothing."
Clive Stafford Smith from Reprieve, said: "We are told that al Libi committed suicide in his Libyan prison. If this is true it would be because of his torture and abuse, if false, it may reflect a desire to silence one of the greatest embarrassments of the Bush Administration.
"Reprieve has been exploring tentative contacts with al Libi, and his death may have been a result of the pressure to allow him to speak openly about his torture."
Thanks to the former administration's draconian methods of interrogation. This administration cannot bring the those accused of being terrorists to trial in the U.S. (Torture is a civil rights violation) Even if the suspect is guilty, he or she would have to be let go. So, yesterday Obama reveals that the military tribunals that were ceased when he took office will be hearing cases again. One could look at this as a flip flop but, I choose to call this playing the cards he was dealt. Prisoners should have a trial in order to separate the guilty from the innocent. Yes there are a lot of innocent prisoners that were turned into the American military by disgruntled townsfolk. The old guy down the street whose goats kept eating your shrubs was called a terrorists and turned over to the authorities for the reward offered. Then this old guy who was only guilty of not keeping close enough tabs on his goats, gets tortured. This happened to a cab driver who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, was disappeared tortured and died while in our custody.
I just wish that Obama would flip flop on his stance of investigating the obvious criminal activities of the Bush/Cheney regime. It isn't like he hasn't already changed his mind about other things: the realease detainee photos, the tribunals, and even the over sight of the billions going to wall street. To do the right thing, all he need do is, mention that the Justice Department should look into it. That's it! Let the chips fall where they may. He can even say that in order to move forward we must begin by wiping the slate clean. Aftre WWII the newly formed German government took an active part in bringing to light the evil that was the Holocaust. Otherwise no other world power would take them seriously. I can only surmise that the CIA, NSA, the pentagon or whoever has gotten to him and explained just exactly how the cow ate the cabbage. I'm sure that he has been reminded of past politicians who flew in the face of the War machine, and did not die of old age. With each passing day it is more and more difficult for American fathers and mothers to instill any kind of American pride in their children.
DaG Out
Monday, May 11, 2009
Lip Service and Posturing.
WASHINGTON – Health industry groups are promising to reduce the growth of spending by $2 trillion over 10 years by improving coordination, focusing on efficiency and embracing better technology and regulatory reform.
Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors have told President Barack Obama in a letter that they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years. It's a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now do not have it.
So, president OB14me is sitting down with CEOs, corporate benefits officers, union leaders and state and local health officials to talk about health care reform. On the surface it looks good to this progressive eye but, as with many things I see in this new administration it's a lot of the same shit different day. Much like Obama's handling of the financial industry crisis by surrounding himself and listening to those who helped create the problem, he now is seeking advice from Health industries biggest for profit CEO's in order to improve the health care system. WTF?!
Technology and regulations are not the problem with our system of health care.
The number one problem with our current health care system is the for profit middle men known as Insurance companies. Number two problem are the Drug companies that spent billions over the past 10 years lobbying congress in order to prevent the U.S. from buying cheaper drugs from Canada and to prevent alternative home grown drugs, (pot) from becoming legal. The number three reason our health care system is broke is due to the deregulated for profit hospitals. When 40% of your health care dollar goes to a medical industry CEO's bonus check, stock benefit, or newly purchased private jet, understand that your health is not their main concern.
Whenever health care insurance or providers are "for profit" organizations the cost of seeing a doctor, treatments, and prescriptions are going to cost nearly twice that of a single payer system. We all need to be able to buy into medi-care. Period end of sentence. With a cost of about 3% of every health care dollar spent for administration costs. No, executive bonuses, funding for lobbyist, private jets, share holders, etc. etc. If we do away with all the profit motive we could have true affordable quality health care. As with everything else that was deregulated in the 1980's, greed and stock share value replaced customer service and company longevity. No longer did a company need loyal customers to survive, only clever and shrewd manipulators of the stock market. This is why the majority of insurance companies (if not all) pay millions and millions for their top executives. Customers may provide millions of dollars in revenue but, a good CEO can rise the price of stock shares that'll make the company billions. With a "B".
