https://twitter.com/That_Hawaii_Guy
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Silver: Silver Zephyr
Brian Bloom
Open Interest as reflected on the COMEX weekly chart on August 8th is now 550 million ounces (see below), with Commercials having a net open short position of 352 million ounces as at August 5th. (source: www.findbrokers.com/hightower/futcot.pdf)
[Click link below for charts...]
On July 21st the comparable net short position was 241 million ounces - ie, in the last three weeks the Commercials have increased their short exposure by 111 million ounces, or by 46%!
Over the same period, the open interest position on TOCOM has increased by 12.7 million ounces (63%), with most of this increase occurring in the June 2004 contract.
On August 8th (in a single day) 1.9 million ounces of silver changed hands on the Huatong (Shanghai) physical market and, since that market started trading, daily volume has been ranging from a low of around 600,000 oz to a high of around 2 million oz, with an average of around 1 million ounces per day.
Consider the following:
There are roughly 250 trading days per year (Monday to Friday) on the Shanghai market. At current levels, this implies that an annualised turnover of roughly 250 million ounces of physical silver will change hands over the coming year. In turn, this is more than the TOTAL stock of silver sold by China onto the World markets last year. (China consumed only 1,800 tons but produced 4,400 tons (155 million ounces) AND reduced its Government stockpiles by 1,600 tons (56 million ounces) Source: Ted Butler reporting on a Dow Jones newswire report)
It is conceivable that this trading on the Shanghai market might represent the same core stock of physical silver being sold and resold, but such activity would amount to purchase for the purpose of resale as opposed to purchase for the purpose of usage. What are the odds of this on a market intended for trading in PHYSICAL stock?
On Friday August 8th, the top grade of silver changed hands at 1442 Renminbi per Kg (35.2 ounces); and the exchange rate on Friday of the US$:Yuan was 1:8.28 - which implies a per ounce price of silver of US$4.95 . In turn, this compares with the $4.98 /oz reported on Kitco. ie There was virtually no arbitrage opportunity.
Logically, if there is no arbitrage opportunity, and there also exist "futures" markets in both Japan and the USA, there is no leveraged financial benefit to flow from trading in and out of physical silver where one does not (typically) trade on margin. It is more logical to conclude that the physical trades have been for pure industrial/investment purposes, and this implies that - at the current volume levels - approximately 250 million ounces of silver (30% of annual World physical demand) will be satisfied on the Shanghai market (and is therefore NOT available to COMEX or TOCOM for delivery against futures contracts). If this proves to be factual it will be HIGHLY significant from the perspective of the risks inherent in the open short positions on these latter markets.
From another perspective, given that the Commercials on Comex increased their open short position by 111 million ounces, and all they managed to achieve was a reduction in the silver price from its peak of approximately $5.20 to a closing of $4.98 on Friday, then the demand/supply position on Comex must be becoming unbearably tight - as further evidenced by the reduction in eligible stocks at Comex to 37.2 million ounces.
The "Technical" perspective
The daily chart of silver shows a "gap" at around $4.80 (see below)
It is probably instructive to explain the implications of a gap on a bar chart.
A "bar" chart typically records the high/low/closing price of the day. If today's opening price is higher than yesterday's high price, a gap manifests on the upside. Alternatively, if today's opening price is lower than yesterday's low price, then a gap manifests on the downside.
In simplistic terms, a gap on the charts is a sign of irrational or emotional behaviour; where the participants in the market take temporary leave of their senses. Theory has it that - when sanity once again prevails - the price will retrace its steps to "cover the gap" before continuing along the previously established Intermediate/Primary Trend.
Empirical observation yields the conclusion that well over 90% of all gaps are eventually covered when sanity prevails. For example, note the "downside" gaps that manifested in March, and the upside gap which manifested in April - all of which were subsequently covered.
But there is one type of gap that is (more often than not) not covered, and that type is referred to as a "breakaway" gap. This type of gap usually occurs at a point where the Intermediate Trend or the Primary Trend changes direction.
If you refer to the chart on one of my earlier articles ( www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/bloom072103.html ) you will note that the breakup from the $4.80 level represented a break-up from a three line "fan" formation - which reinforced the fact that the Intermediate Trend of silver was - and would probably continue to be - "up". It was essentially because a fan formation has such a high level of significance, that the silver price gapped up through the third fan line - technicians were more than likely encouraged to place "at best" buy orders.
We are therefore faced with the question of whether or not the gap at $4.80 was a breakaway gap. If not, then the price will likely sag back to $4.80 before continuing upwards (It is likely to continue upwards soon thereafter given that the 3 line fan formation breakout represents a reinforcement of the Intermediate Up Trend).
If the gap is NOT covered, (and it turns out to have been a breakaway gap), then we could see yet another gap - a "runaway gap" occurring at the $5.50 level (the resistance level offered by the last long term downtrend resistance line) and, if this happens then a very important measuring yardstick will manifest:
As a rule of thumb, the near term price destination following a runaway gap is measurable. The minimum move will be the same distance FROM the breakout of the "runaway gap" as the midpoint distance between the breakaway gap and the runaway gap. Thus, as an example, if the price gaps up from $5.50 to (say) $5.70, then the midpoint will be $5.60, and as the midpoint of the breakaway gap was (so far) $4.90 - this implies a 70 cent move from $5.60 - or a near term destination of $6.30 per ounce.
I must emphasise that there is NO WAY to tell at present whether the gap at $4.80 will or will not be covered. However, from my perspective it will make no significant difference. In my view, both the fundamental position (huge open short position plus shortfall of physical supply relative to demand) and the technical position (breakup from the third fan line) are now in bullish synchronicity, and a pullback to $4.80 will represent probably the last bargain basement buying opportunity before the silver price finally confirms its entry into a Primary Bull Trend.
In summary, if the gap is not covered, we will very likely see the type of fireworks one would expect to see when panic short covering occurs. Under these circumstances, we could very well see a SERIES of runaway gaps manifesting as the silver price rockets upwards.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The remarkable explosion of the open short position over the past three weeks - which has (so far) been accompanied by only a relatively minor pullback in the silver price - seems to indicate the potential for a possible "hurricane" in the silver market.
The situation will unfold dependant on whether the $4.80 gap is finally covered.
If the gap is covered, we are likely to see an eventual resumption of the Intermediate Bull Trend, with the Primary Bull Trend finally confirmed when the price eventually breaks above $5.50 (very probable given the third fan line breakout). Under these benign circumstances, the "incline" of the uptrend line will likely remain at its current sedate angle.
However, if the gap is validated as a breakaway gap by the emergence of a runaway gap at or around the $5.50 level, then the angle of incline is likely to sharpen steeply as silver shakes off its soporific torpor and enters a period characterised by panic (and massive) short covering.
The beauty of technical analysis is that it acts like a sort of hearing aid to those who know what to listen for, and the market is starting to whisper its signals more audibly. In truth, we cannot second guess the market's direction in advance. It will go where it wants to and when it wants to. Like a gentle zephyr, the whispering wind may vanish, or it may evolve to become a hurricane. But we can say - with absolute certainty - that the whispering has been growing louder.
Brian Bloom
Australia, August 10th 2003
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/bloom081103.html
OIl:
107 pages read it...well skim it--it's all there.
"Let's go get Iraq."
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energycfr.pdf
Written prior to 9/11 BTW.
Maybe what you mean is we've gone from the top of a bull market to the beginning of a bear market in bonds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?ex=1061539128&ei=1&en=83eef2cd7f...
Putting Hip-Hop on the Highway
August 10, 2003
By PHIL PATTON
MIDTOWN media mavens seeking examples of synergy, that
elusive quality of corporate cross-pollination, might
travel to the anonymous Bronx garage that houses the
automotive operations of Funkmaster Flex. There, not far
from where he grew up, the D.J. known for his Hot 97 radio
show keeps his car collection and reigns over an expanding
kingdom of automotive businesses.
The cavernous garage houses some of Flex's many cars: his
red 1966 Impala SS 396, for instance, and a '70 Plymouth
Duster in Plum Crazy paint - a deep purple - as well as
some of the cars he customizes for celebrities.
When the garage door lifted one day recently, Flex, who was
born Aston Taylor Jr. 35 years ago, appeared in a white
T-shirt that showed to glittering advantage the huge gold
FMF logo - his corporate symbol - on a chain around his
neck.
The FMF empire includes his shows - and his shoes. Last
year, the second Funkmaster Flex Celebrity Car Show drew
25,000 people to Englishtown, N.J. This year, the event is
a multicity road show that starts next Saturday in
Englishtown. The same day - by coincidence, Flex insists -
his television show makes its premiere on the new Spike
network. In "Ride With Funkmaster Flex" he interviews
celebrities about their cars and plays with monster trucks
and low-riders.
In street parlance, "shoes" is another word for wheels.
Flex has done both. He has designed a new wheel that bears
his name (sold by Giovanna) and the FMF-1 "urban driving
shoes" (for Lugz). He also sells a special-edition Lincoln
Navigator through Dana Lincoln Mercury on Staten Island and
writes a car column for The Source magazine.
But his favorite business is customizing cars for stars,
including the hip-hop artists 50 Cent, Ludacris and Queen
Latifah; the boxer Roy Jones Jr; and the Redskins wide
receiver Laveranues Coles. "Anyone can buy a Lamborghini or
Bentley out of the store," he said. He might have added
that most celebrities have custom S.U.V.'s.
Flex makes sure all the businesses connect. When he meets
the rapper Lil' Kim in the first episode of his TV show,
she comments on his shoes. The $70 FMF-1 is the S.U.V. of
driving shoes, and it comes in wheat, black or white - his
favorite - with a chrome-wheel key ring bearing the FMF
logo.
Flex's car fascination "started when I was in the back
seat," he said. "My dad had taken his Oldsmobile in for a
tuneup. I didn't know what a tuneup was, but I remember the
way he said, 'Man, doesn't that sound better?'
"I collected AFM slot cars - had about 200. My first car
was a Delta 88. I still think of listening to Public Enemy
with that car."
The first Flex television show begins in the back seat of
Eminem's GMC Yukon Denali - the Shadymobile. As both smoke
cigars, Eminem confesses that while he has a 24-inch HDTV,
he doesn't know how to use it. Synergy is not forgotten:
Flex intercuts bits of Eminem's film "8 Mile'' - a subtle
reminder to viewers that they can buy the DVD.
Even while traveling to do segments for the TV show, Flex
has time to run a marketing company that advises businesses
on how to tap the urban market. He swaps e-mail with Robert
A. Lutz, the General Motors vice chairman and product czar
- "G.M. has got it going, with bringing back the GTO and
the SS label," he says.
Flex most loves Detroit muscle cars of the 60's and 70's.
He enjoys working on the cars of star clients and makes
customization sound like psychoanalysis: "With Queen
Latifah's '71 Cutlass, I asked her, 'Why do you like that
car?' The big wheels and the power - that was what she saw.
And that was her."
Flex added, "I enjoy working either with someone who knows
a lot about cars, or who knows nothing." Ludacris, who has
just bought a car for Flex to customize, is in the latter
category. "Ludacris," he said, leaning forward
confidentially, "is raw clay in my hands."
In the fall, Flex returns to the beginning of his auto
obsession - scale models - when Hot Wheels releases its
Funkmaster Flex line. Kids will be inspired by it, he said.
In the neighborhood, they already are. When one of Flex's
classics rolls onto the street, word travels fast. A small
crowd gathers, as if for an ice cream truck. And a child's
voice is heard from a block away, excitedly raising the
alarm: "Funk! Master! Flex!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/automobiles/10FLEX.html?ex=1061539229&ei=1&en=629bba8a46fa...
Wall Street's Legal Woes Aren't Over Just Yet
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
HEERS erupted across Wall Street on June 30 when Federal District Judge Milton Pollack in Manhattan dismissed several cases against Merrill Lynch that involved accusations that its research was tainted.
In his opinion, Judge Pollack blasted the plaintiffs as high-rollers who "now hope to twist the federal securities laws into a scheme of cost-free speculators' insurance." And he called improper the plaintiffs' submissions of e-mail messages uncovered by Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney general, who led the investigation into Merrill Lynch, and their reliance on Mr. Spitzer's conclusions in his case. "The views of politicians and their conclusions may not properly be put on trial in this case," the judge averred.
The decision was a big victory for Wall Street in its efforts to deny responsibility for investors' loss of even some of the trillions of dollars in the technology crash of 2000. And lawyers representing investors in arbitrations say that securities firms have wasted no time entering Judge Pollack's decision into evidence.
But the opinion is no get-out-of-jail-free card for brokers. The bar that plaintiffs must clear is much lower in arbitration forums than in federal court. To win damages, plaintiffs in arbitration do not have to prove an intent to defraud. They can win on an argument that a firm's behavior was not based on equitable principles of trade.
