There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Nevada Election Math: Clinton Beat Obama, Obama Beat Clinton

Delegate Math: Who Won Nevada?

UPDATE, 8:15 p.m: Both the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party and a senior adviser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign are insisting that the contention that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won more delegates in today's caucus is incorrect.

"The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008," said Jill Derby, the chairwoman of the state party. "We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton, echoed that sentiment. "Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake," he said. "The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19."

***********

UPDATE 7:12 p.m.: AP and NBC have now changed their delegate counts to 13 for Obama and 12 for Clinton.

***********

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) won today's raw vote in Nevada but senior aides to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) believe they have narrowly won the fight for delegates in the Silver State.

In a just completed conference call with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe and director of delegate selection Jeff Berman argued that the Illinois Senator will leave Nevada today with 13 pledged delegates to 12 for Clinton thanks the weighting of northern and rural areas in the state.

An Associated Press official on the call suggested that Obama's campaign may well be right and the organization was looking seriously at its own math.

While the process of delegate apportionment is extremely complicated, it boils down to this: in the places that Clinton won, there were an even number of delegates that were split between she and Obama. In the places Obama won, there were an odd number of delegates, meaning that he often took two delegates to one for Clinton.

"On one very important measure, we had a slight lead," said Plouffe. "Just as important as the number is why that is: we showed real strength statewide."

Plouffe demurred when asked whether if Obama turned out to have won the delegate count, he should be declared the victor in Nevada.

For her part, Clinton sought to downplay the dispute over delegates.

"This is about delegates but it's also about what people are voting for and who they think the best president would be," Clinton said in Las Vegas. "Find it somewhat strange that there is such a reaction when this was a very effective campaign to reach as many people as possible and we did and I am very proud of that."



read more | digg story

Obama wins Nevada -- for real.

From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
The Obama campaign just held a conference call with reporters asserting that -- due to Obama beating Clinton outside of Clark County (Las Vegas) -- they actually won more pledged Nevada delegates than Clinton did, 13-12.

The math turns out to be a bit confusing, but the shorthand is this: The more populous Clark County, which Clinton won, awarded a even number of delegates, and Clinton and Obama split those down the middle. Meanwhile, the more rural areas, which Obama won, awarded an odd number of delegates, which gave Obama the edge. "We showed real strength statewide," campaign manager David Plouffe said in the call.

But the AP -- as well as NBC News -- had reported that the delegate split being Clinton 13, Obama 12. Who is wrong here? Per the Obama camp, the state party is still gathering results, and they believe the AP has incomplete numbers.

In the Q&A, a reporter asked, so does this mean you won Nevada? Plouffe replied, "We'll leave that up to you guys."

And now NBC News shows a change in delegates from our earlier count: It's Obama 13, Clinton 12.

read more | digg story

Widespread Cheating & Vote Suppression by Clinton Campaign

[UPDATE 2: Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has now made the accusation in the Atlantic, with over 200 separate allegations of irregularities at caucus sites. See also this diary by LV Pol Girl, and these diaries by hekebolos and by RunnerAAA].

[UPDATE: I'm not claiming that these tactics were enough to flip the results. In fact, I don't think so. Hillary probably won more actual Nevada voters anyway, and would have won them without the cheating (though Obama won more delegates, which is what matters). The point is to illustrate the nature of her campaign; how it reflects on her character; and how it affects the Democratic base.

Also, word on the ground is that caucuses on the Strip and in Reno were clean.

For all you doubters out there, all I can do is tell you what I directly experienced, and heard firsthand from other volunteers at the campaign office. As further corroboration, the Obama hotline to report irregularities was busy for a full ten minutes.

Finally, Obama supporters: please listen to Markos. He's right: Edwards people are not necessarily Obama 2nd choice: in fact, it's closer to the opposite. You're not doing us any favors.]

Hey everyone,

I'm reporting in from one of the Obama field offices in Clark County, NV. My girlfriend and I just came back from being the precinct captains at our caucus, and the scene here is ugly.

Everyone is reporting election irregularities on the part of the Hillary campaign. There is widespread cheating and voter suppression going on all over Clark County--and it's obviously coming in from the top down. Whether it made enough of a difference to swing the election is another question--but there is no question that Hillary was running a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred campaign in which all of her surrogates were instructed to cheat in every way possible.

To be clear about the caucus process here: caucus doors opened at 11am today; people are allowed to file in and register on location until 12 noon, at which time the doors close and no one else is admitted. Those registering were given non-binding ballots to fill out to help assess in case of problems with head count. At this point, the total number of people in the room are counted. Viability is determined (15%), and then the viable sections have 20 minutes to convince the uncommitteds/unviables. Final counts are then made.

Here are just a few of the irregularities from the Clinton campaign that have come to my ears, before I tell my own story. Word on the ground is that we have video of some of these shenanigans as well.