Where are the single payer advocates in these meetings with Obama? Not one of the participants in these discussions will even mention it. Why? It would put most of them out of business. That's why all they are saying is "reform." "Reform" is the corporate buzz word meaning lip service and superficial changes to the existing system. This way even the most conservative CEO can appear to be for the common man by calling for "reform" without endorsing the logical solution that is single payer health care. A national health insurance program like those in every other industrialized country in the world is the only way those of us who aren't in congress, the senate, or have a few million in the bank will ever be able to acquire quality health care. The folks sitting down with Obama know this but will never suggest it. They will only talk of reduction in their spending. Streamlining the health system as long as they get to do the streamlining. The 2 trillion they say they'll cut from their spending will be in the way of reducing patient coverages, higher deductibles, and denying patient benefits.
Please OB14me, stop with the same old wine in a different bottle routine. Bring some voices from the far left into the room while trying to come up with these solutions. as of now, you're listening to the right, the far right, and a few moderates. You were elected by the majority of center, left of center and far left American voters who believed that you weren't going to do business as usual. You were going to get the troops out of Iraq but, I see they're still there. Wall Street gets bailed out again and again while the tax payer's foot the bill. Labor union's and labor must make concession after concession while the manufacturers executive's receive bonus after bonus. Now, you have a chance to fix our broken health care system and the Democratic Socialists are exactly the kind of people you need to listen to. Bernie Sanders and his ilk are at your beckoned call, sir. Please utilize their experience and common sense approaches to healing what ails this country.
DaG Out
Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors have told President Barack Obama in a letter that they'll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years. It's a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now do not have it.
So, president OB14me is sitting down with CEOs, corporate benefits officers, union leaders and state and local health officials to talk about health care reform. On the surface it looks good to this progressive eye but, as with many things I see in this new administration it's a lot of the same shit different day. Much like Obama's handling of the financial industry crisis by surrounding himself and listening to those who helped create the problem, he now is seeking advice from Health industries biggest for profit CEO's in order to improve the health care system. WTF?!
Technology and regulations are not the problem with our system of health care.
The number one problem with our current health care system is the for profit middle men known as Insurance companies. Number two problem are the Drug companies that spent billions over the past 10 years lobbying congress in order to prevent the U.S. from buying cheaper drugs from Canada and to prevent alternative home grown drugs, (pot) from becoming legal. The number three reason our health care system is broke is due to the deregulated for profit hospitals. When 40% of your health care dollar goes to a medical industry CEO's bonus check, stock benefit, or newly purchased private jet, understand that your health is not their main concern.
Whenever health care insurance or providers are "for profit" organizations the cost of seeing a doctor, treatments, and prescriptions are going to cost nearly twice that of a single payer system. We all need to be able to buy into medi-care. Period end of sentence. With a cost of about 3% of every health care dollar spent for administration costs. No, executive bonuses, funding for lobbyist, private jets, share holders, etc. etc. If we do away with all the profit motive we could have true affordable quality health care. As with everything else that was deregulated in the 1980's, greed and stock share value replaced customer service and company longevity. No longer did a company need loyal customers to survive, only clever and shrewd manipulators of the stock market. This is why the majority of insurance companies (if not all) pay millions and millions for their top executives. Customers may provide millions of dollars in revenue but, a good CEO can rise the price of stock shares that'll make the company billions. With a "B".
Where are the single payer advocates in these meetings with Obama? Not one of the participants in these discussions will even mention it. Why? It would put most of them out of business. That's why all they are saying is "reform." "Reform" is the corporate buzz word meaning lip service and superficial changes to the existing system. This way even the most conservative CEO can appear to be for the common man by calling for "reform" without endorsing the logical solution that is single payer health care. A national health insurance program like those in every other industrialized country in the world is the only way those of us who aren't in congress, the senate, or have a few million in the bank will ever be able to acquire quality health care. The folks sitting down with Obama know this but will never suggest it. They will only talk of reduction in their spending. Streamlining the health system as long as they get to do the streamlining. The 2 trillion they say they'll cut from their spending will be in the way of reducing patient coverages, higher deductibles, and denying patient benefits.
Please OB14me, stop with the same old wine in a different bottle routine. Bring some voices from the far left into the room while trying to come up with these solutions. as of now, you're listening to the right, the far right, and a few moderates. You were elected by the majority of center, left of center and far left American voters who believed that you weren't going to do business as usual. You were going to get the troops out of Iraq but, I see they're still there. Wall Street gets bailed out again and again while the tax payer's foot the bill. Labor union's and labor must make concession after concession while the manufacturers executive's receive bonus after bonus. Now, you have a chance to fix our broken health care system and the Democratic Socialists are exactly the kind of people you need to listen to. Bernie Sanders and his ilk are at your beckoned call, sir. Please utilize their experience and common sense approaches to healing what ails this country.
