A universal construct among scams and cons is the application of temporal pressure during a period of confusion and disarray. If you don’t sign now, this fabulous opportunity will be lost! And with just such a tactic, the 1000 plus page Stimulus Act was passed earlier this year. Buried within the weighty tome were fundamental Federal health care policy changes, passed without public comment or debate. We’re probably still a year away from seeing if the “Stimulus” part of the bill will work as intended but it’s certainly valid to question why health care reform legislation needed to be stuck in there and rammed through.
If the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Chairman John Conyers can’t make any sense of proposed legislation without “two days and two lawyers”, I can’t expect casual readers to be figuring it out either. There’s plenty of chatter throughout the media, traditional and otherwise, which pretty much only serves to cloud the issues further. All we can be certain of is that the legislation passed unread!
If rubber stamping reams of legislation into law without an inkling of what you are doing sounds like a bad idea, well, it probably is. I’ve read the stories of doctors losing decision making authority to appointed government bureaucrats, of eligibility for treatment to be determined by factors such as the patient’s age, of remedies based on mathematically derived “treatment effectiveness” rather than individual particulars, of massive databases to be built – and stocked with your personal medical history and financial information, of a new form of national ID card – ostensibly for health purposes. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of all or of any of those scenarios, but I can’t say I like their remote possibility.
I like the stealthily enacted health legislation even less when scratching its surface reveals medical care may soon be doled out (or not) based on the value of a statistical life year (VSLY). It appears health care costs are to be disingenuously reduced by reducing health care itself, rather than actually lowering the cost of treatment. I’m sure that brings smiles to the Pharma/Medical groups paying to maintain financial hegemony throughout the “reform”. Naturally the wealthy will continue to receive the finest care money can buy, while the rest of us will be at the government bean counter’s mercy. Let’s hope those in charge aren’t eugenicists!
China is recognized as having as much as $1.2 trillion in dollars, perhaps 70% of their entire reserve. If the Chinese decide to unload, the dollar would drop markedly. This “nuclear option” of openly divesting greenbacks has been unanimously disregarded as mere posturing. It’s claimed that the subsequent dollar devaluation would be too harmful to Chinese reserves.
What is missing from that analysis is the fact that reserves are “extra”. Suppose China moved to divest itself of dollars and the dollar deflates to the value of a quarter. How bad is that for China really? So what if their cash reserve shrinks in value to only $300 billion? China can afford the loss. It was surplus money anyway, and probably, to the Chinese, the political gain would be worth the loss. In comparison the U.S. doesn’t have any cash reserves.
Compare the situation to those bankers who receive million dollar bonuses and the average working Joe. If a dollar deflates to a quarter, the banker’s bonus is now worth only $250,000 while Joe’s entire net worth is decimated. Joe becomes homeless while the banker just has to put off buying his Bugatti Veyron for a while.
China has been quietly buying up vast amounts of resource assets such as mining and energy companies. This seems to telegraph a future willingness to abandon the dollar. When China moves, it’s ruthless. Just ask a Tibetan. Now, I’m no economic or political wizard, so please tell me where I’m wrong…
With the economy in shambles, thanks to what appears to be the accelerating wealth shifting strategy of the criminal class, the rest of us will be searching hard for that promised “Change We Can Believe In.” The Fed, printing greenbacks as if they are going out of style (which they are), is fully aware that U.S. currency is thus devalued. That’s why their cronies are receiving it in exponentially larger amounts. Budgets, not long ago tallied in the millions, are now routinely in the billions, tens of billions and even hundreds of billions. Bank bailouts and executive payouts are at formerly unimaginable levels. It’s a Weimar Republic style hyperinflated cash wheelbarrow making it’s reappearance from the top down. By the time it hits ground level, and the smoke clears, U.S. paper currency may be utterly worthless.
Don’t expect big media to clue you in on this. Media provides the smoke. Don’t expect “big” anything to help. Big gets big, feeds and maintains itself, by taking advantage of little. Expect big to obfuscate reality and steer you in the opposite direction. In spite of the cheery “less negative than expected” depression era news you may have heard to the contrary, a clear, logically oriented mind sees an ugly future looming. There is no manufacturing base, no new jobs are coming to replace those lost, no new boom on the horizon to usurp the bust. We have record breaking (and rising) public and private debt with no foreseeable repayment plans. Collusion and cooption of government with corporate giants is not likely to be thawing soon.