  • UPDATE: The wording of the actual Party rules are unclear. At this point, it appears that the Hillary campaign may simply have interpreted the rules differently, rather than deliberately engaging in voter suppression. Regardless, however, the State Party interpreted the rules in our favor. No less than foureight Obama captains (including myself) have reported that Clinton operatives tried to close the doors at 11:30--a full thirty minutes before the doors were supposed to close. In some cases I am hearing they actually succeeded, and voters were turned away before more knowledgeable people could get there to reopen them. The Clinton campaign had obviously told their people to be there by 11:30--and they knew that the higher the turnout, the worse for them.
  • At least two reports of Clinton operatives telling the uncommitteds and Edwards supporters, once their numbers were deemed not viable, that they had to leave. Whether these tactics succeeded or not, I do not know. Obviously, the Clinton campaign knew that voters not already in her camp were unlikely to join her camp (I know from my own experience that I convinced many more undecideds than my opponent Hillary operative), so they attempted to suppress their vote.
  • At least one report of Clinton operatives telling Obama supporters with viable numbers that they were not viable, and had to leave. From what I hear, some of those voters did in fact leave.
  • At least two reports (including my own) of disabled voters being coerced into the Clinton camp against their will, or even having their voter card filled out for them against their will.
  • A few reports of probable out-of-state Clinton operatives being counted among the voters--though since checking ID is illegal, and other Hillary operatives from in-state would vouch for them, it's impossible to say.
  • At least one report of two large men standing outside the door checking voters for whom they would support, and telling all Obama people they were at the wrong location.
  • At least one other report of Hillary operatives doing the check-in, and telling all Obama supporters that they were not on the list, could not register at the location (not true), and that they could not caucus.
  • At least one report of ballots being filled out in advance for Hillary in mass.
  • At least one report of Hillary supporters saying that the caucus location was just the Hillary room--and that Obama supporters had to go to a faraway location.
  • At least one report of a voter registration list only in Spanish, and only with Hillary supporters on it. Obama supporters later found the registration list with the rest of the people--in the garbage can of the ladies restroom.
  • Several reports of Hillary signs on the registration table, and Hillary supporters in Hillary shirts doing registration.

And there's much, much more. It's only just getting started to come through. How many of these tactics worked is unclear. Certainly, aggressive Obama volunteers like myself should have nipped many of these in the bud, but we're actually counting on concerned citizens who care--not machine operatives trained to cheat and brought up in the nearly criminal Nevada machine and the ruthless, conscience-less Hillary campaign.

Here's my story:

I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:

  • The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that "that's not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation." We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.
  • A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, "I don't control what he does; she does." At that point I said to the man, "Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?" He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.
  • The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, "well, I can't ask for ID." I said, "She can't participate if no one will vouch for her." At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that's not impossible, it was also improbable--but I had no way to verify or object further.
  • One voter who hadn't even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).
  • Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin--but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Even so, KK and I managed to convince 6 undecided/Edwards voters (Edwards & uncommitted both lacked viability in my caucus), while their cheating, ruthless operatives only convinced two--and our caucus outperformed the field, garnering 4 delegates to her 5. It was intense--and it was war. I knew what the Clinton operatives were up to, and they knew I knew. It was bloodless war; I almost feel pity for the goodhearted Obama volunteers who were unprepared for the level of sociopathy that I expected--and encountered--from the Clinton campaign.

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

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed--not because we lost here, but because of the way we "lost." Disillusionment is running extremely high--and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren't just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.

Leaving behind the triangulating, DLC politics of the Clintons, this crap leaves me with just one question: with Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

read more | digg story

E-Voting Train Wreck 2008

ES&S iVotronic Touch-Screens Fail In 100% of the County's Precincts, Voters Reportedly Being Turned Away Without Being Able to Cast a Vote
Virus-Vulnerable Voting Machines Had Been Sent Home with Pollworkers on 'Sleepovers' Prior to Today's Republican Primary...

Guest Blogged By John Gideon, VotersUnite.Org

Local media and CNN are reporting that Horry County South Carolina's ES&S touch-screen voting machines are in a near total meltdown.

CNN reports:

Poll workers in Horry County tell CNN voting machines have been down since polls opened Saturday morning throughout the county — the machines are not reading an activation card.

Workers have been giving out paper ballots but at least one precinct has run out of envelopes to seal them in (not a sign of turnout — they had just 23 such ballots on hand). Election workers say that officials have told them they are working precinct by precinct to fix the problem and that a few voting machines may now be running, but some voters have been turned away and asked to check back later.

Three poll workers also tell CNN the county has about 100 precincts and all have been affected. CNN is awaiting a call back from the county's election supervisor.

Further CNN coverage here: "South Carolina primary plagued by bad voting machines"

Malfunctioning voting machines plagued Horry County, which contains the cities of Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach, according to poll workers. Workers said the machines have been down since polls opened at 7 a.m., and they are not reading activation cards.

Workers were handing out paper ballots, but at least one precinct has run out --- it had only 23 on hand. Poll workers said the county has about 100 precincts, and all of them are affected.

This is happening in a state where election officials were recently asked about their paperless ES&S iVotronic touch-screen (DRE) voting system and the fact that other states have found the machines to be insecure, poorly designed, inaccurate, and not accessible for voters with disabilities. These officials have all said that they anticipated a smooth voting process for both the Republican presidential preference primary on Jan. 19 and the Democratic primary on Jan. 26 in South Carolina....

Prior to the reports of the mass failure of their voting machines, Horry County had released their plan on how they were going to conduct two primary elections on two straight Saturdays.

Late in the week poll workers picked up the iVotronic machines that they are using today. They took them home on voting machine "sleepovers" and then set up the poll sites for today's primary.

Today only the Republicans are voting.

When the polls close this evening all memory cards, machines, and supplies will be returned to the county election office.

The tallies will be done and the results reported. The machines will then be prepared to be picked up next Thursday by the same poll workers who will take them home and repeat the "sleepover" process for the Democratic primary next Saturday.

This plan seems to be a welcome mat for security problems, since the machines are highly susceptible to tampering, and even short periods outside the view of the public and election officials can be a recipe for disaster. Also in question is whether memory cards will be saved between the two primaries, as per federal law. This Train Wreck will probably throw a locomotive wheel into the counties' plans.

This article will be updated as more news comes in...

Update: Noon Pacific: While Donna Mahn, Georgetown County's elections director, said, ".....before the iVotronic machines go out to precincts, they must be tested and calibrated by elections staff members. The state provides a set of rules for testing," and Mahn said, "everyone is careful to follow those to the letter."