DaG Out
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Don't worry Be Happy . . .
World's Happiest Places
A new report reveals where people feel most positive about their lives
By Lauren Sherman
Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?
According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The United States did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.
The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?
To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.
Some sample questions: Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday? In each country, a representative sample of no more than 1,000 people, age 15 or older, were surveyed. The poll was scored numerically on a scale of 1-100. The average score was 62.4.
Why did the northern European countries come out looking so good? Overall economic health played a powerful role, says Simon Chapple, senior economist from the Social Policy Division of the OECD, which put together the report.
While the global economic crisis has taken a toll on every nation, the countries that scored at the top still boast some of the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Denmark, which got the highest score, is not only a wealthy country, it's also highly productive, with a 2009 GDP per capita of $68,000, according to the International Monetary Fund. The United States' GDP per capita, by contrast, is $47,335. Though the U.S. got an above-average score of 74, it did not break the top 10.
Wealth alone does not bring the greatest degree of happiness. Norway has the highest GDP per capita on the list — $98,822 — yet it ranked ninth, not first. On the other hand, New Zealand's happiness level is 76.7 out of 100 on the OECD list, but its 2009 GDP per capita is just $30,556.
According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and written by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe.
The OECD data shows that another important factor is work-life balance. While Scandinavian countries boast a high GDP per capita, the average workweek in that part of the world is no more than 37 hours. In China, which got a low score of just 14.8, the workweek is 47 hours and the GDP per capita is just $3,600.
Low unemployment also contributes to happiness. "One thing we know for sure," says the OECD's Chapple, "not having a job makes one substantially less satisfied." Denmark's unemployment rate is just 2 percent, according the C.I.A.'s World Factbook. Norway's is just 2.6 percent. The Netherlands: just 4.5 percent. Many economists concur that a 4 percent unemployment rate reflects a stable economy. The U.S. unemployment rate is currently 9 percent.
DaG Out
A new report reveals where people feel most positive about their lives
By Lauren Sherman
Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?
According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The United States did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.
The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?
To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.
Some sample questions: Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday? In each country, a representative sample of no more than 1,000 people, age 15 or older, were surveyed. The poll was scored numerically on a scale of 1-100. The average score was 62.4.
Why did the northern European countries come out looking so good? Overall economic health played a powerful role, says Simon Chapple, senior economist from the Social Policy Division of the OECD, which put together the report.
While the global economic crisis has taken a toll on every nation, the countries that scored at the top still boast some of the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Denmark, which got the highest score, is not only a wealthy country, it's also highly productive, with a 2009 GDP per capita of $68,000, according to the International Monetary Fund. The United States' GDP per capita, by contrast, is $47,335. Though the U.S. got an above-average score of 74, it did not break the top 10.
Wealth alone does not bring the greatest degree of happiness. Norway has the highest GDP per capita on the list — $98,822 — yet it ranked ninth, not first. On the other hand, New Zealand's happiness level is 76.7 out of 100 on the OECD list, but its 2009 GDP per capita is just $30,556.
According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and written by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe.
The OECD data shows that another important factor is work-life balance. While Scandinavian countries boast a high GDP per capita, the average workweek in that part of the world is no more than 37 hours. In China, which got a low score of just 14.8, the workweek is 47 hours and the GDP per capita is just $3,600.
Low unemployment also contributes to happiness. "One thing we know for sure," says the OECD's Chapple, "not having a job makes one substantially less satisfied." Denmark's unemployment rate is just 2 percent, according the C.I.A.'s World Factbook. Norway's is just 2.6 percent. The Netherlands: just 4.5 percent. Many economists concur that a 4 percent unemployment rate reflects a stable economy. The U.S. unemployment rate is currently 9 percent.
DaG Out
Saturday, May 9, 2009
My Bank Failed the Stress Test and I pay the price. ( Part One)
Up until yesterday failing banks and their subsequent bail outs had no personal financial implications for me, other than my tax money being given to millionaires' bonus checks. But that was just great fodder for a ranting blog entry, it really didn't hurt my credit status. My interest rate didn't shoot up as so many others have and the matter seemed somewhat distant to me.