As an arbitration case decided on July 28 in Baltimore illustrates, arbitrators are by no means falling into line behind Judge Pollack.
The case was brought by Dennis and Kathleen Quinn, a Baltimore couple who entrusted their retirement savings to a Merrill Lynch broker in 1999. Mr. Quinn, 60, was a technician at AT&T for more than 30 years but took early retirement.
Stuart D. Meissner, a New York lawyer, represented the Quinns. He said that one reason Mr. Quinn took the retirement package was that a Merrill broker assured him that he could invest the family's money profitably enough to cover their annual expenses.
The Quinns had never invested in individual stocks before and asked that their $581,000 retirement account be managed conservatively, according to the complaint. The broker assured the Quinns that he would, it said, but soon bought them Internet stocks and special portfolios underwritten by Merrill that invested in Internet and telecommunications concerns. The stocks bought for the Quinns included the former highfliers Aether Systems, AOL, Cisco Systems, Tyco, Corning and Tellabs. By April 2000, 93 percent of their account was in stocks.
When they closed their account in June 2001, the Quinns had lost $195,563, Mr. Meissner said. They sued Merrill, contending that it had failed to supervise its broker and that his choices were unsuitable. Mr. Quinn had to return to work.
MERRILL LYNCH argued that the Quinns had accepted the risks associated with the broker's recommendations. But the arbitration panel disagreed, awarding the Quinns $143,000 plus interest.
Mark Herr, a Merrill spokesman, said: "We are disappointed by the panel's decision and respectfully disagree with it. This is a claim resulting from a client's dismay with losing money in the technology and telecom sectors. The legal theories were not unusual. It was pled, tried and decided as a sales practice case, not as a research case."
True. But evidence in the case included e-mail messages written by Henry Blodget, the Merrill Lynch Internet analyst, that seemed to show that his private point of view was more negative than his public assessment.
Mr. Meissner said he thinks that the e-mail helped his case. "This combination of a significant lapse of supervision with the whole research issue was very, very powerful," he said. Even ordinary suitability cases can be helped by the e-mails Mr. Spitzer released, he added.
The case is also interesting because, in the middle of it, Mr. Meissner dismissed the broker as a defendant, arguing that the liability was Merrill's. The arbitration panel agreed, stating that it would not have found the broker liable in the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/business/yourmoney/10WATC.html?ex=1061538806&ei=1&en=88f08...
We continue to like gold and silver stocks longer-term. NEM, PAAS, FCX D, BGO, and many other gold and silver stocks are making new highs. Particularly on a Dec Silver close above 5.25, we would add to silver stocks as they break out as well (HL, PAAS, SSRI).
http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/030808/10526_2.html
Indian prostitutes learn safe sex from ancient Kama Sutra
Sun Aug 10, 4:21 AM ET
[You can't make this stuff up...]
CALCUTTA, India - Prostitutes in Calcutta are turning to the Kama Sutra, an ancient Indian treatise on sex, to deal with customers who refuse to use condoms.
A voluntary organization holding a safe sex workshop for prostitutes is using the book to teach them how to use methods other than intercourse with their clients in a bid to curb AIDS (news - web sites) and other sexually transmitted diseases.
The Kama Sutra "is a rich reservoir of techniques for a satisfying sexual experience without intercourse," Rajyashree Choudhuri, of the Institute for International Social Development, said Sunday.
"Many customers think using a condom is unbecoming of their manliness," said Choudhuri, who is running the workshop with a team of doctors and Indian classical dancers.
The West Bengal state government's AIDS control department is supporting the six-month workshop.
West Bengal state has nearly 40,000 brothel-based sex workers, about half of them in the capital, Calcutta.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=553&ncid=751&e=7&u=/ap/20030810/ap_w...
Gee wonder if we could out source that? I guess they are out-sourcing if you think about it...
Recovery less jobs beyond predictions
Knight Ridder News
[Oh look: Same story but this time it's in Montana...one story makes the rounds, such is the nature of the news, Hurst understood this so did Dupont and now so does Cheney...er, I mean shrub...]
WASHINGTON - Many economists predicted a jobless recovery, but few expected it to last so long.
Twenty-one months after the official end of the recession in November 2001, the number of jobs in the United States continues to decline. Economists call it a "growth recession," in which the economy grows so slowly that it doesn't add jobs.
The underlying problem is that growth has remained subpar for an unusually long time. But economists also are focusing on two fundamental economic changes: the increasing use of technology to produce more goods and services with fewer workers and the movement of a greater variety of jobs overseas. These shifts suggest that economic expansions won't generate as many jobs as they have in the past and jobless recoveries may become the norm.
"The present recovery has upset the implicit assumption that jobs accompany growth," John Silvia, the chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., wrote in a recent analysis. "This break in the link of growth and jobs is quite distinct from the past."
2.7 million lost jobs
In fact, the number of jobs has continued to erode through the recovery. This has brought lost jobs to 2.7 million since early 2001, more than the 1.6 million in the last recession, in 1990-91, and approaching the 2.8 million lost in the 1981-82 recession.
Growth continues to be sluggish for a number of reasons.
Companies borrowed heavily and overexpanded during the late 1990s boom, and they have to work off those excesses before they start hiring again. In addition, a series of negative shocks have buffeted the economy, starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then the Enron and subsequent accounting scandals and finally the uncertainty created by the Iraq war.
Even though orders and sales have been picking up, many business executives still aren't confident enough about the economic outlook to hire new workers.
"Like most people out there, we don't know if it's going to hold," said Karla Aaron, the owner of Hialeah Metal Spinning Inc., a South Florida manufacturer of bowl-shaped metal parts for everything from missile tips to movie-theater popcorn makers. "So when we need extra time, we go into overtime. We don't hire. The last thing I want to do is bring someone in for three months and lay them off."
Cutting costs
So the jobless recovery continues. To cope, many U.S. companies are cutting costs by sending jobs overseas and investing in technologies that enable them to produce more with fewer workers.
Higher productivity is generally a positive development, economists say. Productivity soared 5.7 percent in the April to June quarter, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
The productivity growth should push down prices for consumers and push up wages for workers. And it can push up corporate profits, which enables companies to hire more workers if needed. But higher productivity also allows firms to meet growing demand without adding to their work forces, at least for a while, prolonging the jobless recovery.
Companies have been moving manufacturing jobs overseas for many years. But more recently they have found they also can cut costs by shifting white-collar jobs offshore, from software development to accounting.
Firms that don't follow these trends can't compete.
"If you're not doing it, you might be around in five years, but in 20 years you won't," Aaron said.
"In the old days, we would say, 'Double my sales, double my head count,' " she said in a telephone interview. "That doesn't happen anymore. We have to remain lean and get better and better if we want to stop the flow of jobs overseas."
The upshot is that some of the jobs that would have been created in the United States may now be created in India or the Philippines. Together with the productivity gains, that means the economy will have to grow more rapidly than it has in the past to create the same number of American jobs.
Copyright © 2003 Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/08/10/build/business/45-joble...
Vote for Father Guido Sarducci for Cali gov!
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20030809-2224-ca-davisrecall.html
Jobless recovery lasting longer than economists expected
By KEN MORITSUGU
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Many economists predicted a jobless recovery, but few expected it to last so long.
{remember when we said it would be over by last summer? Opps. Remember when we were sure it would be over by Xmas? Sorry. Remember when we mover it up to spring? Not happening. Then when we said late summer? Uh...nope. So instead of moving it up again we're going to start some psyops that trickle through the media and the nation about "jobless recoveries" and how much productivity is gaining and the inevitability of "the race to the bottom"...you may remember that article from the other JFSAG board.]
Twenty-one months after the official end of the recession in November 2001, the number of jobs in the United States continues to decline. Economists call it a "growth recession," in which the economy grows so slowly that it doesn't add jobs.
The underlying problem is that growth has remained subpar for an unusually long time. [Clue.] But economists also are focusing on two fundamental economic changes: the increasing use of technology to produce more goods and services with fewer workers and the movement of a greater variety of jobs overseas. These shifts suggest that economic expansions won't generate as many jobs as they have in the past and jobless recoveries may become the norm.
[No such thing as a jobless recovery. This is spin. Spin I said.]
"The present recovery has upset the implicit assumption that jobs accompany growth," John Silvia, the chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., wrote in a recent analysis. "This break in the link of growth and jobs is quite distinct from the past."
In fact, the number of jobs has continued to erode through the recovery. This has brought lost jobs to 2.7 million since early 2001, more than the 1.6 million in the last recession, in 1990-91, and approaching the 2.8 million lost in the 1981-82 recession.
Growth continues to be sluggish for a number of reasons.
Companies borrowed heavily and overexpanded during the late 1990s boom, and they have to work off those excesses before they start hiring again. In addition, a series of negative shocks have buffeted the economy, starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then the Enron and subsequent accounting scandals and finally the uncertainty created by the Iraq war.
Even though orders and sales have been picking up, many business executives still aren't confident enough about the economic outlook to hire new workers.
"Like most people out there, we don't know if it's going to hold," said Karla Aaron, the owner of Hialeah Metal Spinning Inc., a South Florida manufacturer of bowl-shaped metal parts for everything from missile tips to movie-theater popcorn makers. "So when we need extra time, we go into overtime. We don't hire. The last thing I want to do is bring someone in for three months and lay them off."
So the jobless recovery continues. To cope, many U.S. companies are cutting costs by sending jobs overseas and investing in technologies that enable them to produce more with fewer workers.
[Notice how sending jobs over seas is a sentence that can not seem to stand alone. It's always coupled with something about tech that increases productivity...]
Higher productivity is generally a positive development, economists say. Productivity soared 5.7 percent in the April to June quarter, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
The productivity growth should push down prices for consumers and push up wages for workers. And it can push up corporate profits, which enables companies to hire more workers if needed. But higher productivity also allows firms to meet growing demand without adding to their work forces, at least for a while, prolonging the jobless recovery.
[Ask any factory worker if this has EVER led to higher wages...]
Companies have been moving manufacturing jobs overseas for many years. But more recently they have found they also can cut costs by shifting white-collar jobs offshore, from software development to accounting.
Firms that don't follow these trends can't compete.
"If you're not doing it, you might be around in five years, but in 20 years you won't," Aaron said.
Her company is feeling the impact on both ends.
It lost a contract to make the housing for centrifuges in physicians' offices when production of the centrifuges moved overseas.
To boost productivity, Hialeah Metal Spinning invested $500,000 in an automated spinning machine that slashed the time for making a part from three minutes to one. The factory can crank out double the volume of four years ago with the same number of workers.
With average wages of $14 an hour, higher productivity is necessary to compete with cheaper labor overseas, Aaron said.
"In the old days, we would say, `Double my sales, double my head count,' " she said in a telephone interview. "That doesn't happen anymore. We have to remain lean and get better and better if we want to stop the flow of jobs overseas."
Cynthia Chin-Lee is a victim of that flow. Chin-Lee, who writes manuals for computers and software, said she was laid off a year ago when the Dallas-based software developer i2 Technologies shifted her work from its Mountain View, Calif., office to Bangalore, the Indian Silicon Valley.
"It's sobering," said Chin-Lee, 44, who's the sole breadwinner for her husband and two children. She has since found work with another software firm in Silicon Valley.
"The profession of technical writing will generally disappear in Silicon Valley and the USA," predicted Andreas Ramos, the co-chair of the technical writers division of the National Writers Union, an AFL-CIO affiliate that represents freelance writers.
[Hard enough to read those fucking things as it is without having to figure out what a non-native english speaker is trying to say...course you can argue the Indians speak better english than some post graduates...]
"This is inevitable, and these jobs will not return to the USA," he wrote in a summary of a recent roundtable discussion on the topic in Santa Clara, Calif.
The upshot is that some of the jobs that would have been created in the United States may now be created in India or the Philippines. Together with the productivity gains, that means the economy will have to grow more rapidly than it has in the past to create the same number of American jobs.
A case in point is a highly automated brick factory that's opening in the northwest Georgia town of Fairmont.
"This plant with 35 people will produce more brick than our oldest plant, which has 100," said Fletcher Steele, the president of Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Pine Hall Brick.
Some 500 people have applied for the 35 jobs.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6497474.htm
THE GDP
Don Stott
The commonly used term "GDP," (Gross Domestic Product, formerly GNP, or Gross National Product), is perhaps one of the least understood terms. Not because it is any mystery, but because one of its prime ingredients is not included in most thoughts, be they amateur or professional. It's like a cake recipe, which leaves out the flour. The GDP INCLUDES FEDERAL AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING.
Right now, it is estimated that the Iraq thing is costing 15% of the federal budget. In other words, 15% of the federal GDP happens to be spent in Iraq, so the term "domestic" doesn't apply, but it is included.
All federal handouts, welfare, subsidies, and waste, are part of the GDP.