Apparently Ms. Mahn misspoke because Chris Whitmire, public information officer for the State Election Commission has made the following statement to explain the problem:

Whitmire said the problem came when election officials, who test the machines by placing dummy votes and checking that they are recorded, forgot to complete the last step of the test in some cases. That last step clears the machines in preparation for actual voting.

And what do the voters have to say about the situation? While county officials are minimizing the impact of the meltdown by telling the media that no one was sent home without voting and there were paper ballots available, the voters were telling a different story:

In an email to News13, Steve Rabe wrote, “This is not true. Everyone is being turned away. There are no paper ballots. We were just turned away along with many of our neighbors. We were told the only place we could vote was in Conway. They did not know if they would get ballots later today. We were told to check back later…in the rain. This is a crisis.”

Tom Reynolds wrote, “I voted by paper ballot at the Socastee library and saw them run out of those while I was there at 10am. I went to the Forestbrook precinct with a neighbor, picked up some paper ballots there and took them to the Socastee library. They told me they had 'turned away' 20 voters in the time I was gone! Turned away?! That's not supposed to happen according to the Horry county elections commission. They said they are supposed to send them to another precinct.”

Update: 1:15PM Pac.: The McCain campaign has now announced that they will ask for the polls in Horry County to stay open an extra-hour beyond the scheduled 7PM EST closing. However, a circuit court judge has to issue the order and it is Saturday.

Update: 3:15PM Pac.:It appears that the CNN source for the story about McCain's campaign wanting to hold the polls open an extra hour may have been jumping the gun. Later news reports are that McCain's handlers are behind closed doors trying to decide what to do.

It is also being reported that voters in polling places all over the county used scraps of paper, note book paper, and even paper towels would be accepted as a ballot. The county is expecting to hand count over 1,500 pieces of paper tonight.

read more | digg story

The planned collapse of America

There is no shortage of speculation about "why" our leaders are still adamantly planning for the destruction of Iran, in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, even though everyone except the neocons and their allies believes that America would not survive our own actions. An irrational attack is planned and apparently the decision has been chiseled in stone. It may be for Israel. It may be for oil. Maybe it is for world domination?

We are launching a nuclear world war to save us from ourselves. "We have found the enemy and he is us." --Pogo. We risk blowing the world apart, to avoid watching America slowly choke on its own excesses.

The government has known for decades that America is on a countdown to self-destruction. Among the elite it is common knowledge that our "global economy" must one day collapse from its own dead weight. In 1974 an intensive research project was undertaken by the Stanford Research Institute and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for the Dept. of Education. Their final report was released as the Changing Images of Man. It was compiled by the SRI Center for the Study of Social Policy, Director Willis Harmon. This is a far-reaching investigation into how the basic nature of man might be changed. The Aquarian Conspiracy describes the implementation of their work in the real world.

.

The most reassuring part of "Images" is that it confirms my own conclusions about our crisis, but it is also the most disturbing part, for it confirms my worst reservations about this time.

The object of the research was the development of a plausible vision of the future in which democratic methods survive, major problems are managed successfully if not resolved, and the unfolding of the human potential continues to expand. In other words, the postulation of a "desirable future" including feasible paths to its realization . . .

The government was looking forward to a very troubling future, trying to figure out the best path through it. The plan was to find ways to shape and mold mankind into a new cultural image, complete with new ideas and ideologies, even religious ones. The root of the problem was human nature, and solution was to reshape the competing forces of daily life, in order to forge a new image of a new human nature. The researchers were brutally honest in seeking all available knowledge pertaining to their research, and in assessing the current common image of man-on-earth.

The research revealed that there were a multitude of crises that were about to intersect in America's near future. Not the least of these converging catastrophes was a rapidly approaching breakdown of both American capitalism and democracy. The collapse was a natural result of globalism and monopoly capitalism. The basic greed that powers the system eroded the American political and economic structures, exposing the foundation of immorality and unfairness that amplifies the social unrest. The Stanford researchers clearly predicted that the American economy was destined to collapse from its own dead weight. The data also showed that that economic collapse was to be accompanied by disastrous social repercussions, such as rioting and upheaval, which would lead us into a "garrison state."

The thing about this research is that this work has confirmed that our economy based on parasitic capitalism, where the small elite sits atop the heap of men and gorges on their lifeblood, is destroying the social fabric of America. This system is based on a stacked deck, where the top elite always reap the profits that are made to rise to the top through the corporate profits-based system. The research confirmed that the growing inequities of such a system were ever increasing and with them, elevated social tensions. A system based on usury and putting everyone in the "poor house" is an economic order that is guaranteed to produce a democratic revolution, whenever the misery index of the armed populace exceeds the limits that they are willing to peacefully bear, without striking back at the source of their misery.

Changing Images of Man predicts an American economic collapse and a "garrison" (police) state," if the overwhelming inequities of our economic system are not corrected by powerful multinationals making more humane decisions. Alternatives to this doomsday scenario are discussed, all of which point to the need to devote all available resources towards transforming the image of man, changing man's nature, instead of altering the corrupted economic system which has brought America to this dire state. In this government study it was inappropriate to denounce the evil culprits behind all our troubles (who pull the strings on government itself), even though the task was to document and remedy the damage that they have done. Instead, they are cited as the hopeful "saviors," that we should look to for help and leadership. The hypocrisy of the hegemons! The authors admit that it is "utopian in 1974 to think of the multinational corporations as potentially among our most effective mechanisms for husbanding the earth's resources and optimizing their use for human benefit -- the current popular image of the corporation tends to be more that of the spoiler and the exploiter."