That all changed as of yesterday, when I received a letter from my bank which shall remain nameless but whose initials are B. of A. The letter came from the credit department with whom I have one of my two credit cards. Yes that's right, I only have two, not the 3 to 5 that most Americans carry. The two I carry are with major companies and I do not own a single department store, gasoline, or any other high interest type card. A year or so ago I had more cards but no balances on them and two of them were with B of A. I had heard somewhere that having several open credit cards accounts with zero activity or balances was bad for your credit rating so, I wanted to close them but, you never know when an emergency might pop up and you need some credit.
Enter B of A's marketing department. They solicit me with a valued customer type card that carries a credit limit of $15,000 with a 12% APR. Ah Ha! That one card's limit is equal to the two card's combined limit. Perfect! I can sign up for the new and improved card and close my account on the other two. Hooray!
This was about a year ago. Over the past year I have used the card twice ( purchases that were both a little less than $100) and paid the balance off at the end of the month. As with my only other card, I am very diligent about paying off any balance at the end of the month. Those of you who used to have American Express cards know all about that practice.
Anyway I digress, I was informed by letter (which by the way, was in an envelope that looks very similar to the junk mail letters we receive from credit card solicitations everyday.) that the credit limit I had sign up for was being decreased, literally cut in half! "What?!", I shouted in my living room.
I immediately called the customer service number listed to speak with an agent regarding this matter. In an unprecedented turn of events, a live person answered the phone. It took me a minute to regroup, I was prepared to go through the barrage of computer prompts, button pushes before actually getting to speak to a human being. After identifying myself and verifying my Identity, (interestingly enough their records show that I'm 2 years younger than I really am, if I were a woman I'd be flattered) She says, "How can I help you?"
I tell the nice lady about the letter and ask why this happened. I'll paraphrase: "The reason we lowered your credit limit was based on the usage of your card. It wasn't because of your credit score, it was simply because you don't use the limit you were afforded. And we here are lowering the credit limit of those who aren't using the credit. I hope that explains things for you."
"But what if an emergency arises and I do need that credit that your company solicited from me?" I ask.
"Well sir, you can always put in a request for a higher credit limit."
She's right you can do that but, if you do, it can adversely affect your credit score, the request is may take a day or two while under review, and THE REASON I ACCEPTED THE CARD IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT LIMIT!!! I explained to her that I have been this banks customer in good standing for 20+ years, I explained that I've never had a late payment, over extended my limit, or even had too many credit cards with high balances. All I've done is play by the rules. Now I realize that somewhere in the many pages of small print there is a caveat that allows the credit card company to do what they have done, so they've broken no law here. However, there is also no law against a throwing a raw steak in front of a seeing eye dog helping a blind person cross the street at a busy intersection. Reasonable people just wouldn't do it.
It was very apparent that the agent wasn't going to restore my limit and I was running late for work so, I couldn't really press the matter by speaking to a supervisor. I was very polite, probably too polite but, I know that the paid by the hour telephone agent had nothing to do with some account executive's decision to screw me and several thousand others. So I just asked her to make a notation on my account that I am a very disgruntled customer. (Ooooh! That'll scare 'em.)
However, this isn't over. I'm getting my ducks in a row for the follow up call when I will speak to a supervisor and a higher up if possible. I will explain to whoever listens that 30% of a person's credit score is in direct correlation to how close their balance is to their spending limit. By the bank's action if I need to charge plane fare and hotel accommodations to attend a funeral or visit a sick friend etc. etc. . . . my credit score /rating will take a hit. With the original credit limit I signed up for, this would not be a factor unless I attended several funerals or visited a lot of sick friends.
Not to mention (but I will), the lowering of my score with the big 3 credit reporting companies and the probable raising of my interest rate on my other card.
Contacting the bank again will most likely do no good whatsoever and I may end up just having to switch banks but, not before some one in authority knows that my checking, savings, CDs, and credit card business will be going elsewhere. I know that this bank and some others are going through some tough times right now, and are in dire need of capital but, who's fault is that? ? None of the banks financial woes are any of my doing. Here's a thought: Hold those accountable who did get you into this mess. Whenever I'm short of cash I don't mug the paper boy or some other innocent to tide me over. B of A's board of directors should choose the executive they like the least, and deduct my $7,500 from his or her million dollar bonus check?
DaG out (for now)
That all changed as of yesterday, when I received a letter from my bank which shall remain nameless but whose initials are B. of A. The letter came from the credit department with whom I have one of my two credit cards. Yes that's right, I only have two, not the 3 to 5 that most Americans carry. The two I carry are with major companies and I do not own a single department store, gasoline, or any other high interest type card. A year or so ago I had more cards but no balances on them and two of them were with B of A. I had heard somewhere that having several open credit cards accounts with zero activity or balances was bad for your credit rating so, I wanted to close them but, you never know when an emergency might pop up and you need some credit.