All executive expenses, such as security, White House expenses, Air Force One and Two, Congressional silly trips, and entertaining foreign dignitaries, are part of the GDP.
All military services, regardless of where they may be, and what they may cost, are part of the GDP.
Billions of pieces of bureaucrat turned out paper, endless streams of new computers, and office equipment, are part of the GDP.
Poorly maintained National Parks and National Monuments, plus the TVA, and other government operated (at huge losses) businesses and properties, are part of the GDP. Costs of fighting forest fires in National Forests and BLM lands, are part of the GDP.
Homeland Defense, or whatever the newest boondoggle may be, is part of the GDP. This, of course, doesn't count the rest of the bureaucracies, or off budget items, including the interest paid to the Federal Reserve for the "money" they print, and the government borrows. This is all part of the GDP.
OSHA, EPA, and the Federal Air Marshals, are part of the GDP. When the airport security people were being trained locally, they stayed in the most posh Telluride and Aspen hostelries, and ate royally. That was part of the GDP. When hundreds were laid off after being trained, and given severance, that was part of the GDP also.
The costs of the CIA, (can't identify anything), FBI and all their stooges and informants are part of the GDP. The expenses of the futile war on drugs, is part of the GDP.
The expenses of IRS and its failed $4 million computer system, are part of the GDP, even though a great percentage of their answers are wrong, when queried.
The FAA and NTSB's bills are part of the GDP. Ever wonder how there were ever accidents without the NTSB to fathom out their causes? Ever wonder how high air fares would be, if the airlines had to pay for their own airports and air safety?
The costs of the Dept. of Labor, which does no labor, and the Dept of Education, which teaches nothing, are part of the GDP.
All expenses of local, county, and state governments are part of the GDP. Does the GDP figure really mean anything?
Also included in the GDP, are gross receipts from businesses, and business expenses, plus all other financial transactions. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is the largest employer, and largest buyer of goods, and this, of course, is a large part of the GDP.
When the DC boys say the economy "increased by 1%," this can easily mean that the private sector went down by 4%, and government spending went up by 5%.
Canon Towels laid off 7,500, Ford is considering laying off 21,000, and officially, 45,000 jobs are lost in an average week. Kodak is sending out manufacturing to China and Mexico, and is laying off thousands. Technical and paper work is going to India by leaps and bounds. The IRS is having tax returns examined in India. Huge amounts of office work, is being sent to India. There is even a web site titled, "Your job is going to India." Japan has destroyed the American car manufacturers, and it is said that China has 700 factories which are owned by Wal Mart. When we have a $500 billion trade deficit, that does not come off of the GDP.
It looks as if the "New World Order" guys are having their way. Figure it this way: Jobs are going off shore, because off shore has cheap wages, and none of the extras American labor has to pay, such as FICA, union dues, and the like. Foreign employers don't have to meet EPA and OSHA standards, rules, and dictates. College graduates in India are delighted to work for $5 per hour, so they get jobs formerly held by Americans at $25 per hour, even though they may have only ended up with $10, after all deductions. Employers in America, hiring Indians in India, don't have to worry about safe work places, unemployment insurance, equal contributions to FICA, and bureaucratic gobbledygook. Many Americans working here, are forced to train Indian replacements, who will work for less. What an outrage! The world is being equalized, at the expense of America. Wages are being driven down here, raised up there. Living conditions and standards, are lowering here, and going up in India and China. We are being dragged down, because of the government's share of the GDP, government's rules, taxes, and regulations, which are enormous. It isn't just the low wages overseas, but the necessity of high wages here to pay the government GDP, regulations, taxes, and piffle.
Nothing is free, and when it is provided by a government, the cost is usually double, or a lot more. What means does a government have to pay its bills? Two, in the main. Taxes, and printing money. Both are deleterious to an individual and an economy. Individuals see their dollars go down in purchasing power, and taxes taken from their paycheck go up. The economy reels from debased currency, and foreign investors selling or refusing to buy debt. Both are at final stages currently…in my opinion. Debased currency, makes wages go up to break even, and as a result, jobs go overseas. When jobs go overseas, the unemployed depend on government handouts to survive, meaning the presses and checkbooks go into overtime, further debasing the currency, and exacerbating the situation.
$3.5 trillion in mortgages are being written each year, financed with printing press money, created out of nothing. This adds to the GDP, and adds to the decline in the dollar, and is causing Europe to sell mortgage paper, because it is risky, and has funny bookkeeping.
Does Alan Greenspan and the DC gang, know what is happening to the US economy? Do they know, but are evil, and determined to destroy America and make us a member of a one-world government, where everyone equal? Are they stupid? Or have they gotten themselves into a jam, and know of no way to extricate themselves, so they'll just hang on as long as they can? You decide. Look at our current situation here, and quiver. Europeans are dumping Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac stocks like there is no tomorrow. Unemployment here is far worse than is reported, because reporting is in gross error. Inflation likewise. Our dollar is falling out of bed, as are bonds, and the stock market will follow. Tens of thousands of paperwork, and technical jobs are going to India every month. Our trade deficit may be more than the $500 billion reported. Our capital, jobs, and former wealth are on the boats returning empty to the Orient, after dumping their manufactured goods on our Pacific harbors.
What solutions are there to save the US, and even the world economy? Lower interest rates? Nope. That has been tried over and over again, without success. Increase the flow of printing press money, which will cause people to buy more, save less, and go into more debt? This is an ongoing thing, and it isn't working. Not only isn't working, but it is painting the DC drones into an even tighter corner. The more "liquidity" there is, (printing press money and unbacked checks) the less it is all worth, and the more risky the entire thing will be, and appear to be, to everyone. This causes people in foreign lands to sell off their US securities, and now we see bonds, and the stock market together going down.
Honestly, I really am serious, and I am not trying to blow my own horn, but isn't something tangible, better than all this bogus paper? The world's paper junkies are printing all sorts of things, be it bonds, stocks, "money," IOU's, loans, receivables, payables, and bookkeeping entries of all sorts. It's all so much wasted paper and fluff…to me anyway. Gold and silver requires exploration, mining, milling, smelting, minting, shipping, etc, and these tangibles don't come with the turn of a switch and feeding in paper. They require capital outlay, and effort. Hundred dollar bills are as common as cockroaches in New York, and when I was a kid, I had never seen one. Milk now goes for $3 a gallon or a lot more, and it used to be a dime a quart. Beautiful new row houses in Philly, with hardwood floors, high ceilings, butter joint brickwork, and fancy trim, used to sell for $2500, brand new. Now, one can spend that on a stove. The same number of dollars, bought the houses, and today buy the stoves. Does it really make sense to save in decreasing dollars, with 1% interest that is taxable? Protect yourself.
Don Stott
August 8, 2003
Don Stott has been a precious metals broker since 1977, has written five books, hundreds of columns, and his web site is www.coloradogold.com
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_03/stott080803.html
Libertarian's lawsuit targets electronic voting machines
by Bill Winter
LP News Editor
Paperless electronic voting machines -- such as this one from Sequoia Voting Systems -- pose a threat to Libertarians, said LP member Susan Marie Weber, who filed a lawsuit to stop their use.
A California Libertarian who filed a potentially groundbreaking lawsuit against "touchscreen" voting systems is now waiting to learn whether an appeals court will hear oral arguments in the case.
Susan Marie Weber, a resident of Palm Desert, California, said she hopes to get word any day from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
"We are awaiting the court's decision," she said. "If they say yes, then I will appear in court. If they decide to hear the case based on documents only, we will be notified to that decision. We check mail every day, having no idea when they will advise."
At stake in the case is whether the government can use Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) touchscreen voting machines in Riverside County, California. The machines use an electronic voting system that produces no paper ballots.
Weber said the case is important to Libertarians "because nothing else matters if we have no vote."
"Without transparency in elections, and the ability to see a document to recount, we'll never know for sure" how many votes Libertarian Party candidates receive, she said.
"All Libertarians should be incensed that there is absolutely no way to verify any election that is on an electronic voting system. For a recount, the election officers merely put the cartridges into the counting machine and push the buttons. That is their 'proof' that the count was correct. Anybody who knows a smidgen of programming knows how manipulatable this system is."
A ruling against DRE voting systems could halt their distribution in California, said Weber, and create a legal precedent that could slow their acceptance around the USA.
Weber, who is Chair of the Desert Area Libertarians (Riverside County Region), filed the lawsuit in August 2001. It named California Secretary of State Bill Jones and Riverside County Registrar of Voters Mischelle Townsend as defendants.
The suit was filed after Riverside County installed Sequoia Voting Systems' AVC Edge System DRE voting machines.
Ironically, in an attempt to head off complaints about the system, Townsend demonstrated the DRE machines at a county Libertarian meeting, said Weber.
"She actually came right out and said: 'You need to trust me; I took an oath to the government.' She seemed puzzled when the roomful of Libertarians began laughing."
In her brief to the court, Weber argued that DRE machines, which record and tabulate votes electronically using a touchscreen "ballot," have no hardcopy mechanism to verify the accuracy of votes.
"Voters could never know for sure that their vote had been recorded as they intended, or that their votes, once recorded, would not be manipulated, either fraudulently or by a glitch," she said.
"In the event of a contested election, the absence of an independently auditable 'paper trail' [would] render a meaningful recount impossible."
The lawsuit argues that touchscreen voting systems are illegal under California law and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause. According to California Elections Code §19205, all voting machines must be "safe from fraud or manipulation."
At a hearing on May 14 in U.S. District Court (Central District of California), the secretary of state's attorneys countered that the voting machines were tested for accuracy under laboratory conditions.
But such a test could not uncover later software manipulation, or a "real-world" glitch that might occur when millions of people vote, said Weber.
In addition, according to the voting watchdog group, Election Guardians, the Sequoia Voting Systems' AVC Edge System uses proprietary software, which closes "the doors to independent analysis of the source code to see how it actually does -- or does not -- count the votes."
If DRE voting systems are used, Weber asked the court to require printers to be added to the touchscreen machines, to produce a voter-verified paper ballot.
Other California voting systems -- pre-scored punch cards, Datavote systems, and optical scan ballots -- all have a paper hardcopy ballot trail to recount in the event of machine failure, noted Weber.
By contrast, touchscreen voting systems create "unobservable, unverifiable, non-recountable, untestable, non-public voter tallies," she said.
However, Weber lost the first round when Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled against her on September 3, 2002.
In his decision, Wilson said "the state's interest in easy, attractive voting machines which might increase voter turnout outweighed the voters' interest in verifiable results," said Weber.
"We are baffled by his decision," she said. "Convenience won out over verifiability."
The ruling allowed other California counties to proceed with their purchases of DRE voting equipment -- and led Weber to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
In her appeal, Weber said that DRE voting systems violate "our nation's basic assumptions about human nature and the need for checks and balances to guard against the temptation and corrupting influence of power.
"When politicians routinely raise war chests of tens of millions of dollars, we must consider the ease with which these paperless voting systems can be manipulated," she said. "We need the check of voter verified ballots and the balance of an external audit of those ballots."
Filing supporting testimony for Weber were Peter Neumann (SRI International Computer Laboratories, Palo Alto), Rebecca Mercuri (a computer expert who testified before a U.S. House of Representatives' hearing on Voting Technology), and Kim Alexander (president, California Voter Foundation).
If she loses the current appeal, Weber said she will appeal again -- all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
"More and more people are dropping out of the voting process," she said. "They don't feel that their votes count. This voting system makes it even more difficult to believe that our voices are being heard."
Weber noted that the California LP has also weighed in against DRE voting systems.
At its state convention on February 17, 2003, delegates passed on a 54-14 vote a resolution that stated: "Because computers are subject to fraud and manipulation, we oppose any computer, Internet, or direct-record electronic voting system that does not use a voter-verified paper ballot as the ballot of count, recount, audit, and record."
In addition, Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) has filed a bill, HR 2239 (The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 ), that requires a "voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" of all votes. The bill was filed on May 22, 2003.
Weber holds a BS degree in Business Administration/Computers from California State University (San Bernardino). Professionally, she has been the co-owner of the Corvina Marina, an instructor at the College of the Desert, and the owner of an accounting service for small businesses. She is a past LP candidate for State Assembly and for the Desert Sands Unified School District board of trustees.
For more information on Weber's lawsuit, visit: www.electionguardians.org.
Judicial tyranny
By Richard Lessner
One of the greatest contemporary threats to the survival of republican government arises from the courts. Increasingly, judges are behaving like black-robed autocrats, not simply ruling upon the law, but making law.
Consider some recent controversial court rulings:
In California, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it refers to "One Nation, Under God," allegedly violating the First Amendment's "establishment clause."
In Florida, the state supreme court threw out a law requiring parents of minor girls to be notified before their daughters obtain an abortion, this despite overwhelming public support for such a common-sense provision.