Instead of charging the people who are responsible for our situation (such as men like David Rockefeller), for manipulating our economy and our democracy to maximize their profits, the multi-national corporations and their owners were exalted as the potential saviors of mankind. Rockefeller and the elite have consistently taken steps to dominate the world by controlling people through "humanitarian" projects which, in the end, turn out to be profit mechanisms. The "green revolution" to spread corporate farming to the Third World has been the key to globalization's destabilizing of world labor markets, in order to create populations of "refugee workers," who are willing to go anywhere to find work for slave wages. This is the cause of the wave of illegal immigration into the US from Mexico. This is part of the proof that there are powerful individuals who are using their economic power to undermine nations in a long-term scheme to gain control of nations and multiply their profits.

Here David Rockefeller admits media collusion with his one world plans: "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." (Activists Go Face to Face With Evil As Rockefeller Confronted)

Everything that "Images" suggested to remedy shortcomings in the economic system was based on the assumption that men like this would acquire a new corporate benevolence, with CEOs gaining basic humanity. According to Rockefeller himself (who freely admits his efforts to replace America with a "one world" order), he has been working for the greater good of man, all along.

Their conclusions on American political shortcomings were that these would be tended to by the new improved humane politicians, sort of like Bush's "compassionate conservatives." Step 4 of their six-part strategy to "Bring About a Non-Catostrophic Transformation" -- "Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead."

The report authors recognize the inevitability of the rising new image of man, describing it as a quasi-religious awakening within the collective mind of man, man's new human nature, relating it to the actual process of spiritual learning that has been going on within religions for thousands of years. They praise Freemasonry and the skills and disciplines inculcated within its members, speculating that their ways might be the key to shoring-up our free enterprise democratic society.

They developed a strategy to revitalize America's motivational images, symbols and institutions, outlining five separate approaches to the problem, describing the pluses and the pitfalls of each, according to their effects upon society. These approaches are defined as "restorative, simulative, manipulative, persuasive and facilitative." Restoration of crumbling icons works best in the early stages of societal transformation (revitalization cycle). The simulative strategy introduces new ideas, whenever the collapse of the old order becomes apparent. The manipulative strategy seeks to limit individual freedoms. Persuasive propaganda phase is to be coupled with proven mind control techniques, to keep down the social upheaval and shape the emerging image.

"No doubt existing consciousness-changing, behavior-shaping, subliminal persuasion, and other conditioning techniques could be used to accomplish some sort of transformation of sobering proportions (we ought to be able to be more effective than Nazi Germany). After previously citing Nazi reinvigoration of the Germanic icons and ideals."

The transforming revitalization process mirrors the psychiatric process of leading a patient through a psychotic break and the restructuring of his life, but on a national scale.

Once the transformation becomes apparent, social stability will become a problem, especially when society feels pushed by overextending the simulative stage. Actions taken to increase the polarization between "transformation enthusiasts and the conservatives" are called "constructive," except when it is desirable to take actions that "contribute to social cohesion." They were searching for the best path to bring about a controlled deconstruction of everything that "America" means and the reconstruction of a new improved vision of America. They are midwifes to the delivery of the "New World Order," as they go about the dirty business of guiding society through that predicted period of "friendly fascism."

The great anomaly is given as the great chasm between an efficiently functioning profit-driven capitalist society and the human needs and desires of that society which go unmet, so that "profits" can be taken. In fact, the "profit" really amounts to the bread that is taken from the poor. The inequities and the unfairness of the corporate system are causing the breakdown of American capitalism and American democracy. The American catastrophe is causing the breakdown of the world economy for the same reason, the basic inability of monopoly capitalism to meet the basic needs demanded by the world's people.

Bush's appointed task is to bully America through this turbulent period of upheaval, with as little disruption of corporate activity as possible. Government has taken the words of this study to heart, preparing a manipulative transformation, to divert or preempt the coming collapse of our nation with a massive war today. This is also one of the primary reasons for the coming world war, to serve as a prelude to American martial law. Instead of calling out the troops after the insurrection has begun, they plan to call out the troops first. If the American military is to forcefully control the homeland, including their own relatives, then the troops must first be convinced that the nation's survival depends upon their patriotic actions. This is why the world war against Iran has not started yet, because our National Guard must first be convinced that its duty is to put down the American rebellion which will surely accompany the bombing of Iran. The timing for their great takeover is crucial, if they want to move America past (through) the social unrest as quickly as possible.

Here are the "Elements of a Strategy for a Non-catastrophic Transition":

  1. Promote awareness of the unavoidability of the transformation.

  2. Foster construction of a guiding vision of a workable society built around the new image of man and new social paradigm.

  3. Foster a period of experimentation and tolerance for diverse alternatives.

  4. Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead.

  5. Promote systematic exploration of and foster education regarding man's inner life, his subjective experience.

  6. Plan adequate social controls for the transition period while safeguarding against longer-term losses of freedom . . . Regulation and restraint of behavior will be necessary in order to hold the society together while it goes around a difficult corner.

There must be a new economics to deal with the "new scarcities." Arguing for corporate America to adopt a humanitarian aspect, the argument is made for an alternative "new socialism," where important sectors like energy might be nationalized for the good of the country, and greater pressure put upon corporations to mandate a sort of social awareness of employee needs, as much as shareholder profits.

"The appropriate question may be not so much how to bring about a transformation . . . but rather how to facilitate a non-catastrophic transformation." [page 195]

"Construct a guiding version of a workable society, built around a new positive image of humankind and corresponding vision of a suitable social paradigm. As the old order shows increasing signs of falling apart, some adequate vision of what may be simultaneously building is urgently needed for mobilization of constructive effort. The guiding vision has to include some way of providing for full and valued participation in the economic and social affairs of the community and society, especially for those who are physically and mentally able to contribute but find themselves in a state of unwilling idleness and deterioration of spirit."