Enter B of A's marketing department. They solicit me with a valued customer type card that carries a credit limit of $15,000 with a 12% APR. Ah Ha! That one card's limit is equal to the two card's combined limit. Perfect! I can sign up for the new and improved card and close my account on the other two. Hooray!
This was about a year ago. Over the past year I have used the card twice ( purchases that were both a little less than $100) and paid the balance off at the end of the month. As with my only other card, I am very diligent about paying off any balance at the end of the month. Those of you who used to have American Express cards know all about that practice.
Anyway I digress, I was informed by letter (which by the way, was in an envelope that looks very similar to the junk mail letters we receive from credit card solicitations everyday.) that the credit limit I had sign up for was being decreased, literally cut in half! "What?!", I shouted in my living room.
I immediately called the customer service number listed to speak with an agent regarding this matter. In an unprecedented turn of events, a live person answered the phone. It took me a minute to regroup, I was prepared to go through the barrage of computer prompts, button pushes before actually getting to speak to a human being. After identifying myself and verifying my Identity, (interestingly enough their records show that I'm 2 years younger than I really am, if I were a woman I'd be flattered) She says, "How can I help you?"
I tell the nice lady about the letter and ask why this happened. I'll paraphrase: "The reason we lowered your credit limit was based on the usage of your card. It wasn't because of your credit score, it was simply because you don't use the limit you were afforded. And we here are lowering the credit limit of those who aren't using the credit. I hope that explains things for you."
"But what if an emergency arises and I do need that credit that your company solicited from me?" I ask.
"Well sir, you can always put in a request for a higher credit limit."
She's right you can do that but, if you do, it can adversely affect your credit score, the request is may take a day or two while under review, and THE REASON I ACCEPTED THE CARD IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT LIMIT!!! I explained to her that I have been this banks customer in good standing for 20+ years, I explained that I've never had a late payment, over extended my limit, or even had too many credit cards with high balances. All I've done is play by the rules. Now I realize that somewhere in the many pages of small print there is a caveat that allows the credit card company to do what they have done, so they've broken no law here. However, there is also no law against a throwing a raw steak in front of a seeing eye dog helping a blind person cross the street at a busy intersection. Reasonable people just wouldn't do it.
It was very apparent that the agent wasn't going to restore my limit and I was running late for work so, I couldn't really press the matter by speaking to a supervisor. I was very polite, probably too polite but, I know that the paid by the hour telephone agent had nothing to do with some account executive's decision to screw me and several thousand others. So I just asked her to make a notation on my account that I am a very disgruntled customer. (Ooooh! That'll scare 'em.)
However, this isn't over. I'm getting my ducks in a row for the follow up call when I will speak to a supervisor and a higher up if possible. I will explain to whoever listens that 30% of a person's credit score is in direct correlation to how close their balance is to their spending limit. By the bank's action if I need to charge plane fare and hotel accommodations to attend a funeral or visit a sick friend etc. etc. . . . my credit score /rating will take a hit. With the original credit limit I signed up for, this would not be a factor unless I attended several funerals or visited a lot of sick friends.
Not to mention (but I will), the lowering of my score with the big 3 credit reporting companies and the probable raising of my interest rate on my other card.
Contacting the bank again will most likely do no good whatsoever and I may end up just having to switch banks but, not before some one in authority knows that my checking, savings, CDs, and credit card business will be going elsewhere. I know that this bank and some others are going through some tough times right now, and are in dire need of capital but, who's fault is that? ? None of the banks financial woes are any of my doing. Here's a thought: Hold those accountable who did get you into this mess. Whenever I'm short of cash I don't mug the paper boy or some other innocent to tide me over. B of A's board of directors should choose the executive they like the least, and deduct my $7,500 from his or her million dollar bonus check?
DaG out (for now)
Monday, May 4, 2009
Stupid Texans ruined this country.
Ed was a right wing conservative. Ed's political views were so far to the right that they would make Rush and Hannity look like liberal hippies. In one of his letters to his younger brother, Ed scolded him for not being more outspoken against the evils of Big Government's social programs like social security and unemployment insurance. Ed also made it clear that the constitution is the end all be all for the way this country should be run. He warned his sibling of the dangers of a strong central government and the lackadaisical way this country approaches the threat of communism. Ed went on to bemoan the fact that his kid brother's foreign and domestic policy beliefs were no different than that of the Democratic socialists.