Although voters in Nevada twice in the 1990s passed an amendment to the state constitution calling for a two-thirds supermajority of the legislature to pass any tax increase, the Silver State's supreme court ordered legislators to pass a $1 billion tax increase by a simple majority. This ruling effectively disenfranchised the voters of Nevada, stood the constitution on its head, and made a mockery of popular self-government.
In her opinion in the University of Michigan affirmative action case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor admitted that the plain language of the 15th Amendment prohibits the government from making any discrimination among citizens on the basis of race. Nonetheless, Justice O'Connor asserted that a "compelling state interest" in diversity trumps the plain meaning of the Constitution.
In Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court kicked open the door, as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his scorching dissent, to legalized same-sex marriage, polygamy and other unconventional relationships, thereby setting up a revolution in social norms despite the unwillingness of the American people to undertake such an upheaval. Any day now the Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to legitimize same-sex marriage.
These and other outrageous cases — will we soon forget the U.S. Supreme Court rewriting the rules of golf for the PGA? — suggest our American system of separated powers, checks and balances, is seriously out of balance. Although many of the people's elected representatives are perfectly willing, even eager, to punt some of the most incendiary issues to courts, the Framers of the Constitution never intended for Americans to live under a judicial oligarchy in which berobed despots issue decrees like so many Mogul potentates.
The notion of judicial supremacy, that the court has the final say on the meaning of the law and Constitution, is nowhere to be found in the thoughts of the Framers or the text of the Founding document. It is a power the courts have arrogated to themselves over time with little resistance from the legislative or executive branches of government. Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton contains not so much as a hint that the courts constitute the supreme branch of government or that judicial rulings irrevocably settle issues in dispute. Such a notion of unaccountable, unanswerable, unfettered judicial power does violence to the whole notion of separated powers.
The Framers limited the power of the courts just as they did the powers of the other two branches of government. Not only can the people amend the Constitution, but the Congress also can limit the courts' jurisdiction under the Constitution's "exceptions clause" in Article III, Section 2, putting specific matters beyond the reach of grasping judges (Federalist 81, also by Hamilton).
Even so, the crisis of the courts is deeper than is widely recognized.
American judges increasingly are looking to harmonize U.S. law and the Constitution with European and international legal norms, thereby threatening both our national sovereignty and the sovereignty of the Constitution under which our liberties have been secured for two centuries.
Denying the federal courts jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause may be the best option available to rein in a runaway judiciary. As Justice O' Connor's opinion in the affirmative action ruling illustrates (as does the Nevada court's lawless order in the tax case), many judges are willing simply to ignore constitutions and the expressed will of the voters.
Amending the Constitution would be a waste of effort in the face of an activist court majority determined to rule by judicial fiat and to run roughshod over the basic law to achieve desired social ends. Such despotic jurisprudence would not be restrained by any constitutional amendment, as Justice O'Connor's affirmative action ruling proves.
The executive branch, too, should begin exercising its constitutional responsibility to provide a check over a rogue judiciary. Again, as Federalist 78 notes, the judiciary possesses neither the power of the purse nor the sword. It depends upon the power of the executive to execute its orders. But the executive, no less than the judicial, has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts even though the Supreme Court held those egregious laws to be constitutional. And Abraham Lincoln refused to abide by Dred Scott, holding that the court's rulings were binding only upon the immediate parties to the case. As Lincoln noted, if the Supreme Court's decisions irrevocably resolve issues, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers and resigned their government into the hands of judges.
The fiction of judicial supremacy, often cloaked in the guise of a high-minded though self-serving assertion of "judicial independence," poses a direct threat to self-government. The proper balance between the branches of government, as envisioned by the Framers in the separation-of-powers doctrine, must be restored if our American experiment in popular self-government is to prosper.
Richard Lessner is executive director of the American Conservative Union.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030809-110415-3918r.htm
What's all the fooferah?
Let's break this down as though you are in a "statutory" state, where
the "common law" has been abrogated by the statutes. Take _Ohio_ for
example.
Article I, Section 20 of the constitution of Ohio is the
non-enumerated rights clause. The people retain all rights not
otherwise stated.
The people have a substantive right to the law of their fathers, as
handed down to them by their Creator. The Word is Law. Abrogation of
that right is an invidious and covert act to establish a civil
religion that is out to replace my own. Take a close look at Bowen v Roy.
This is one of the issues that is set up for appeal in our case. Free
Exercise touches everything in our case: Coverture: I am responsible
for public act and must make restitution for them. Wilfullness: The
wife has no free will when she is under the coersion of her husband
under coverture. Credibility of the witnesses: Because we cannot take
an oath, does that make our testimony less credible?
What is a license? Permission by the state to do something that would
otherwise be unlawful.
Please be so kind as to show me the part in the Bible where Mary and
Joseph went downtown to get a blood test and a marriage license in
order to marry and later give birth to the Son of God.
Do men and women today need the permission of the state to be man and
wife? Historically, in the south, marriage licenses were required only
for interracial marriages, as that was not lawful. In the north,
marriage licenses were required of mentally defective people to allow
them to marry.
Does a marriage license give rise to a prima facie presumption that
the parties making application are mentally defective or otherwise
incompetant? Inquiring minds want to know.
At issue here is "common law" marriage. Pennsylvania and other states
recognizes such marriages. Look in the Domestic Relations title of the
consolidated statutes:
§ 1103. Common-law marriage.
This part shall not be construed to change the existing law with
regard to common-law marriage.
Now decisional law in Pennsylvania:
Under Pennsylvania law, a marriage may be established either (1) by
formal religious or civil ceremony pursuant to a duly issued license,
or (2) by common-law marriage, which may be established (a) if a man
and a woman employ words (either written or oral) in the present tense
contracting such a relationship, or (b) by cohabitation and reputation
of marriage from which arises a presumption of marriage, in the
absence of contrary evidence. In re Vojatovich Estate, 51 D.&.C. 10
(1945).
Common-law marriage in Pennsylvania requires that the parties agree to
be married. See, Africa v. Vaughan, 998 F.Supp. 552 (E.D.Pa.: 1998).
There must be an exchange of words in the present tense by which the
couple intends to create the status of marriage. See, Staudenmayer v.
Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253, 714 A.2d 1016 (1998). However, the form of
the words used does not matter; the intention of the parties cannot be
disregarded. Fiedler v. National Tube Co., 161 Pa. Superior Ct. 155,
53 A.2d 821 (1947).
It would appear to me that all that is required is for two people from
Ohio to go have their marriage ceremony in Pennsylvania. stay
overnight, and tell everyone they meet they are man and wife.
In such a state. If two people who were not otherwise married went to
a common law state such as Pennsylvania and simple stayed overnight
and represented to the public that they were married, this constitutes
a marriage under the law of that state. I saw a case somewhere where a
woman who was not legally married to the man was suing for support
nonetheless because they had spent the night in a common law state and
so were married.
What you need to understand is that the law is an evolutionary thing.
The history of the law is sometimes more important than the law
itself. Failure to take legal history into account is an error.
Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to
repeat them. - Santayana
Those of us who learn from the mistakes of history are doomed by those
who fail to do so. - Barnhill
Americans pay price for speaking out
Dissenters face job loss, arrest, threats
But activists not stopped by backlash
KATHLEEN KENNA
STAFF REPORTER
He's a Vietnam War hero from a proud lineage of warriors who served the United States, so he never expected to be called a traitor.
After 39 years in the Marines, including commands in Somalia and Iraq, Gen. Anthony Zinni never imagined he would be tagged "turncoat."
The epithets are not from the uniforms but the suits — "senior officers at the Pentagon," the now-retired general says from his home in Williamsburg, Va.
"They want to question my patriotism?" he demands testily.
To question the Iraq war in the U.S. — and individuals from Main St. merchants to Hollywood stars do — is to be branded un-American.
Dissent, once an ideal cherished in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, now invites media attacks, hate Web sites, threats and job loss.
After Zinni challenged the administration's rationale for the Iraq war last fall, he lost his job as President George W. Bush's Middle East peace envoy after 18 months.
"I've been told I will never be used by the White House again."
Across the United States, hundreds of Americans have been arrested for protesting the war. The American Civil Liberties Union has documented more than 300 allegations of wrongful arrest and police brutality from demonstrators at anti-war rallies in Washington and New York.
Even the silent, peaceful vigils of Women in Black — held regularly in almost every state — have prompted threats of arrest by American police.
Actors and spouses Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon have publicly denounced the backlash against them for their anti-war activism.
Robbins said they were called "traitors" and "supporters of Saddam" and their public appearances at a United Way luncheon in Florida and the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., this spring were cancelled in reaction to their anti-war stance.
Actor/comedian Janeane Garofalo was stalked and received death threats for opposing the war in high-profile media appearances.
MSNBC hosts asked viewers to urge MCI to fire actor and anti-war activist Danny Glover as a spokesperson — the long-distance telephone giant refused to fire him despite the ensuing hate-mail campaign — and one host, former politician Joe Scarborough, urged that anti-war protesters be arrested and charged with sedition.
"There's no official blacklisting," says Kate McArdle, executive director of Artists United, a new group of 120 actors devoted to progressive causes.
"This is Hollywood, so there are always rumours starting up. Mostly it was producers saying, `We know your position — do you have to be so vocal?'"
Internet chat rooms have spouted "tons and tons of vitriol aimed at us," says McArdle, a former network TV executive.
"Things like, `Tell me where Tim Robbins lives and I'll go bash out his brains,'" she says.
"Or, `If you don't like America, why don't you move to Iraq? Why don't you move to Canada?'
"The real backlash comes from the right wing, from America's talk radio guys — when their ratings are down — not from the industry," McArdle says. "We get the `You're either with us or agin' us.'"
Comes with the territory, she adds.
"We're a nation of dissenters."
The Dixie Chicks country pop group won worldwide attention for their anti-Bush comments, which were met with widespread radio station bans against playing their music. Their fans have responded by circulating petitions on the Internet objecting to the "chill" that has tried to silence free speech in the U.S.
And opposition to the war has spawned many new songs — some remixes of old Vietnam protest songs — and Web sites devoted to anti-war lyrics.
Dozens of fans walked out of a Pearl Jam concert in Denver, Colo., last spring when lead singer Eddie Vedder hoisted a Bush mask on a microphone stand and sang, "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer."
But musician Carlos Santana was cheered in Australia — a key U.S. ally in the Iraq war and recent proponent of the "Bush doctrine" of intervention in smaller states' affairs — when he spoke against the war and American foreign policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`I think it's important. . . for intellectuals to point out lies'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Coast bands are organizing a Bands Against Bush free concert and rally in Los Angeles this fall to publicize their discontent with American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Even country singer Merle Haggard, whose song "The Fightin' Side of Me" was a pro-war anthem in the Vietnam era, penned a protest against tame media in the wake of the Dixie Chicks controversy.
"That's The News" has bitter lines like:
Soldiers in the desert sand still clinging to a gun
No one is the winner and everyone must lose ...
Politicians do all the talking, soldiers pay the dues
Suddenly the war is over, that's the news.
Peace scholar Stephen Zunes — so-named for winning a Peace and Justice Studies Association award for leadership in promoting such scholarship — says he was recently "uninvited" to speak to the Arizona state bar association despite a six-month-old commitment.
"It's censorship" for his perceived anti-Israel views and outspoken opposition to a foreign policy that has made the U.S. a target of terrorists, says Zunes from his office at the University of San Francisco, where he teaches politics. "You'd think lawyers would be more concerned about civil liberties."
A recent tour for his new book, Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism, drew "obscenity-filled e-mails ... calling me a traitor" and similar "outrage" on-air from TV commentators, he says.
"I've been called all sorts of names on national TV. It's been pretty ugly.
"There are a lot of Americans who don't want to believe their government is lying to them. It's becoming more and more clear that the American people have been lied to, so I think it's important ... particularly for intellectuals, to point out those lies."
Full-page ads in the New York Times — at $37,000 (U.S.) each — and other high-circulation dailies have been bought by American religious leaders, actors and a range of wealthy activists to spur anti-war dissent.
Harvard dean Stephen Walt, an international affairs professor, helped organize such an ad with 32 other security experts at universities from coast to coast. The wordy ad detailed reasons for fighting terrorism and not Iraq, unless under direct threat, and warned of increasing Middle East instability.
Expressions of support came from colleagues at home and overseas, Walt recalls. "We said you could be against this war without being against uses of necessary force" elsewhere. "The world is a nasty place, but this is just stupid."
The 32 signatories "transcended a lot of the traditional (anti-war) lines," says Walt, who admits to disappointment that the Democrat minority in Congress and Democratic presidential candidates, except Howard Dean, have been "very slow off the mark" in backing public dissent over the war.
Non-politicians may fill that gap. MoveOn.org, claiming a membership of more than a million Americans — and another 700,000 beyond their borders — is running full-page newspaper ads across the U.S. demanding an independent inquiry into the apparently exaggerated need for the Iraq invasion.