Despite all the report's shortcomings and its hypocrisy, it does make some sound observations about what is needed for our immediate survival. We should take it as a guide to what our government knows about the coming mega-crisis and a template to help us see what changes we could make if there were truly a new economy, a new social contract, a new American state. For it is obvious to all those who take the time to look, that we are headed into period of national freefall, when American society plunges head first, into a dark abyss of uncertainty, as the old order passes away, and the New World Order rushes in to fill the void.

We are seeing the planned collapse of America, coming down the road we are on. What are we going to do to get our nation off that highway to hell?

read more | digg story

FBI 'covers up' file of nuclear-secrets theft

THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets.

The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency’s investigation of the network.

Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.

Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an “outright lie”.

“I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations,” she said.

The freedom of information request had not been initiated by Edmonds. It was made quite separately by an American human rights group called the Liberty Coalition, acting on a tip-off it received from an anonymous correspondent.

The letter says: “You may wish to request pertinent audio tapes and documents under FOIA from the Department of Justice, FBI-HQ and the FBI Washington field office.”

It then makes a series of allegations about the contents of the file – many of which corroborate the information that Edmonds later made public.

Edmonds had told this newspaper that members of the Turkish political and diplomatic community in the US had been actively acquiring nuclear secrets. They often acted as a conduit, she said, for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they attracted less suspicion.

She claimed corrupt government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points.

The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001.

It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célèbre in the US.

The letter also makes reference to wiretaps of Turkish “targets” talking to ISI intelligence agents at the Pakistani embassy in Washington and recordings of “operatives” at the ATC.

Edmonds is the subject of a number of state secret gags preventing her from talking further about the investigation she witnessed.

“I cannot discuss the details considering the gag orders,” she said, “but I reported all these activities to the US Congress, the inspector general of the justice department and the 9/11 commission. I told them all about what was contained in this case file number, which the FBI is now denying exists.

“This gag was invoked not to protect sensitive diplomatic relations but criminal activities involving US officials who were endangering US national security.”

Insight: Chris Gourlay, Jonathan Calvert and Joe Lauria

read more | digg story

scientology, the cult that's trying to censor disagreement.

In 2004 Cruise made a secret interview video just for Scientology cult members.

This secret video was leaked to the Internet on January 15, 2008 on YouTube.com. This was the same day that the considerably less damaging Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography by Andrew Morton was released in bookstores all over the world.


This new video was so damaging to Tom Cruise and Scientology that Scientology and Tom Cruise’s attorneys immediately demanded it be removed or YouTube would be sued. YouTube removed it, but not before many, many people made it the “must see” video of the Internet.

When people saw that You Tube was bullied into removing it before the world could see for themselves the real Tom Cruise and his cult’s dangerous fanaticism, people began putting the secret Cruise video back up at YouTube under different names as well as putting it up all over the Internet.

Scientology and Cruise’s attorneys then began going after any and all websites putting up the video. Media raced to find a copy and people who have not seen it joined the “must find” search for the renegade location of the hour where to find this new secret Cruise video elsewhere on the net.

Because this video is important for dialog on public safety issues on children as it relates to Tom Cruise’s involvement and promotion of a dangerous brainwashing cult to children and young adults, Fact net will do it best to find and post on its home page the most current links to the viewing locations of the hour where you can currently find the Tom Cruise secret video.

Once you see Tom Cruise in this video describing how his Scientology cult must eliminate all opposition you can judge for yourself if the description of the video as maniacal is accurate…

The following is the link that was what was recently re-posted up at YouTube.

Tom Cruise: banned Scientology video

Scientology front group that tries to recruit through the prisons. * SP: Suppressive Person. Anyone that doesn’t like Scientology and/or criticizes Scientology. Scientology mini dictionary:

*KSW (short for Keeping Scientology Working): A policy written by
Hubbard in the 1960’s that requires all Scientologists to follow his
words and his rules exactly.

‘Orgs: Orgs is an abbreviation for ‘organizations’ and describes
all churches of Scientology throughout the world.

*David Miscavige: He is the current leader of Scientology.
He’s the equivalent of the Pope to the Catholics.

*Out-ethics: any behavior that violates any of Hubbard’s
rules of conduct.

*Put ethics in on someone else: make others conform
to Hubbard’s rules of behavior.

*Criminon: Scientology front group that tries to recruit through the prisons.

* SP: Suppressive Person. Anyone that doesn’t like Scientology and/or criticizes Scientology.

*PTS/SP: another Hubbard term to define behavior that goes
against Scientology rules.

*LRH technology or ‘tech’: all the Scientology policies, rules, mandates, procedures. (more) (less)

When you tried to view this reposted video you see:

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International”

You can watch the original uncut 9:34 min. video HERE

If you can find this secret video before it is removed again see the Factnet.org home page soon for the most current locations that we can find for this most popular must see video. For more information on Tom Cruise and Scientology see the links below:

• Just what kind of “religion” is Scientology?

Scientology, Satanism, and the Occult

The Occult Secret Scientology and Scientology’s Satanic Cross

The dark origins of Scientology’s “religious” cross symbol

Deconstructing Scientology’s RTC symbol

Scientology’s Lion Snake double triangle symbols … and dark personal hypnotic suggestions

The Fable

What is the Beast?