The younger brother wrote back:
Dear Ed,
I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.
I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce." But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true. Both Administrations levied taxes, both maintained military establishments, customs officials, and so on.
But in all governmental fields of action a combination of purpose, procedure and objectives must be considered if you are to get a true evaluation of the relative merits.
You say that the foreign policy of the two Administrations is the same. I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.
No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.
A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world. You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character.
This being true, how can anyone be so unaware of what is happening as to say that this Administration has conducted foreign affairs under the same policies as did the former Administration? As a matter of fact, if you will press any individual who brings to you all these strictures and comments, I venture that your experience will be the same as mine. That experience is that these individuals have no idea of what the "foreign policy" of the previous Administration was and what the present one is. They have heard certain slogans, such as "give away programs." They have no slightest idea as to what has been the effect of these programs in sustaining American security and prosperity. Moreover, they have no idea whatsoever as to comparative size of them now as compared to even two or three years ago.
You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of "controls," presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, "run away" inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.
You also talk about "bad political advice" I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be--although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting "bad" advice; why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?
I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
Finally, I must assure you again that I am delighted to get your own honest criticisms, particularly if you will only take the trouble to lay down the facts on which you reach what seem to me to be some remarkable conclusions. But the mere repetition of aphorisms and political slogans and newspaper headlines leaves me cold.
I am sorry you are not going to be at Abilene. It would be easier to tell you these things than to write them--except that by this method I hope to make you do a little thinking rather than devote yourself just to the winning of a noisy argument.
As ever,
Dwight
Document #1147; November 8, 1954 To Edgar Newton Eisenhower
If the republicans of today would embrace the policies of this Republican president instead of the policies of a B movie actor who was under the complete control of those "Stupid Texans" this country would be in a lot better shape.
DaG out
The younger brother wrote back:
Dear Ed,
I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.
I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved "interstate commerce." But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true. Both Administrations levied taxes, both maintained military establishments, customs officials, and so on.
But in all governmental fields of action a combination of purpose, procedure and objectives must be considered if you are to get a true evaluation of the relative merits.
You say that the foreign policy of the two Administrations is the same. I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.
No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.
A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world. You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character.
This being true, how can anyone be so unaware of what is happening as to say that this Administration has conducted foreign affairs under the same policies as did the former Administration? As a matter of fact, if you will press any individual who brings to you all these strictures and comments, I venture that your experience will be the same as mine. That experience is that these individuals have no idea of what the "foreign policy" of the previous Administration was and what the present one is. They have heard certain slogans, such as "give away programs." They have no slightest idea as to what has been the effect of these programs in sustaining American security and prosperity. Moreover, they have no idea whatsoever as to comparative size of them now as compared to even two or three years ago.
You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of "controls," presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, "run away" inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.
You also talk about "bad political advice" I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be--although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting "bad" advice; why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?
I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.
Finally, I must assure you again that I am delighted to get your own honest criticisms, particularly if you will only take the trouble to lay down the facts on which you reach what seem to me to be some remarkable conclusions. But the mere repetition of aphorisms and political slogans and newspaper headlines leaves me cold.
I am sorry you are not going to be at Abilene. It would be easier to tell you these things than to write them--except that by this method I hope to make you do a little thinking rather than devote yourself just to the winning of a noisy argument.
As ever,
Dwight
Document #1147; November 8, 1954 To Edgar Newton Eisenhower
If the republicans of today would embrace the policies of this Republican president instead of the policies of a B movie actor who was under the complete control of those "Stupid Texans" this country would be in a lot better shape.
DaG out
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Outrageous!
Ladies and gentlemen! I give H.R. 1106 and (S 896) -- Helping families save their homes act of 2009.
To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. Here's some of the text from the bill:
SEC. 100. DEFINITION.
Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (43) the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
‘(43A) The term ‘qualified loan modification’ means a loan modification agreement made in accordance with the guidelines of the Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan as implemented March 4, 2009, that--
1‘(A) reduces the debtor’s payment (including principal and interest, and payments for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners’ association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) on a loan secured by a senior security interest in the principal residence of the debtor, to a percentage of the debtor’s income in accordance with such guidelines, without any period of negative amortization or under which the aggregate amount of the regular periodic payments would not fully amortize the outstanding principal amount of such loan;
1‘(B) requires no fees or charges to be paid by the debtor in order to obtain such modification; and
1‘(C) permits the debtor to continue to make payments under the modification agreement notwithstanding the filing of a case under this title, as if such case had not been filed.