"It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie," the ad states below a photo of Bush, tagged "MISleader."
The ad has drawn about half a million replies after its New York Times kickoff last month. MoveOn.org, founded in 1998 by California spouses Joan Blades and Wes Boyd (inventor of the flying toaster screen saver), already has logged more than 1 million e-mails and calls to Congress with protests against the war.
Another national ad campaign has been launched by billionaire George Soros, urging Americans to call Congress and demand a post-war investigation.
"When the nation goes to war, the people deserve the truth," the ad states. "American men and women risked and gave their lives for a war based on fighting an imminent threat to homeland security. The case for this war — made unequivocally by President Bush and members of his administration — rested on intelligence that has been exposed as exaggerated or even false."
Zinni says he has no regrets about challenging the administration, despite the disdain of "senior Pentagon officials.""I was very, very careful not to say anything once the troops were on the ground. I worried that I would be accused of not supporting them."
His father fought in World War I, his cousins in World War II, and his only brother in Korea. "I'm not anti-war."
But his speech last fall at the Middle East Institute in Washington outlined reservations about "the wrong war at the wrong time" against a tyrant "who could be contained."
Zinni argued the U.S. risked alienating allies and possibly creating more enemies if it attacked Iraq without multilateral backing and without new proof of weapons of mass destruction. Warning "war should always be a last resort," he appealed for more weapons inspections, United Nations support and better post-war planning.
"I wish I was wrong. I don't feel good about it. I would rather be wrong," Zinni says. Still, as evidence appears to mount against the White House, he adds, "Whatever you take to the people, you should be accurate. If there is no imminent threat, if it's not true, then someone should be held accountable."
"It's an obligation you have — in our history there have been too many times when generals didn't say what they thought," he says. "We all swear an oath to the Constitution. One of the things I thought I was defending was the right to dissent."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid...
READ it, if you haven't already, Patriot Act:
Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
The Department of Justice is expected to introduce a sequel, dubbed PATRIOT II, that would further erode key freedoms and liberties of every American.
Links here:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
Flight 93 Families Dispute FBI's Theory
Saturday August 9, 2003 5:39 AM
By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Families of passengers who rebelled against hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 said Friday the FBI theory that the terrorists deliberately crashed the plane into a Pennsylvania field was based on ``limited and questionable interpretations'' of the cockpit recording.
The theory - described by FBI Director Robert Mueller and disclosed deep within a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks - suggests insurgent passengers may not have successfully fought their way into the cockpit and grappled to seize the plane's controls, as has been popularly perceived.
``Without a doubt, the passengers breached the cockpit,'' said Randall Greene of New York, whose brother Donald, a pilot of smaller aircraft, was onboard. ``I'm surprised by the theory attributed to the FBI director that the passengers did not take control of the aircraft.''
In a joint statement by Families of Flight 93, relatives said they believe the passenger revolt primarily was responsible for the crash. U.S. officials have said they believe the hijackers intended to fly the Boeing 757 into the White House.
``Until someone can produce specific translations of these tapes that are more than theory then it appears there is sufficient evidence to support the heroic acts of the passengers and crew in bringing Flight 93 down,'' the families said.
The FBI has steadfastly maintained that its analysis isn't conclusive and doesn't detract from the heroism demonstrated by passengers, who are believed to have rushed down the airliner's narrow aisle to try to overwhelm the four hijackers.
In phone calls from the plane, four passengers said they and others decided to fight the hijackers after learning of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York that morning.
But the suggestion from the government that the hijackers in the cockpit decided to crash the plane - though under pressure from defiant passengers in the cabin - appears at odds with what families of some passengers have come to believe.
``I don't think the FBI got it right, what happened,'' said Tom Crowley of Atlanta, whose niece's husband, Jeremy Glick, died aboard the flight. He said Glick's widow, Lyzbeth, was among family members permitted last year to listen to the cockpit recording and she believes she heard Glick delivering a judo strike to one hijacker.
``No question, any family member who listened to the tape will tell you the same thing, that they (passengers) were in the cockpit,'' said Crowley, who urged the government to make the recording public.
The plane went down far from the White House, in a field near the rural town of Shanksville, Pa. All 33 passengers, seven crew members and the four hijackers died.
The cockpit recording was played privately in April 2002 for family members of victims, and the FBI also provided them with its best effort at producing an understandable transcript.
``In the cockpit! In the cockpit!'' the passengers were heard yelling, according to Alice Hoglan of Los Gatos, Calif., who listened to the recording. Her son, Mark Bingham, died in the crash. She said the recording and a transcript the FBI provided to her and other families ``doesn't leave very much doubt at all that passengers were able to get that cockpit door open.''
Hoglan said the FBI's transcript quotes one hijacker after fighting breaks out in the cabin asking another hijacker in the cockpit in Arabic, ``Finish her/it now?'' She said she believed they were discussing whether to crash the plane. The response from the second hijacker, she remembered, was either ``wait'' or ``not now.''
Some family members indicated after hearing the tape that they were led to believe that passengers used a food cart as a shield and broke into the cockpit.
Hoglan said the hijackers inside the cockpit are heard yelling ``No!'' at the sound of breaking glass - presumably from the food cart - and that the final spoken words on the recorder seemed to be an inexplicably calm voice in English instructing, ``Pull it up.''
She said the English voice toward the end of the recording was so distinct that she believes it's evident the speaker was inside the cockpit.
Citing transcripts of the still-unreleased cockpit recordings, Mueller told congressional investigators in a closed briefing last year that, minutes before Flight 93 hit the ground, one of the hijackers ``advised Jarrah to crash the plane and end the passengers' attempt to retake the airplane.''
Ziad Jarrah is thought to have been the terrorist-pilot because he was the only of the four hijackers aboard known to have a pilot's license.
The chief executive of a foundation named for Todd M. Beamer, the passenger from New Jersey who said ``Let's roll'' just before the passengers revolted, said the FBI analysis doesn't diminish the heroism of the passengers. He said he had not spoken to Beamer's widow, Lisa, about the analysis, but said family members know ``their loved ones on board did not sit idly by. There was a consensus to act.''
``The result is that the terrorists failed in their attempt, and I truly believe the passengers had some role in that,'' Douglas A. MacMillan said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3006539,00.html
First-Ever Challenge to USA PATRIOT ACT
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13255&c=207
New Website to Track Bush Donations
By SAM HANANEL Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A new Web site will track the wealthy donors who contribute to President Bush's re-election campaign, part of a consumer group's argument that big donations translate into political favoritism.
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971, launched the Web site, www.WhiteHouseForSale.com, on Friday that focuses on major Bush fund-raisers who bundle $2,000 contributions from many individuals.
"We think the public has the right to know what these numbers are and exactly how much clout these people are getting here," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
Donors who raise $200,000 are designated as "Pioneers" by the Bush campaign, while those raising $100,000 are called "Rangers." The Web site profiles the 50 Pioneers and 18 Rangers named by the Bush camp so far and shows the political and financial interests they have at stake in Washington.
The site is focusing solely on Bush's fund raising because he is the only major candidate who has opted out of the public financing system during the primaries, Clemente said.
Under federal law, those candidates who qualify to receive matching funds from the government must abide by an overall spending limit of about $45 million. Bush is widely expected to collect $200 million or more for next year's primaries - more than any other candidate in history.
"The president is a poster boy for why we need elections to be financed by public money, not private money," Clemente said.
A contribution meter on the Web site keeps track of how much the Bush-Cheney campaign has raised to date - $47 million as of Friday - based on quarterly reports and news accounts of fund-raisers. The site also lists every Bush-Cheney fund-raising event that has occurred, how much was raised and names the big donors.
---
Add Bob Graham to the list of presidential candidates spending more time on the Internet to connect with potential voters.
The Democratic senator from Florida has started up a Weblog or "blog," an online journal where he and his staff will post entries about life on the campaign trail and supporters can post messages to share their ideas.
While campaign staffers concede the 66-year-old Graham is just learning to use the Internet, he's no stranger to keeping a journal the old-fashioned way. He's been carrying little notebooks around for 26 years to record just about every aspect of daily life, from notes on political discussions to what he ate for breakfast.
Blogs are the latest rage on the Internet and Graham appears to be following the lead of rival Howard Dean, who has used the Internet with great success to raise money and find supporters.
Dean claimed more than 260,000 people have signed up on his Web site, while presidential hopeful John Kerry's campaign said Friday that the Massachusetts senator has signed up more than 200,000 online supporters.
---
Don't look for the name of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on any short list of possible Democratic vice presidential candidates.
Blagojevich skipped the AFL-CIO presidential forum in Chicago on Tuesday, choosing to spend time with his family and go running instead. Blagojevich also said he had not given much thought to which candidate he would endorse, if he endorses any.
"How many candidates are there? Nine, 10? I could probably name them if you forced me to but I could probably give you the Cubs' starting line up a lot easier," he said.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/w/1155/8-8-2003/20030808153005_15.html
Dismissals in Government cases -- bad judges or bad litigant?
If this article seems like legalese, keep reading. I believe there is a valuable lesson. -- Richard Wayne
Several weeks ago I responded to an article you either wrote or published referencing "bad judges". In turn you asked me to expand my determination on the subject for your consideration and I agreed to do so when I had the time.
I am of the opinion that too much of the time we blame our ineptitude in the legal arena on the judge(s) who either denied our pleading(s) or dismissed our matter before the court. My opinion is based upon my studies of several classes of court decisions and my experiences in the courtroom.And when I am involved in hearings in the courtroom I pay close attention to what the judge is saying and doing. Also I used to read every Supreme Court Reporter, Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement, and Pacific reporter that gets printed each week or so. I see what the litigants have tried to do and I see the mistakes they made as pointed out by the judges. Litigants keep making the same mistakes case after case after case.
The majority of litigants follow this outline:
(a) They file a complaint against the government replete with truthful allegations,
(b) The D.O.J. attorney answers the complaint with a motion to dismiss under either FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim means that the complainant has not provided evidence upon which the judge can grant relief. Under 12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction means that the complainant has not rebutted (with evidence) the presumption of sovereign immunity the government carries.
(c) The D.O.J. attorney files a motion for a protective order against discovery and the court grants it.
(d) The judge dismisses the matter or finds summary judgment in favor of the government without allowing discovery of any kind.
Now we are "mad as hell" and we want to blame the judge because he violated our rights. We have just failed to understand the process and act accordingly. We have been beaten by a "presumption" and didn’t even recognize it. There is a presumption that "government always acts correctly" (within the law) and we must REBUT their presumption.
There are many instances where the proof of an essential fact can be proven only by inference--a process of reasoning from the known to the unknown. From established facts other facts may be inferred. A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.
Presumptions arise where evidence to support an allegation is wanting, and they are indulged to supply the want of proof of a more direct character and cannot be resorted to where such proof is available. A presumption will necessarily relate only to matters upon which the record fails to speak. See Old Wayne Mut. Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 US 8, 51 L.Ed. 345, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep 236; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall US 350, 21 L.Ed. 959.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the term as "the taking of something for granted" or :evidence that points to the probability of something," and points out that in law it is defined as "the inference that a fact exists, based on the proved existence of other facts." If the "record" was always a faithful and accurate story of each step taken, from the incipient to the final stages of confrontation with the opposing party, to bring the subject matter and the parties before the court, there would be no occasion to using presumptions. If jurisdiction could be obtained by a perusal of the record itself, the courts would not "presume" anything to the contrary. Presumptions arise where the record is silent upon some fact or cannot be restored to in opposition to its plain terms.
In civil cases there are essential elements of a cause of action that a plaintiff must allege and prove if he is to prevail, and as to these elements he has the burden of proof. The allocation of the burden of proof is regulated by local rules and substantive law. Burden of proof is to be distinguished from the burden of going forward with the evidence.
The general rule in civil cases is that the party charged with the task of maintaining the burden of proof must established his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Most presumptions are based upon a logical inference--a reasonable probability as to the truth of the fact presumed. It has been held that, insofar as criminal liability is concerned, a statutory presumption may run afoul of constitutional provisions (due process) unless there is a "rational connection" between the established fact and the presumed fact flowing therefrom. See Tot v. U.S., U.S. v. Delia, 1943, 319 US 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241.
Again, I recognize that there is a long-standing presumption that "Government always acts within the law and is always right." This, in reality, means that government can do just about anything it wants to an individual and in the event the individual decides he has had enough mis-treatment/abuse/rights violated (marv) and decided to go to court to get an order to stop the MARV, he has a problem. The court will dismiss the matter because of the above stated presumption (Government always acts within the law and is always right).
Let us suppose that employees of a department of the federal government have been calling you a "pink elephant" for several months and you are very stressed by it. This name calling has you angry all of the time and that anger/stress has caused you to fight with your spouse, your children and even your neighbors. You have had it! You decide that you are going to file a lawsuit in federal court for an injunction against their further calling you a pink elephant.