Scientology and the Left Hand Path

Ron the Magus

Ron the Swami

• Scientology’s Celebrities

• Scientology’s Current Leader David Miscavige

• Scientology Defined

• Scientology’s Human Rights Abuses

• Scientology Victim’s Own Stories

• Scientology’s Litigation and Lawsuits

• Scientology’s Fraud and Criminality

*HERE ARE A FEW OF THE LATEST LINK LOCATIONS, THEY MOST LIKELY WONT BE THERE LONG SO GO TO THE FACTNet HOME PAGE AND WATCH FOR MORE LINK LOCATIONS AS CRUISE AND SCIENTOLOGY KNOCK DOWN NEW LOCATIONS IN A FUTILE GAME OF WACK-A-MOLE:

YouTube Cruise and Scientology Videos…

Links:-
>
> Tom Cruise & Scientology: Career Death 1of4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfAjK1EJHYY

>
> Tom Cruise & Scientology: Career Death 2of4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhP7K1UVrG4

>
> Tom Cruise & Scientology: Career Death 3of4 < Arnie Lerma
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs26_QAoW2o

>
> Tom Cruise & Scientology: Career Death 4of4> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmnxkR9QmQE

>
> OR
>
> watch it here AVI
>
> http://www.lermanet.us/martinpoulter-skynews.avi

> http://www.lermanet.us/scientology-skynews-part2.avi

> http://www.lermanet.us/arnie-lerma-skynews-part3.avi

> http://www.lermanet.us/lawyer-skynews-part4.avii
>
> or MP4
>
> http://www.lermanet.us/martinpoulter-skynews.mp4

> http://www.lermanet.us/scientology-skynews-part2.mp4

> http://www.lermanet.us/arnie-lerma-skynews-part3.mp4

> http://www.lermanet.us/lawyer-skynews-part4.mp4

IMHO
FACTNet

This editorial/opinion/news alert has been provided or distributed by FACTNet, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network.) Re-distribution and re-posting of this document using proper net etiquette when doing so, is appreciated! Factnet is the largest online news and referral service as well as research archive for defending freedom of thought and mind from all forms of unethical influence tactics, mind control and mental coercion/torture used in destructive cults and fundamentalist groups. Since 1993 millions have been helped. FACTNet is a tax deductible, IRS Approved 501(c)(3) non profit organization.

For breaking news, personal stories, recovery information, support groups, expert referrals, message boards, newsletters and books relating to destructive cults and fundamentalism, mind control, mental coercion and unethical psychological influence, please visit our web site at http://www.factnet.org If you would like to view over 350,000 postings on various cults, comment on this editorial/opinion/news or to share your personal experiences, go to one of our many various message boards at http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. PO Box 1315 , Ignacio, CO. 81137 USA, E-mail: manage@factnet.org

read more | digg story

The Fraud of Bushenomics: They’re Looting the Country

The New York Times made it official. The Economy is a problem!

So, now, at last we can discuss it.

Not just discuss it, in rapid order "recession" became the word of the day, from White House, Congress, the Fed and the media.

It's blamed, mostly, on the subprime crisis.

But that's not the problem. It's a symptom. It is the logical, and probably one of the necessary results, of Bushenomics.

Along with low, or no, job growth. Little or no business growth. Depressed wages. And the crashing dollar. (The president has a different vision of the economy. In his vision it's booming! And the number of jobs is growing! Though there is this little blip.)

The idea under which Bushenomics was sold is this:

  • The rich are the investor class.
  • If the rich have more money, they will invest more.
  • Their investments will create more business.
  • Those businesses will create more wealth, thus improving everyone's lives and making the nation stronger. They will also create new and better jobs.

Whether or not the people who say such things truly believe them, I cannot say. But that's their pitch, and the media certainly seems to buy it, as do most of the establishment economists.

A more realistic -- and less idealistic -- view of Bushenomics is that the Bush administration and its cronies came at the economy with the attitude of oilmen.

  • They inherited a vastly wealth country.
  • They looked at it like the oil under the Alaskan wilderness. They craved to pump it out, turn it into cash and grab as much of that cash as possible.

Wherever possible, they literally sold off the assets. This was called privatization. Our biggest asset -- in terms of size -- is, of course, our defense establishment. With privatization, one dollar out of every three for direct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan goes to private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. So when someone says, "Support the troops!" with budget appropriations, they should really yell, "Two-thirds support to the troops! One third support to Halliburton, et al.!"

This is just an estimate. The degree of privatization is unknown. Presumably, that's deliberate. Nor does it count the amount of money the military spends with private purveyors to supply the troops and their operations. It is only the amount that goes directly to private contractors.

But for the most part, the assets of the United States, our collective wealth, could not be sold off in such a direct manner.

In order to turn them into cash, what the administration did was borrow against them.

That is, they cut taxes while continuing to spend lavishly, creating debt.

The debt is owed by all of us, the collective people of the United States.

The tax cuts hugely favored rich people. They also favored unearned income (dividends, capital gains, inherited money) as opposed to the kind of money people have to work for. The very richest got richer.

The spending was -- to the degree possible -- directed to themselves, their friends and their supporters: Big Pharma, the medical industry, insurance, banking and financial, among others. And, of course, Big Oil, from whom they have spent close to a trillion dollars of our money to conquer a big oil field for private exploitation.

Now let's take a look at some numbers.

The numbers will tell us if their idealistic tale about unleashing the capitalists to create a better world for us all is correct. Or if it's a fairy story that masks uncaring greed.

The big number is that the economy has grown.

As measured by the GDP it has. From 2001 to 2007 it went by 35 percent.

GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product. It could more accurately be called Gross Domestic Transactions, because it is the sum of all the financial transactions in the country.

Now let us look at job creation.

In the first six years of the Clinton administration, 13.7 million jobs were created. In the same period, under Bush, only 3.7 million jobs were created. Barely keeping up with population growth, if that. (Source: Fox News)

Now let us look at median income. That's as opposed to average income (If Bill Gates walks into a bar with 10 people, the average income of everyone in the room goes up by $17,5000,000. But the median income just moves up half a notch, from between the fifth and sixth person, to the sixth person's income). From 2001 to 2005, median income, for people under 65, went down $2,000.