There is however, change you can believe in, and by that I mean silver coins. When paper money no longer has discernable value, Morgan and Peace dollars, Liberty and Franklin halves, Washington quarters, Roosevelt and Mercury dimes and other silver will be in high demand. Gold is certainly good too, but it’s simply not as convenient as silver for smaller purchases such as groceries. As I write this, these coins are worth a bit more than 10x their face value. In 1964 a cup of coffee cost a dime. That same silver dime (now valued about $1.07) will still get you a cup in some places. If hyperinflation drives coffee to $5.00 a cup, that silver dime may well continue to suffice. Silver coin is the change I believe in.
“I am not a crook.” He was. “I did not have relations with that woman.” He did. “The air is safe.” It wasn’t. “Sadaam’s got stockpiles of WMDs.” Nary a one. “We have found absolutely no link between vaccines and autism.” They had. “Insert quote here.” Insert truth here. The past eight years provided too many lies to list. (I won’t go near some of Rumsfeld’s bizarre contortions.) If our current President ran into the doppelgänger who campaigned in his stead they’d probably annihilate each other like matter and antimatter. Don’t try to tell me it’s all for national security! (more…)
I was reading the Congressional Research Service’s The 2009 Influenza Pandemic: Selected Legal Issues (PDF available at www.pandemicfluonline.com), and got as far as the second page where it says:
…the 2009 influenza pandemic may raise a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual’s liberty be curtailed to advance the common good?
Now, you just know they’re gonna get right down to the meat of things and come up with the rationale for all sorts of limitations on individual liberty for the “common good.” It’s awfully hard to argue against the common good, isn’t it? Even I wouldn’t take that one on. This whole blog is about the common good.(more…)
According to the UK’s Food Standards Agency, and as gleefully reported today by the BBC, ‘Organic has no health benefits’, so we can all breath a sigh of relief and return to eating pesticide and chemical filled garbage. There’s probably no health benefits to unleaded paint then, eh? Any benefits left in quitting smoking? Do we even need to debunk this utter foolishness?
Personally, I wouldn’t expect an organic pepper to have significantly more nutrients than any other pepper, since they are usually not genetically engineered, though nutrient levels were the only factor in the study’s determinations. Turns out organic peppers do indeed have elevated nutrient levels, but not significantly elevated, according to the FSA. The health benefits of not ingesting a host of ingredients far too dangerous to be included in a child’s chemistry set is a glaring omission. (more…)
Here at PPP we don’t just cry over spilled milk, we’ll also try mopping it up. Towards that end we offer to the U.S. and the world at large, the concepts of the “Unassailable Agenda” (UA) and “The Irrepressible Protest” (TIP). Used together these concepts can have the effect of uniting populations and forcing the hand of the state.
The UA would be a gigantic citizen’s movement with virtually no sane opposition, and TIP is a protest strategy presenting no targetable qualities, thus circumventing the possibility of the state’s use of repressive tactics. Government would have virtually no choice but to adopt the Unassailable Agenda, or to be nakedly exposed as a repressive oligarchy with little interest in actually serving the people.
The Irrepressible Protest takes place in situ (no change in your normal schedule required), by visible sign, one that may or may not signify participation. It could be as simple as wearing a hat, any kind of hat, on the chosen day of protest. The magnetic and galvanizing force created by both showing your support for, and seeing everyone else in support of the same issues would be astounding. The authorities would have nowhere to aim their microwave crowd dispersal devices, their teargas canisters and whatnot, and yet everywhere one looked protesters would be evident as they go about their normal business. On questioning, any particular individual could claim they always wear a hat, or just happened to choose to wear one on that day. The consolidated “request for change” would be overwhelming. Our Representatives would be forced to either follow through or enact draconian policies to maintain control thereafter.
Here’s how it works:
Devise a list of demands (the UA) that irrefutably benefit all people equally, possibly certain standards of air and water quality, the fair distribution/use of natural resources, fairer access to and use of man’s collective knowledge, freedom to learn how to think constructively and independently rather than to be force fed an institutionalized mode of thought, sovereignty over one’s own body, lowered influence of corporations with a corresponding increase in citizens’ influence, full transparency of government, and access to quality health care. Carefully craft this list to be as detailed and extensive as possible, yet so self-evident that to deny any part of it would be tantamount to being “anti-humanity”. This will not be easy, as people will debate just about anything, but avoid obviously contentious issues. They need to be addressed in another manner.
Include in the distribution of the UA a chosen date on which citizens will show their support of the UA, via Irrepressible Protest, explaining the rationale and method for doing so.