Your complaint alleges several wrongdoings, cites lots of statutory and caselaw support for your position, and prays for damages and injunctive relief. You angrily march to the clerk of the court to get it filed and a summons signed and stamped for service upon the head of the federal agency. Sometime within the next sixty days you will receive a "motion to dismiss" under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b), probably sub-sub section (6), "for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted". You will then have 15 days more or less to do your objecting to their motion after which the court will agree with the government’s attorney and dismiss your complaint.
WOW! You have now experienced the finest example of a "presumption" in action.
You thought that you had made a claim when you alleged violations of law in the complaint and cited the statutory and caselaw support for your position. The "state a claim upon which relief could be granted" phraseology means PROVIDE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE COURT CAN LOOK AT AND BASE RELIEF UPON. When we FAIL to include EVIDENCE in the document (complaint) that we make the allegations then we have "failed to state a claim".
Now I want you to step back a moment and do a recall of why the complaint was filed in the first place. Employees of a governmental agency called you a "pink elephant" for several months and you are very stressed by it, you are angry all of the time, you fight with your spouse, your children and even your neighbors. You went to court to get relief, something for damages, and the judge kicked you out saying that you did not provide EVIDENCE upon which he could grant relief. Under your breath you are angrily mumbling something about a "bad judge" (in language that I won’t repeat here) because you know that you made a claim and cited lots of statutes and caselaw.
When you allege wrongdoings (violations of your rights), cite lots of statutory and caselaw support for your position all you are doing is arguing. Citing lots of statutory and caselaw support is not evidence. Remember, in a civil suit against a non-government person there usually is granted a period for discovery to bring evidence forward. When you sue government you need to bring forward all of your evidence up front in the complaint because there will be no discovery and when you do not bring the evidence along in the complaint your allegations will be dismissed for "failure to state a claim" upon which the court can grant relief.
Well what could we consider as evidence that you are not a pink elephant? Here is a list:
1. Go to your Medical Doctor and have him give you a complete physical examination. That is an "expert opinion" that you are not a pink elephant.
2. Go to a Veterinarian and have him give you a precursory examination sufficient for him to issue his "expert opinion’ that you are not a pink elephant.
3. Have three or four close friends who have participated in various activities with you and have them write Affidavits from their first hand knowledge that you are not a pink elephant and that they have seen you do certain things that pink elephants cannot do.
4. Write your own Affidavit claiming from first hand knowledge that you know you are not a pink elephant.
5. Get an encyclopedia and copy the pages therefrom that give information about pink elephants and use the pages as an exhibit along with the pages of evidence you already have.
If these pieces of EVIDENCE would have been included with the complaint then the government would have had to rebut and destroy the evidence. We can cite 10,000 cases and make 10,000 claims of wrongdoing, but all they add up to is argument and nothing more. Argument does not rebut the government’s presumption. Tangible evidence is absolutely necessary to do the job.
When we fail to provide the EVIDENCE in our pleadings we fail to rebut the presumption of correctness held by the government and recognized by the courts. We need to give the court something upon which they can grant relief. I will again make the claim that we too often give the judiciary hell and unjustly criticize them when the problem lies at our own feet. We are the problem. I suppose you want to know how I learned this. I learned this and many other things from judges. We need to listen when the judge is either speaking to us or telling us something via his written order.
On the other hand I do know that there is a strong bias against people who represent themselves in court and argue for our rights. A judge told me that when a moving party has oral argument and does not know what is in the pleading he will automatically deny the motion or petition. He wants the litigators to be well prepared and be proficient in arguing their pleadings. They do not like someone to consume their time with stupidity or incompetence.
Sincerely, Jim Jensen
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." --Mark Twain
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Hey rager instead of sending me messages why not just post?
All the stuff you send me is welcome here...
That goes for you too Slo...
And you too...you know who...
Right now it's all THG, all the time...
IRS. Check this site out:
http://www.caught.net/prose/corrupti.htm
For use against DSP's especially at air ports...don't kid yourself a citizen armed with knowledge of the law if just can and does win...
Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993): no immunity for wrongful imprisonment.
Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984): violated 1st Amendment.
Rutherford v. United States, 702 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1983): IRS collection abuse; after reversal, he settled for undisclosed amount.
Bohannon v. Pegelow, 652 F.2d 729 (7th Cir. 1981): judgment of $25,000 for false arrest.
Joan W. v. City of Chicago, 771 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1985): strip search case; judgment for $75,000.
Petitions for redress of grievances & First Amendment violations:
Webb v. Fury, 282 S.E.2d 28, 43 (W.Va. 1981): petition for redress.
United States v. Lemon, 723 F.2d 922 (D.C. Cir. 1983): sentence violated 1st Amendment.
United States v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1983): filing lawsuit is a petition for redress.
P.O.M.E. v. District Court, 677 P.2d 1361, 1364-65 (Colo. 1984): petition for redress.
Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir. 1984): violated 1st Amendment.
ACLU Foundation of S. Cal. v. Barr, 952 F.2d 457, 471 D.C.Cir. 1991): surveillance didn't violate 1st Amendment.
United States v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1983): filing lawsuit is a petition for redress.
My personal Favs IRS:
4) United States v. Nunan, 236 F.2d 576 (2nd Cir. 1956): Former IRS Commissioner convicted of tax evasion.
(5) United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725 (2nd Cir. 1966): Bribe.
(6) United States v. Johnson, 398 F.2d 29 (7th Cir. 1968): IRS agent guilty of defrauding by filing false returns.
(7) United States v. Barash, 412 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1969): Bribe.
(8) United States v. Polansky, 418 F.2d 444 (2nd Cir. 1969): Bribe.
(9) United States v. Weiser, 428 F.2d 932 (2nd Cir. 1969): IRS agent and bribes.
(10) United States v. Provinzano, 50 F.R.D. 361 (E.D.Wis. 1970): queer IRS agent indicted.
(11) United States v. Greenberg, 445 F.2d 1158 (2nd Cir. 1971): IRS agent and bribes.
(12) United States v. Lipton, 467 F.2d 1161 (2nd Cir. 1972): IRS agent and bribes.
(13) United States v. Mangan, 575 F.2d 32 (2nd Cir. 1978): crooked IRS agent.
(14) United States v. Lanci, 669 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1982): FBI agent and bribes.
(18) United States v. Morales, 11 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1993): IRS agent and bribe. VICTIMS OF CORRUPTION
Jury acquits pilot, who questioned IRS, of tax-evasion counts
By Shirley Downing
downing@gomemphis.com
August 9, 2003
A federal jury Friday found FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin not guilty of evading income taxes on $920,000.
The question of tax payment was unresolved at the end of the five-day trial.
"I think it is safe to assume the IRS will attempt civil collection, but she is not guilty of tax evasion," said defense attorney Robert Bernhoft of Milwaukee.
"I feel justified," a grinning Kuglin said after the verdict was returned at midafternoon. She stood outside the federal building, chatting with supporters and jurors.
Federal prosecutor Joe Murphy was not available for comment.
Kuglin, 58, was charged with six counts of tax evasion that could have meant up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.
The government accused Kuglin of filing false W4 forms for the period from 1996 to 2001.
Kuglin, a pilot for FedEx since 1985, said she had paid taxes like anyone else for most of her life. But about 10 or 11 years ago, she began to question the federal tax system. She began to read court documents, legal opinions and the federal tax code.
She said she found what she felt were contradictions. She wanted to know where in the federal tax code it said she was liable for taxes.
Kuglin wrote the Internal Revenue Service twice in 1995 with questions but said she didn't get a response.
Murphy, in closing arguments on Thursday, said Kuglin did have an opportunity to discuss her situation with the IRS, to learn what she owed and what documents she was required to file "and she didn't."
Defense attorney Larry Becraft of Huntsville, Ala., said Kuglin decided mandatory payment of income taxes "did not apply to her."
After the verdict Friday, Becraft said the federal tax code is a confusing conglomeration that "at best is a walking due process violation."
He said the average American simply doesn't understand the tax code.
Juror Barbara Snodgras of Memphis said the jury did not convict because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."
When asked if she planned to start paying federal income taxes again, Kuglin replied: "I will pay all the taxes for which I am liable."
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0%2C1426%2CMCA_437_2169609%2C00.html
Chinese High-tech Trade Surges 50% in First Half Year
China's trade in high-tech productsrose to about 94.9 billion US dollars in the first six months, up 50.67 percent over the corresponding period last year and 11 percentage points higher than total trade growth, the Ministry of Commerce said Friday.
China's trade in high-tech productsrose to about 94.9 billion US dollars in the first six months, up 50.67 percent over the corresponding period last year and 11 percentage points higher than total trade growth, the Ministry of Commerce said Friday.
Statistics from Chinese Customs showed imports hit 50.95 billion US dollars while exports were 43.93 billion US dollars, increasing by 47.8 percent and 54.8 percent year-on-year respectively.
Automatic data processing equipment parts and portable computers were the top two export high-tech commodities.
Integrated circuits and micro-electronic items were the top import goods, figures show, with a total import volume of 16.1 billion US dollars and a 56.92 percent year-on-year growth.
Japan, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countriesand the Taiwan region were the main sources of imports while Hong Kong, the United States and the European Union were the main export markets of high-tech products.
Solely-foreign-funded enterprises and private companies saw 230percent and 292 percent year-on-year growth respectively.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200308/09/eng20030809_121996.shtml
Precious few conservatives here either...
Neo-cons, yes...
Conservatives, no.
How 'bout that Patriot Act?
Everyone says that link is absolutely nuts...which is why I like it...psyops in effect makes CT's seem ridiculous yet there is some creedence to the info...but the conclusions are incorrect..
How did such a theory get started?
By who?
For what?
HAIL TO THE FIAT MOGULS
Alex Wallenwein
I don't understand what our (the gold community's) beef is with fiat money and all its evils. Fiat (especially of the dollar kind) is the greatest windfall opportunity to gold investors that has ever existed. And - oh yeah, by the way - all that moaning and complaining about gold price manipulation? Let's all fall to our knees and pay homage to these evil manipulators. They should be our heroes!
Have I lost my mind?
That's of course very possible. But just try to look at it this way, for a moment:
Haven't you always wished as a kid that you could use your fake monopoly money to buy real things of value like, say, a whole ice cream truck, or a fifty-year supply of Legos? Well, that's exactly the situation that has for the last few years (and decades) presented itself to us - courtesy of the "fiat moguls."
They have given us a gift that goes beyond imagination, and all we were able to come up with in our leveraged short-term-profits mindset is: "they are cheating!" or: "they are abusing their power to manipulate the paper price of gold to go lower and lower!" (etc., etc.) Believe me, I was once in the same camp, until not very long ago.
Heck, what do we want? What do we like better? Some quick short-term fiat paper-dollar profits, or the ability to use worthless monopoly money (okay, so you have to work for it, but it's still essentially worthless, and the price of gold is still low as hell in fiat terms) to buy the ultimate wealth-asset of human history itself, in physical form, for next to nothing, and watch it appreciate as the entire world financial structure starts rocking and rolling into the swing of a new millennium and into a new concept of "gold-friendly fiat" that is no longer opposed to a higher price of gold, but instead relishes it - and floats on top of it like a beach ball on a rising tide?
Phew! That was a long sentence. Let me rest for a moment here.
Okay, that's better. Anyway, in order to appreciate the magnitude of what is currently happening, just apply a bit of traditional hard-money thinking on fiat inflation vs the growth of whatever economy it is circulating in, and apply it to the paper gold market.
What does it mean when we say that there are too many derivatives out there that can never be covered (at current prices) by the amount of physical gold available? We are essentially saying that paper gold as a "quasi currency" has been inflated versus the available value that, in theory, is supposed to be there to back it up.
This is no different than the paper dollar inflation of 1933 versus the available gold to back it at the time. In both cases the value of the "currency" eventually drops relative to the gold that supposedly backs it - or physical shortages appear. In both cases, the true value of gold versus paper money only appears in the system set up by such shenanigans if and when the paper holders line up at the "counter" and demand their metal.
In 1933 this was about to happen, and FDR, great statist-socialist tyrant that he was, punished the citizen gold-owners rather than the bankers who really caused the squeeze by loaning more paper than they had gold to back up. In 2003, it sadly looks that this is not about to happen because too many gold players would rather chase a leveraged illusion than hold the solid reality of physical metal in their hands.
It is precisely our seeking that leveraged play that allows the bullion bankers to play their paper game over, and over, and over again. How could they sell gold short in such horrendous amounts if there weren't an equal amount of players out there willing to go long as the counter-parties to the same transactions?
Well, sure, there are always the hedge funds or tech funds who seem to play right into their hands, at every turn, buying and selling according to their predictable mathematical models (to which the bullion banks of course are also privy). Naturally, the "blame," if there is any, can not be laid exclusively at our own individual option-players' feet, but we do have our fingers in the same pie.