I won't bore you with the rest of the text but, it essentially sides with the homeowners and not the banks who made the loans. Bankruptcy law currently bars modifications on primary residences, while allowing modifications for vacation homes, family farms, and yachts. The amendment would permit bankruptcy courts to restructure the debt on home mortgages by reducing the principal owed, extending the repayment period, and reducing interest rates. Under the bill, eligibility is limited to homeowners with mortgages originated before 2009 that are worth less than $625,000, 60 days delinquent, and subject to a notice that a foreclosure may be commenced.
Extending the same bankruptcy protections to primary residences that currently apply to luxury yachts and vacation homes is not only fair, but would reduce foreclosures by about 20%, according to Credit Suisse, and benefit about 800,000 households, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Strengthened bankruptcy protection is also beneficial to middle-class families who are not themselves facing foreclosure: the 2.4 million subprime foreclosures that the Center for Responsible Lending predicts will occur in 2009 will result in a $352 billion decline in property values for homes in neighborhoods surrounding those foreclosures, with an average decrease in property value per home of $8,667.
So, this sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it? It's not the end all be all but it's a step in the right direction. In a time when the populous is just about ready to take up pitch forks and storm the Bastille, who in their right mind would vote against this bill? Oh, would you believe every single Republican and 12 Democrats in the Senate?
An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that similar legislation would avoid 600,000 foreclosures and thus maintain $72.5 billion in wealth for families not facing foreclosure. As we all know the foreclosing of 1 home in a neighborhood brings the entire neighborhoods property value down. So, how could this have happened? How could those elected to represent their constituents vote against something so beneficial to their constituents? The answer is simple. A Senate that is bought and paid for by the financial institutions that we gave 750 billion dollars to. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place."
These Senators need to lose their jobs.
Max Baucus (MT)
Michael Bennett (CO)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Arlen Specter (PA)
John Tester (MT)
A few actually expressed their reasoning for voting "No":
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed." ( Well, that's sounds like a logical well thought out reason, Senator.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court." (Really? You would rather have the very people who got us into this mess by predatory lending methods continue to ruin property values and receive billions from tax payers rather than let a not for profit legal authority negotiate a reasonable solution.)
Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage." (Oh okay! But you don't have a problem with the Banks that change their credit card terms and rates without just cause, do you Senator?)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well." (This one really hurts DaG. I was impressed with this guy early on. Mr. Tester, while yes in a perfect world, if you made your bed then you must lie in it, but sir, we do not. and this bill did not benefit one mortgage holder while forsaking another, it helped all.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks." (Yeah. It's very apparent whose health and well being you're concerned with, Senator.)
Isn't it interesting that the newly converted Arlen Specter voted "No" on this bill?
This is nothing more than the Financial institutions multi billion dollar lobby at work. If only the citizens of this country could afford that kind of lobby pressure (Definition of Lobby pressure = Greased palms and campaign contributions) As I've written before, greed knows no party loyalty. Neither do those with deep pockets. Trans national corporations and the "New World Order" of financial institutions simply write the checks to whichever party is in control.
Until the time comes when lobbyist are no longer allowed access to our elected officials, this kind of legislative atrocity will continue. It is clear that the corruption of our legislative body is so wide spread and entrenched that a complete overhaul is needed. Along with campaign funding reforms. As long as an incumbent senator or congress person needs to raise $10,000 a day in order to compete in the next election, or as long as challengers to their seat are allowed infinite campaign contributions . . . our politicians will be bought and paid for.
Ah, the sad truth.
Short of standing guard at capitol hill with pitch forks in hand, taring and feathering any approaching lobbyist, true change for the better will never come. I'm not one of those radical "Tea Party" time for armed revolution types but, it seems to me that we who are not very wealthy will be reduced to little more than indentured servants. Slowly by allowing the status quo and quickly if we revolt.
DaG Out
To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. Here's some of the text from the bill:
SEC. 100. DEFINITION.
Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (43) the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
‘(43A) The term ‘qualified loan modification’ means a loan modification agreement made in accordance with the guidelines of the Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan as implemented March 4, 2009, that--
1‘(A) reduces the debtor’s payment (including principal and interest, and payments for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners’ association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) on a loan secured by a senior security interest in the principal residence of the debtor, to a percentage of the debtor’s income in accordance with such guidelines, without any period of negative amortization or under which the aggregate amount of the regular periodic payments would not fully amortize the outstanding principal amount of such loan;
1‘(B) requires no fees or charges to be paid by the debtor in order to obtain such modification; and
1‘(C) permits the debtor to continue to make payments under the modification agreement notwithstanding the filing of a case under this title, as if such case had not been filed.
I won't bore you with the rest of the text but, it essentially sides with the homeowners and not the banks who made the loans. Bankruptcy law currently bars modifications on primary residences, while allowing modifications for vacation homes, family farms, and yachts. The amendment would permit bankruptcy courts to restructure the debt on home mortgages by reducing the principal owed, extending the repayment period, and reducing interest rates. Under the bill, eligibility is limited to homeowners with mortgages originated before 2009 that are worth less than $625,000, 60 days delinquent, and subject to a notice that a foreclosure may be commenced.
Extending the same bankruptcy protections to primary residences that currently apply to luxury yachts and vacation homes is not only fair, but would reduce foreclosures by about 20%, according to Credit Suisse, and benefit about 800,000 households, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Strengthened bankruptcy protection is also beneficial to middle-class families who are not themselves facing foreclosure: the 2.4 million subprime foreclosures that the Center for Responsible Lending predicts will occur in 2009 will result in a $352 billion decline in property values for homes in neighborhoods surrounding those foreclosures, with an average decrease in property value per home of $8,667.
So, this sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it? It's not the end all be all but it's a step in the right direction. In a time when the populous is just about ready to take up pitch forks and storm the Bastille, who in their right mind would vote against this bill? Oh, would you believe every single Republican and 12 Democrats in the Senate?
An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that similar legislation would avoid 600,000 foreclosures and thus maintain $72.5 billion in wealth for families not facing foreclosure. As we all know the foreclosing of 1 home in a neighborhood brings the entire neighborhoods property value down. So, how could this have happened? How could those elected to represent their constituents vote against something so beneficial to their constituents? The answer is simple. A Senate that is bought and paid for by the financial institutions that we gave 750 billion dollars to. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place."
These Senators need to lose their jobs.
Max Baucus (MT)
Michael Bennett (CO)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Arlen Specter (PA)
John Tester (MT)
A few actually expressed their reasoning for voting "No":
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed." ( Well, that's sounds like a logical well thought out reason, Senator.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court." (Really? You would rather have the very people who got us into this mess by predatory lending methods continue to ruin property values and receive billions from tax payers rather than let a not for profit legal authority negotiate a reasonable solution.)
Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage." (Oh okay! But you don't have a problem with the Banks that change their credit card terms and rates without just cause, do you Senator?)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well." (This one really hurts DaG. I was impressed with this guy early on. Mr. Tester, while yes in a perfect world, if you made your bed then you must lie in it, but sir, we do not. and this bill did not benefit one mortgage holder while forsaking another, it helped all.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks." (Yeah. It's very apparent whose health and well being you're concerned with, Senator.)
Isn't it interesting that the newly converted Arlen Specter voted "No" on this bill?
This is nothing more than the Financial institutions multi billion dollar lobby at work. If only the citizens of this country could afford that kind of lobby pressure (Definition of Lobby pressure = Greased palms and campaign contributions) As I've written before, greed knows no party loyalty. Neither do those with deep pockets. Trans national corporations and the "New World Order" of financial institutions simply write the checks to whichever party is in control.
Until the time comes when lobbyist are no longer allowed access to our elected officials, this kind of legislative atrocity will continue. It is clear that the corruption of our legislative body is so wide spread and entrenched that a complete overhaul is needed. Along with campaign funding reforms. As long as an incumbent senator or congress person needs to raise $10,000 a day in order to compete in the next election, or as long as challengers to their seat are allowed infinite campaign contributions . . . our politicians will be bought and paid for.
Ah, the sad truth.
Short of standing guard at capitol hill with pitch forks in hand, taring and feathering any approaching lobbyist, true change for the better will never come. I'm not one of those radical "Tea Party" time for armed revolution types but, it seems to me that we who are not very wealthy will be reduced to little more than indentured servants. Slowly by allowing the status quo and quickly if we revolt.
DaG Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)