That's worth restating. From 2001 to 2005, the income of the average working person declined by $2,000.

Now, let's look at the value of America's businesses.

A good rough measure of the market value of America's best businesses is the stock market. Under Clinton, the Dow Jones went up 324 percent. Wall-to-wall, after the dot.com bubble burst, it more than tripled in value.

Bush arrived in 2001. Since then the Dow Jones is up just 10 percent. Adjusted for inflation, that's absolutely flat. (It was briefly up 23 percent. It is now below the 10 percent mark, and tumbling down as this is written). Just pain, no gain.

If jobs have not increased, salaries have gone down, and the value of business has not risen, where is that 35 percent growth in the economy?

There is a number called the M3 money supply.

The M1 is basically cash, plus checking and "current" accounts. The M2 adds savings accounts, money market accounts and CDs up to $100,000. The M3 adds in the big CDs, Eurodollar accounts and other large exotics.

Already rising very fast, the M3 took off like a rocket after 2001. The Fed stopped publishing the M3 in 2006 (conspiracy theorists, please note.) But a quick look at the chart of its growth, and assuming its trajectory continued, clearly shows that the M3 grew by something in the range of 35 percent.

The entire growth of the economy under Bushenomics is accounted for by growth in the money supply.

The administration did not directly inflate the economy by 35 percent.

They pumped it by the size of the deficit. The rest happened this way.

When a government is "printing money" (running big deficits), the big fear is inflation.

Particularly in the financial community. Bankers make their money on interest, and inflation eats their profits, point for point.

The administration, very proudly, grew the economy (or at least the amount of money in circulation), without inflation. Which actually is a pretty good trick.

In part, they were able to do so precisely because the policy was a failure.

If it had created business growth -- actual business, not just financial business -- that would have created jobs. Then there would have been inflationary pressure. Especially if they were good, high paying jobs. If salaries for ordinary people go up, even a little, the total is a big sum because there are so many of us.

But due to free trade, outsourcing, bad economic policy, policies aimed at keeping wages down, and relentless union busting, good jobs were lost, to be replaced with low-wage jobs, when they were replaced at all. The proof is in that median income figure (down $2,000 per worker).

Due to free trade and outsourcing, consumer goods mostly went down too. The exception being in favored industries like pharmaceuticals, insurance and oil.

Finally, and this the key to the next step in the process, the Fed kept interest rates down.

Low interest rates mean that it's cheap to borrow.

The administration largely believes in supply-side economics (otherwise known as "trickle down," or "piss on the people."); if you increase the supply of something, consumers will appear to buy it.

The actual results are a perverse triumph of the idea.

The supply of money was increased. The price of money was kept artificially low.

Think of borrowing as buying money. It is.

People (and businesses and corporations) did rush forward to buy it. Once they had it, what was there to do with it? There was no new trend, no dot.coms, no high techs, no bio techs, no nothing.

So they went out and sold money. That is, they made loans.

There are two big retail loan areas, credit cards and housing loans. Both were pushed very aggressively. With cheap, cheap money available to finance home buying, that market heated up. At the same time, commercial interests started aggressively buying up loans, packaging them together, and reselling them as financial instruments. That created more desire to make more loans (sell money). Financial institutions bought more money (borrowed), in order to sell it at a profit (make loans). Since the loans were quickly resold -- and profit taken off the top -- the quality of the loans didn't matter to the people who made them. The housing market -- or rather the loans that fueled it -- grew into a bubble.

The subprime crisis, the housing bubble, whatever you want to call it, is not the problem.

It's a symptom of pumping in money with no place to go.

Other symptoms are no job growth, no business growth, no stock market growth, falling median incomes, disappearing pensions and health plans, and the fall of the dollar.

When Bush came into office, a Euro cost 95 cents. Now it costs a $1.50. The Canadian dollar (the Loony) was 70 cents. Now it costs a dollar. Most mainstream economists and pundits will opine that a low dollar is good for American industry, because it will help us sell our goods. That's only true if we're producing things that no one else is -- or producing them better or cheaper -- and we're not.

Also, many foreign exchange rates are being kept artificially low against the dollar. Some, like many of the oil countries, are pegged to the dollar. They're making up for it by raising the price of oil (currently traded in dollars). Others, like the Asian manufacturing countries, are keeping their currency down to retain their edge in selling here, thereby canceling whatever advantage we're supposed to get from declining currency.

One way to think of what the administration has done, is as a leveraged buyout. That's when someone buys a company, using the company itself as the collateral for the loan used to purchase it, usually at very high interest, then pays off the interest by cutting the work force and salaries, selling outsets and even breaking up the company.

It's good for the guy who makes the deal, skims the cream off the top and gets rich. (The company that Mitt Romney got rich working for specialized in doing that.) It's good for the lenders, who get a good return (if the buyer is able to squeeze enough money out of his purchase), but it's bad for the work force, bad for the company, and, if no one comes along to replace it, bad for the business as a whole.

We've experienced a leveraged buyout of the national economy.

Our politicians, the media and economists are just now waking up to the fact that the economy is in trouble.

The current numbers make it clear that we are probably in, or probably headed for, a recession.

Also, the polls show that people are concerned about the economy, and it's an election year. The people are out ahead of our governing and media and professional economic classes on this, because they live in the real economy, the one that's been leveraged, and the professionals are either in, or work for, the investor class that has been doing well.

So there is, at last, talk about doing something about the economy.

The Feds will cut interest rates!