Bottom line is, we are playing the casino owner's rigged game, while complaining all of the time that the game is rigged - but playing, and playing, and playing away anyway, hoping desperately that some day they will all just lie down and play "fair" - to their own detriment. Yeah, right. When is that ever going to happen?
Or, we hope that the government, which many of us have documented over and over again to be aiding and abetting the bullion banks in rigging their game (or actually prompting them to rig it), will step in and "restrain" them.
Fat chance!
But the one tool that will surely, inevitably, and unquestioningly bring about the total collapse of the rigged paper gold market, namely the buying and "hoarding" of nothing but physical gold, is precisely the one tool we all forget to use - or maybe don't want to use, because it's just that much more exciting to sit there and hope for our leverage to bring us untold riches without ever actually having to pay for and stand for delivery of the metal we like to buy paper bets on so much.
We sit there on the bleachers, watching this rigged horse race, betting hundreds, thousands, or more dollars on the horse that we think will eventually win all of the races, making the race track owners richer and richer, while totally overlooking the sign that tells us that the entire horse population of the United States is for sale, essentially for less that the amount of one good bet.
We put money down on the price movements of gold as our trading models or hard money analyses show us, instead of going and actually outright buying and owning the very metal on whose price movements we like to bet so much, an action which we know is destined to bring about the very short-squeeze we are all looking for.
But not to worry: it doesn't really matter whether or not we follow this new game plan. It doesn't really matter if we focus our attention on owning metal outright in order to completely sidestep the paper casino. Whether we do this or not, the 'euro vs dollar' dynamics that are in play as we speak (discussed at length and in great detail in the "Euro vs Dollar Currency War Montior" and hinted at in various essays) guarantee this outcome eventually anyway.
The only question is, will we have exchanged a sufficient portion of our worthless monopoly money into physical gold when that moment comes, and will we be able to ride its ascent into the thousands of dollars, euros, or whatever currency there will be? Or will we be chasing more ever-depreciating dollar-paper profits on the horse track instead, feeding the very dragon we claim we so detest?
We should be thankful that this "dragon" (the anti-gold US dollar faction and its bullion banker henchmen) made it possible for us to buy gold for next to nothing and legally own it almost for free. Instead of feeding him our hard-earned but essentially worthless money, we should say: "thanks, little dragon" and starve him to death by depriving him of what he depends on for his very life: our play-money. Let's take our play-money to a reputable dealer instead, and buy real gold with it.
All the rest will fall into place.
(Just for your information: I am a newsletter publisher, not a gold dealer. I do, however, earn a tiny commission on purchase transactions of only those people who choose to buy from what in my opinion are reputable sources of physical metal).
Alex Wallenwein
Editor, Publisher
The EURO VS DOLLAR CURRENCY WAR MONITOR
www.a1-guide-to-gold-investments.com/euro-vs-dollar.html
August 5, 2003
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/wallenwein080503.html
Brewing Bullion Battle
John Dobosz, 08.06.03, 5:12 PM ET
NEW YORK - After the price of gold bottomed at $255.95 per ounce on April 2, 2001, the shiny yellow metal began a steady ascent--hitting $382 on Feb. 5, 2003. A decline in central bank selling and worldwide gold production, as well as geopolitical instability, global terrorism, a prolonged bear market in stocks and a weakening U.S. dollar have all played a role in thrusting bullion up 50% from its low to its high earlier this year.
Gold-mining stocks have done even better. Since fall 2000, the Philadelphia Gold & Silver Mining Index (XAU) is up 100%, while the AMEX Gold Bugs Index (which consists of only those companies that don't hedge their production) is up 372%, hitting its latest high less than three weeks ago.
All of this action has gold bugs howling about the bull market under way in gold, with frequent reference made to the metal's moon shot above $800 in 1980 during the last gold bull market. Their advice is to buy the metal--and the miners--on weakness and hang on for the next leg up. But the gold futures contract now trades around $350, and has yet to hit a new high since February, although the gold-mining equities have been in a solid up trend since March.
Jim Stack of InvesTech Research is a permabear who has recently turned bullish. His buy list is brimming with stocks like Applebee's, up nearly 30% since January. To get his full list, click here.
Curtis Hesler of Professional Timing Service believes the gold bull will continue to run, driven by a weaker U.S. dollar and an overall trend favoring hard assets over financial ones. Gold in particular, he says, should benefit from the Chinese government allowing its citizens--who save 25% of their incomes--to own gold as of June 1. Hesler owns gold through the Rydex Precious Metals Fund ( RYPMX) and he recently bought Agnico Eagle (nyse: AEM - news - people ) and Newmont Mining (nyse: NEM - news - people ). "We will be buying into further weakness this month," says Hesler. "From the August lows I look for gold to break out--on the upside--of the triangle formation it has been in and, of course, for the stocks to do well also."
Hogwash, says Mike Norman, editor of the Economic Contrarian Update, a daily online service that looks at news headlines and other measures of sentiment and takes positions against the herd. "Gold was a terrific buy--back in 2001 at $270 an ounce," [Ahem...] says Norman, who cites several reasons--in addition to bullish media commentary--for being bearish on gold. One factor is the rise in interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy gold more expensive. Also, when gold was cheap, most miners decided to stop selling their future production at a fixed price (hedging), which allowed them to take advantage of a rise in gold's price. That's no longer the case, Norman says, making reference to the Commitments of Traders data at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission showing a net short position among commercial firms. "The hedgers are being smart by locking in $350 an ounce. It's the speculators who are long out the wazoo!"
Norman also points out that 2,800 tons of gold were used in jewelry production last year and only 400 tons was directed toward investment demand in the form of coins and bullion. Of those 400 tons, 95 tons were consumed by Japan last year, [ And what of China?] which Norman says had the highest rate of financial-related suicides in history. With the Japanese economy marginally improving and jewelry demand declining since 1997 ("All the hip hop guys are into diamonds now, not gold"), Norman says gold prices are bound to head south, especially given the rising amount of worldwide production. Furthermore, he says, "There are a lot of other places to put your money as an alternative investment just a keystroke away."
Tom O'Brien of the Gold Report disputes Norman's outlook and looks for gold to hit $390 per ounce by fall. O'Brien is a technical analyst and for him, the most telling read on gold and gold stocks are in price and volume: Prices move higher on high volume and lower on low volume--a clear indication to him of accumulation. Additionally, he points out that several gold stocks that he's buying pay fat dividends: Anglogold (nyse: AU - news - people ) pays out 4.87%; Gold Fields (nyse: GFI - news - people ) yields 3%; Harmony Gold (nyse: HMY - news - people ) yields 2.48%. "This is a huge amount of income for equities that have cash, little debt and the opportunity to double in price the next few years," says O'Brien, who also points out, "With the new tax bill that just passed, you will see investors who never owned gold go into these equities and folks that buy for the dividend are long-term holders."
James Dines, editor of the Dines Letter, says the bond market's anticipation of higher inflation means a lower dollar down the road and higher gold prices. Dines is also excited by the action in silver and silver miners. "That silver-mining shares are in harmony with their bullion's up trend, as well as corresponding action in the golds, is highly significant to us, since we have seen this at the dawn of every major bull market in the precious metals," says Dines. "When the golds and silvers really run, they can move faster than the Internets did into 2000!"
http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/08/06/cz_jd_0806watch.html
GOLD: More than beautiful
The long-standing role of gold as a store of wealth, and its use in jewellery, has largely overshadowed its industrial uses – this although the metal has important uses in electronics, dentistry, and in some pharmaceutical products. Department of Minerals and Energy gold and platinum group metals chief mineral economist Alex Conradie tells Mining Weekly that new technologies have allowed gold to be used in new ways, including some that can save lives. “As we look to future innovations for using this precious metal, exciting technical advances can be expected in industrial applications for gold,” notes Conradie. He says that one of the new applications for gold in the industry is as a catalyst. Gold, which at most scales of use, is the least reactive of metals, has been found to be selectively reactive at the nanoscale. “Recent innovations in research have shown that, when properly prepared, gold can be preferable to other, more conventional, catalytic materials. “For instance, platinum and palladium require high temperatures for catalysis to occur, but under proper conditions, gold will act as a catalyst at ambient temperatures, therefore making it more effective across the normal spectrum,” adds Conradie.
New developments in catalysis may allow gold to replace or to augment traditional catalysts, resulting in a wide range of potential industrial applications, including odour abatement, dioxin decomposition, fuel-cells, gas sensors and catalytic converters for vehicles. A pioneering joint initiative to explore and develop new industrial applications for gold was launched by Mintek, AngloGold, Gold Fields and Harmony. “Project AuTEK focuses on the application of gold in catalysis, and, in particular, on its potential for combating air pollution by removing noxious gases, such as carbon monoxide and the oxides of nitrogen,” says Conradie.
A unique feature of gold is that it can accomplish this at room temperature and in the presence of moisture, whereas other catalysts require higher temperatures and dry air streams before the reaction takes place. Thus, there might be a future role for gold as a catalyst in air-conditioning systems, helping to diminish the unpleasant effects of the so-called sick-building syndrome, reports Conradie.
Potential also exists for the use of gold in autocatalysts for diesel-powered vehicles, because diesel engines operate at lower temperatures than petrol engines, which run at a much higher temperature, near to the melting point of gold. He says that another area with the potential to boost gold demand is the pharmaceutical industry. “Previously, the medical profession rejected the notion of using heavy metals in the treatment of patients. However, the recent success of a gold compound to treat certain types of cancer has rekindled the interest. “New technologies are also revolutionising medical applications for gold – surgeons use gold instruments to clear clogged coronary arteries, and the injection of microscopic gold pellets helps to retard prostate cancer. “Lasers with gold-coated parts literally give new life to patients with once-inoperable heart conditions or tumours, and are also used widely in delicate surgery on eyes and brain tissue,” adds Conradie.
Texas A&M University professor of chemistry and toxicology Dr John Fackler discovered light-emission properties in certain gold compounds, which, he says, react to the presence or absence of various compounds or acids in the body. This could lead to the development of sensors to detect and pinpoint the precise location of disease, reports Conradie.
Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed a means for using gold to help dispense medicine from inside the body, therefore eliminating the need for patients to remember to take the right amount of medicine at the right time. Dr Robert Langer, of MIT, has developed a microchip the size of a human thumbnail, with more than a thousand separate compartments, which can hold medications in solid, liquid or gel form. “Each of these compartments is designed to open and close, releasing the precise amount of medication exactly when it is needed. “The medicine is released when a tiny electrical charge is applied between the silicon chips’ thin gold cover and a gold electrode,” notes Conradie.
He says that gold-coated microcomponents, already in use for pacemakers, will deliver the electric charge when sensors indicate that lifesaving medication is required in the patient’s system. These applications for gold may not use much in any single produc but, collectively, they could represent a major increase in demand. World gold consumption is set to increase by 300 to 400 tons a year over the next five to ten years, as a result of new industrial applications of the metal, according to the World Gold Council, concludes Conradie.
http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/utilities/search/?show=38507
Vote Fraud. Great link page to email friends:
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm
Read some of those links, many titles are provocative and the stories deliver...
ECONOMY WILL CONTROL 2004
UNLESS A CRISIS TURNS THE TIDE
[It's brilliant when you think about it, rig a few elections not many but just enough to control the house and senate, then do what you want: no fear of impeachment, lie like a dog; who cares? You got the power, you do what you want: republicans will forgive you...most sheeple won't even notice...dems can make all the noise they want but have almost always been ineffectual anyway why should they start being effective now?]
By: Dorothy Anne Seese
There's no doubt that the economy will control the election in 2004. It has been too bad for too long not to have a tide-turning effect on the American voters, many of whom are also fuming over the lies told about the reasons the United States "needed" to invade Iraq. If removing dictators whenever and wherever we find them is just cause for pre-emptive strikes, then we're the very empire against which this nation was founded, acting arbitrarily and capriciously against whichever dictator dares to incur the wrath of the administration in power.
We will, by the pre-emptive strike philosophy, need to go against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, North Korea, Indonesia, and above all Saudi Arabia, the enemy of the United States but the business partner of many of its leaders and persons of power. Just why the US feels it can impose western thinking on eastern cultures and have those people grateful to us for demolishing their infrastructure, killing and maiming their citizens who have nothing to do with the leadership but respect their culture, is beyond many of us who have been anti-war.
Aside from the rising tide of indignation at the war and the lies told to promulgate it, Americans are very worried about the US economy. Those who have jobs today might not have them tomorrow. People who lost their jobs as long as two years ago are still looking for work. "We Want Jobs" will be a slogan and a threat to all who pretend to the new emperor's throne of America, New Imperialist Superpower.