Distribute the UA, and allow time for awareness to spread sufficiently to cover the population.
On the selected date, when over 95% of the population can be seen and can see their neighbors united, Irrepressibly Protesting for adoption of the Unassailable Agenda, a galvanizing effect will take place.
Government will be forced to adopt the Unassailable Agenda, as the citizens will now feel massively empowered, stronger and unified, and there could be no justification offered for not obeying them.
Namebase is a terrific resource used by investigative journalists (real ones), which provides relationship maps between important individuals and corporations that may otherwise go unnoticed. Plug in a high profile name and see the cloud of co-conspirators (or innocent associates) appear before your very eyes. PIR hand built their database by painstakingly scouring books and public documents, and it’s truly a unique tool. Don’t be misled by the lack of fancy graphic design, this is one powerful site. You’ll find a wealth of informed articles there and other search types to use and peruse as well.
Not very long ago Representative Alan Grayson had the opportunity to question Elizabeth Coleman, the Fed’s Inspector General for the Board of Governors, the office responsible for audits and investigations. Liz claims to have no clue as to where the Fed put $9 trillion over the past 8 months. Seems to me a simple enough question. Seems to me $9 trill is no “mere bag of shells”. Its not exactly like misplacing the car keys. It kinda makes you wonder what they’re doing over there at the Office of Inspector General, since they obviously aren’t watching the money flow.
Liz claims her office has a “review” underway, so she doesn’t know anything yet. How come my tiny local bank can immediately account for every penny, and yet the Fed doesn’t seem to have a database to query? Plausible to you? Seems to me there wouldn’t be any materials to review at the Fed that wouldn’t include numbers and names. How could you even start a review at the Fed without there being dollar amounts listed on the very first document you look at? And hey, if those folks sitting behind her know what she should be saying, why doesn’t Grayson just question them? (By the way, I’m pretty sure that smart looking woman sitting back there said “Don’t mention Goldman Sachs”, as I’m a pretty fair lip reader.) And anyway, just how good an accountant do you need to be to get Coleman’s job? ‘Cause I know some really good accountants.
In case you don’t understand the complicated machinations of the Fed and Capitol Hill, here’s a similar line of discourse that may help:
Papa: Now Johnny, you’re the eldest, can you tell Papa what happened to that really big bag of candy I saw you guys holding earlier? Johnny: Well, me and Bobby and Mary, we’re starting a review, so we don’t really know. Papa: Mama saw empty candy wrappers scattered about your room. Any idea where those came from? Johnny: I didn’t talk to Mama yet about any candy bags. Papa: That’s not what I asked you. What did you guys do with the candy? Mary: (whispers something to Johnny) Johnny: Ah, we’re looking into that, so we can’t say. (Holds back a smirk.) Papa: (remaining amazingly composed) Well, you better eat all your dinner.
I realize it’s been a while since anyone’s heard from the Crazed Lone Killers (CLK’s) out there, but I want you all to know, once and for all, that a simple look at the numbers proves the official CLK stories hold no water. No need to analyze the Zapruder film again or to inspect any shells, just follow along:
Consider that a certain sector of the general population fits the CLK profile, let’s say maybe there’s 10,000 of them. Yeah, I know, there probably aren’t that many, but roll with it. Now what percentage of this subset do you suppose is so wacko, so out on the edge of crazyness that they would want to off a John Lennon, a Martin Luther King or a President Kennedy – the kind of inspirational leaders that mankind loves and needs most? How many are so out there that they’ll plug the kind of leaders that hold quality values and attempt to raise the consciousness and living conditions of the poor and downtrodden? How many are that crazed? Obviously it’s not going to be the majority. Probably just a few percent at the outer limits of CLK mental disorder. Well, I ask you then, how come it’s only these extreme guys that successfully kill? Where’s all the “regular” crazed lone killers, the majority of them, the ones crazy enough to actually go through with it, but not so off the wall nuts as to shoot an exemplary leader?
You see where I’m going here don’t you? (And no, I’m not advocating violence of any sort.) Common sense tells us that the majority of crazed lone killers, being only moderately crazed (relatively speaking), would go after the unpopular leaders. You’d think at least 9 out of every 10 assassinations would be directed at them, no? Unless you believe the U.S. produces only one certain type of way-out wacko, completely out of touch extremist CLK, and not a bell-curve spread of varying CLK types, the Crazed Lone Killer story is hereby shot to hell. So come on now, give us an explanation we can believe in!