George Bush wants a stimulus package. Tax cuts, tax cuts and make my tax cuts permanent! After all, that policy has worked so well. He said the cuts must be at least 1 percent of the GDP. That will be $145 billion.

Harry Reid and Nancy Policy (the King and Queen of Effective Politics) will offer a competing one (tax cuts, tax cuts!). Although they promised pay-as-you-go economic policies from a Democratic legislature.

Pundits in the media talk about a crisis in consumer confidence. And how the fix is to restore it. So we will go out and buy. Presumably on credit.

How about consumers think there's a problem because there is one. Not because they're weird emotionally. They reasonably see themselves so overextended, with so little hope of being better earners, that they won't be able to pay things off. Not even with a one-time government check of somewhere between $300 and $1,200.

In short, most of those solutions will go to making things worse.

The real solutions are pretty obvious and pretty simple.

First, we have to make a choice: Do we want a sound economy for all of us and a strong America? Or do we want to have a few people of unlimited wealth who use that wealth, among other things, to control the government so that it helps them milk more money from the rest of us?

By the way, this is not a call for socialism! Or other ism! Except a call for sensible and effective capitalism. Based on what we've seen work and seen fail.

In the real world, there are no such things as free markets.

In the real world, business people manipulate and conspire to control markets, and governments both control and collude with business, while tax policies and government spending have a major affect on the economy.

Let us accept that, and then the argument is only over how best to do it.

Simply giving money to rich people doesn't work.

Bob Novak, the conservative commentator who calls the investor class "the most creative class," is flat out wrong. As we've seen, outside of their ability to buy influence in politics, the media and the law, the rich are like the rest of us, relatively passive and unimaginative, prone to putting their money in the easiest place that promises a return, in whatever bubble is in fashion at the moment and wherever some salesman who gets their attention tells them.

Money has no mind of its own. It has to be directed toward areas that will generate and support business and good jobs at good wages. As it happens, our economic goals are on the same road as the social good.

The No. 1 target has to be alternative energy.

Energy that can be produced here, in the United States, renewable, nonpolluting, and not, like corn-based ethanol, requiring as much petroleum to produce it as it replaces. One-third of our balance of trade deficit is oil, year in and year out. If the United States can become the world leader in alternative energy and conservation technology, we will, at last, have something to export.

The No. 2 target is infrastructure.

By it's nature, infrastructure has to be largely produced here with local labor and it stays here.

Hard infrastructure, like roads and bridges, cleaning up New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, protecting our coasts from future storms, internet and phone service as good as Europe's, Japan's and Singapore's.

Soft infrastructure, like education, youth services, parks and recreation programs, public safety, and a saner criminal justice system. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the incarcerated population. That's expensive. And wasteful. Unsafe streets and high crime are expensive and wasteful.

Infrastructure makes doing business easier, quicker and cheaper. It becomes an invisible subsidy for all businesses. Try to imagine, for example, Fed Ex, that entrepreneurial triumph, without a national web of airports, flight controllers and roads.

The No. 3 target is health care.

Health care in the United States costs at least 50 percent more than the next-highest spending country and double what it does in most other modernized countries. All of them have better health than we do. They live longer and in better condition.

The difference is that they have national health plans. Mostly single-payer, usually tax-supported. Our plans are based on a hodge-podge of a thousand private insurers.

A single-payer national health plan should cut the costs of our health care by at least 25 percent, possibly 50 percent. That's an astonishing number. That money could go to more productive things. Or to even more health care.

American businesses who supply health care to their employees claim they are noncompetitive with companies from countries that have national health. This will make them more competitive. This will make American labor more competitive.

The No. 4 four target is a balanced budget.

There are, in fact, times for deficit spending. Just as there are times in our personal lives to borrow and times for business to borrow.

This is probably not one of them.

There is an ocean of money sloshing all around the world, looking for a home. If there are real business opportunities in America (like taking the lead in alternative energy, bio tech, and whatever is next around the corner), it will come.

Especially if there is a sound business environment and dollar investments return to being the most reliable in the world. That means paying down our debt.

How can all this be done?

Raising taxes.

On the wealthy. And on corporations. That's not class warfare. That's simple practicality.

After your first $20,000, how much of the next 20 do you need, to live, thrive and survive? Damn near all of it. After your first 20 million, now much of the next 20 million do you need? Not a nickel.

The rich will whine, writhe and scream that they won't do business, they'll be driven out of business, that business will collapse. Bullshit. If they dislike keeping 20 or 30 or 40 cents of each dollar of profit so much that they won't take the dollar, someone will come along who gladly will. That's how markets work.

All of this is pretty straightforward and common sense.

The illogic of Bushenomics is obvious. The results were foreseeable. After all, similar effects took place under Reagan and Bush the Elder, until they reversed courses.

The alternatives are equally obvious. The facts bear out the theory. Go back to Hoover and Roosevelt, then look at the down, up, down, of Bush the Elder, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Lesser. (We do note that there are minor industries dedicated to proving that Franklin Roosevelt was, in the words of CNN's Glenn Beck, "an evil son of a bitch," that the New Deal really, really, really didn't work, and that Bush the Elder was really, really, really responsible for the boom of the Clinton years and that Clinton was responsible for the first recession during the reign of Bush the Lesser. But they are like people who see the image of the Virgin Mary in bread sticks and crullers.)

None of our politicians, pundits or economists are addressing the fundamentals.

The last time we switched from the nonsense of worshiping unmitigated greed, disguised as free marketeering, it took a market crash and the Great Depression to move us out of our public relations-manufactured delusions and make us understand that when we all do well the rich get richer too, so let's start with the common good.

Based on the dialogue as it stands now, we will go with tinkering and twaddle, doing more of what doesn't work. And only if the whole things collapses will we address the real problems.

read more | digg story