The only way to divert the attention of Americans from the present unnecessary conflict and quagmire in the deserts of the Middle East is for a new crisis to occur. It may well happen prior to the election, it could have the effect of suspending the election. Perhaps that is why North Korea is in temporary suspended animation as far as our government's attention is concerned.
This isn't just a new type of warfare we're dealing with at the beginning of the 21st century, it's a new type of manipulating and controlling the American voters and Americans at large, whether too young to vote or too senile to care. The politics of election doesn't give a tinker's dime for the people; the object is to win at any cost and any cost is never too high a price to pay for imperialists.
When it comes to the likes of North Korea's Kim Jong Il, my protectiveness for my nation says we should tell that twerp to sit down and shut up or he and his nation are scorched earth ... 24 hour deadline. Yet the other side of me says it's wrong to kill, all war is wrong. Man should have gotten beyond war, that was what the failed League of Nations was about, it is what the UN was supposed to be about, and treachery is everywhere. Rulers no longer lead their forces into battle as did Genghis Khan or Alexander. They send the cannon fodder, the useless feeders, destroy innocents and infrastructure, then send huge MIC corporations to rebuild at the cost of billions of American taxpayer dollars. It's all about money and where love of money is greater than respect for human life, to that extent humanity and all of it is a failure and all rulers are butchers.
If rulers now had to lead their troops into battle, wars just might cease on the earth or at least be contained to a few rogue warlords in Central Asia, or tribal leaders in sub-Saharan Africa, which would be none of our business. Well, someone would make it their business. The African National Congress is Marxist and their ideology is the same as that of the new world order globalists: control the population by killing millions and controlling the remainder by oppression.
This world has not made much progress in six thousand or more years of recorded history.
A true leader would have a much greater vision for America and her role in world affairs, one set by example rather than bombs, by integrity and great care for America's people. If that leader indeed believed we are the world's remaining superpower, then he or she would also see that our mission is far above the petty wars we've engaged in since the first Korean Conflict in 1950. That leader would also downsize this government's huge bureaucracy while encouraging entrepreneurial ventures by removing so much government red tape. True entrepreneurs don't need a handout from the government, they need to be unshackled from bureaucracy.
Election 2004, absent the war issue or with the aid of a backlash against phony wars, will hinge on the economy of the United States, the creation of new jobs and the rebuilding of the ones that have fled the country to hire laborers for slave wages. Wal-Mart may be the largest of these corporate traitors but it is far from being the only one.
Someone asked me "what would happen if Hillary Clinton were elected president?" To which I replied, she might try to give away the store, and she might weaken our military but as the first female president, the last thing she would want is to play the New American Empress! That would set her women's movement back to 1755 (an arbitrary date). Her every move would be watched and her critics would come out of the woodwork like the bugs at night. Hillary could never get away with what George W. Bush and his reichsmeisters have done in the wake of Nine-Eleven
If more Americans understood the USA PATRIOT act, they wouldn't be so fond of Bush. He is not a conservative, he is a centrist who tries to gather votes by giving something to everyone, promising no human, animal or bug shall be left behind, and then tramples on human rights guaranteed by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights like he was hiking across Texas in oversize boots.
The candidate for whom I would opt would promise to undo a huge number of Executive Orders and lead Congress to declare the USA PATRIOT act unconstitutional.
Then he or she would speak to the economy and the need to include the cost of food, medical care and energy when calculating increases for our largest elderly class, the Social Security recipients who are just barely over poverty level but haven't enough to pay their bills and buy food also. This is a growing class for the elitists to toss into the lion's den with the other useless feeders. A nation that treats its former workers, the builders of the nation, in this fashion and ignores the pleas of its wounded veterans can hardly hold itself forth as an advocate of human rights.
A man or woman who will not work is not worth the time of day. Those who cannot work by reason of illness, injury, age or infirmity should never be left to die in the streets. To these I would call the attention of the "churches" that spend $50 to $100 million on an upscale building while the poor lie outside their doorsteps. If the churches refuse to act, then the government becomes the agent of relief by default. We supposedly are not a nation that leaves our own to die in the streets. That's supposed to be what those "others" do, the ones for whom we have no respect.
If former presidents had not begun this welfare state nonsense, and loosed the giant devouring beast of easy credit and lifetime slavery to Mastercard and Visa, perhaps we'd have a much more self-sufficient people because they would have had to be responsible for themselves. Once personal responsibility is taken from an individual, they are simply easy prey for the elitists who promise them cradle to grave protection and deprive them of the incentives necessary to get them off their chairs and out into the working world.
But what of those who are all too eager to get back into the working world and cannot? Our industrialists who have moved their operations overseas to appease their stockholders surely don't give a thimble. They have $2 a day workers and Americans are foolish enough and financially strapped enough to support the Wal-Marts of the nation, and even those of us who try to buy American find that familiar American products like General Electric and RCA are made in a country we cannot even locate on the map.
Is this a campaign speech? No, I'm not running for anything unless there's a job open for the most annoying Washington press corps reporter ever to hit the nation's capital. I'll take that job any day if someone offers it, but I reserve the right to say what I think, not what others tell me. So I guess that job isn't open.
Regardless of whether folks will continue to be indebted to the credit cards for the rest of their lives, and the children will be indebted to the government to pay for long-past and present wars, people are going to vote for jobs in the great here and now. They might even demand that the person who is elected deliver on that promise. It is true that the president doesn't personally control the economy. He does have power to address Congress on the important issues, and the lobbyists come seeking support for their favorite causes. When enough pressure is put on Congress to attend to the economy and do what is necessary to revive American business and keep the ones who haven't left, we'll see some progress. We need a lot fewer laws and regulations for entrepreneurs as well as established businesses.
This nation's economy doesn't have to tank out and drain dry, but the water levels are dangerously low. The Dow is a poor indicator of who is and isn't working. It's a measurement of where the capital is flowing from large funds, brokerage houses with large accounts, trusts and foundations. Joe Lunchbox doesn't watch the Dow, he looks at his paystub or his unemployment check and wonders how long he can survive, whether his family will go hungry. And since the buck stops at the president's desk, it's the president who is supposed to rally round the flag and get everyone enthused about the economy, not lie about some foreign war program and send sympathy cards to the families of those who lost their lives in the interest of the military/industrial complex and its billionaire investment projects.
If this sounds cynical, it is because of past performance by our leadership. We have enough gadgets, domestic and foreign. The voters, content not to think until their livelihoods depend on it, have played long enough with the remote and the video games.
Political freedom, personal freedom, means the people have to THINK, which is becoming a lost art in America and has been since LBJ and his damned Great Society of socialists. I would like to see the government kicked out of nearly everything, particularly education, and teachers out of the NEA, so we make every state and county responsible for caring for its own. That is Americanism. It was the very core of Goldwater Republicanism of the 50's and 60's. The nation refused to elect Goldwater for fear of war and what did they get? Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam war. Be careful, Americans, it is not enough to vote, we must demand performance or impeach the rascals who lie.
Fear not to impeach, fear rather not to impeach and become servants of the new American emperors.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sees080803.shtml
Bush's Hidden Corporate Tax
by D.W. MacKenzie
[Posted August 8, 2003]
Though news coverage of Enron has evaporated, its aftereffects remain. This supposed crisis led to an expansion of leviathan in the form of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Unfortunately, the costs of this act are not getting anywhere near as much coverage as the 'crisis' that fueled support for it.
The effects of this legislation are sweeping. 85% of major multinationals in the US have adjusted their compliance practices because of Sarbanes-Oxley. This act mandates that CEO's certify that the information in financial statements information fairly presents the company's financial condition and the results of operations. It also established a standards setting board, funded by what amounts to a new business tax. The initial out of pocket compliance costs of this act are in fact low. However, 71% of executives expect to see these costs rise in the future, and its benefits are highly questionable.
Officially, this law was supposed to improve the accuracy and transparency of corporate reports and disclosures, and to reinforce ethical corporate behavior. Actually, the persons most directly affected by it have little confidence in the ability of this legislation to produce these results. Only one third of corporate executives believe that this bill will restore investor confidence. Only 9% surveyed were fully satisfied with it.
While the expectations of executives concerning compliance costs and investor confidence are not necessarily accurate, the stifling effect that such regulations have on business behavior is real and cause for much concern. CEO's now face penalties for false certification of $1,000,000 and/or up to 10 years' imprisonment for "knowing" violation and $5,000,000 and/or up to 20 years' imprisonment for "willing" violation. Corporations must now disclose "on a rapid and current basis" additional information about the company's financial condition or operations as the SEC determines is necessary or useful to investors or the public interest.
While no reasonable person would oppose fair or accurate reporting of financial figures by corporations, the vague nature of elements of this law leave considerable room for abuse. What do terms like rapid and fair really mean? How do prosecutors know when a violation is knowing or willing?
Some executives now prepare 'judgment reports' to verify that profits attributed to different divisions of their enterprise are 'fair and accurate'. This might seem like a small burden, but what is not so easily seen are the harmful changes in American enterprise. As one executive recently put it:
"The success of the American capitalist system has been built on innovation and risk-taking. Corporate governance distractions have resulted in some top managers becoming reluctant to take risks today. Yet that is what we are paid to do. Many are spending more time responding to the new requirements than developing the strategies that lead our businesses down new paths of growth." (Maurice Greenberg, CEO American International Group)
This act, Greenberg warns, has had a chilling affect on the economy. Perhaps the blame that Democrats assign to George Bush for recent economic conditions is not entirely unwarranted. While Bush controls neither monetary policy nor events prior to his assuming office, he has increased wasteful spending, raised tariffs, and also dampened entrepreneurial action by signing Sarbanes-Oxley. One should not expect prosperity to follow such actions.
An appreciation for the importance of risk taking does have a sound economic basis. As Ludwig von Mises wrote[1], entrepreneurs bear uncertainty in the running of their enterprises. This is crucial to the functioning of the capitalist system because human action is dynamic in its nature. Economists of different perspectives agree with this. Frank Knight and Joseph Schumpeter saw the importance of entrepreneurs facing uncertainty and carrying out the process of creative destruction[2]. Rarely do Austrian, Chicago, and Harvard economists all hold such similar opinions.
The SEC Commissioner takes a different view of this bill. While the commissioner recognizes that there are sound reasons to expect unwarranted expansion of government during perceived crises[3], he claims that this bill accounts properly for private compliance costs. In a recent speech, Atkins mentioned that "U.S. regulators are bound by law to take into account commentary submitted by those who would be affected by proposed rules." One might think that such a rule is practical. However, Nobel Laureate George Stigler demonstrated that companies often "capture" regulators and then use regulations in anticompetitive ways. This need not be true. Professor Fred McChesney has shown that regulations can instead lead to rent extraction, as politicians use regulations to affect transfers. While there may be positive effects from this legislation in promoting better disclosure of financial information, the potential losses from anticompetitive and risk-avoiding behavior are great. This bill goes far to politicize markets and redirect private efforts to dealing with public actions. When has such change ever ended in greater prosperity and freedom?
While it is clearly the case that markets are imperfect, we should remember that private interests exposed Enron. We should also remember that government suffers from severe imperfections that can easily dwarf private failures. The people who fear informational problems in corporate reporting should turn at least some of their attention to the informational problems of government. Stockholders have strong reasons to ferret out information on their companies, yet it is often rational for constituents to be ignorant of data on the workings of government[4].
The politicization of enterprise redirects our efforts into unproductive competition over the distribution of wealth, rather than towards the production of wealth. For this reason, free societies are dynamic and prosperous and politicized societies are stagnant and poor. While the Sarbanes-Oxley act may have made good political sense, it has already had an adverse effect on commerce. The answer to this problem is simple. Repeal this act. Republicans are fond of claiming to be the party of less government. They should put these words into action, for a change.
----------
D.W. MacKenzie is a graduate student in economics at George Mason University. Send him MAIL and see his Mises.org Daily Articles Archive.
Sources
Changes in Corporate Control, a PriceWaterhouseCoopers Survey.
Press Release Chief Executive Magazine July 28th, "AIG's Hank Greenberg Warns Sarbanes-Oxley May Be Stalling U.S.Growth."
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has "put us under pressure" Adriana Zea [10-07-2003] AccountancyAge.com.
Speech by SEC Commissioner Paul S Atkins: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Goals, Content, and Status of Implementation.
Minter and Smith Financial Reporting in Strategic Finance March 2003.
[1] Mises, Ludwig von. (1997). Human Action.
[2] See Knight, Frank (2002) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit and Schumpeter, J.A. (1984) ‘Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy’.
[3] Commissioner Atkins mentioned Professor Robert Higgs and his book "Crisis and Leviathan’ in his speech.
[4] See Downs, Anthony (1997) An Economic Theory of Democracy, Tullock, Gordon The Politics of Bureaucracy (1987) and Mises, Ludwig (1994) Bureaucracy.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1287
More on vote fraud:
http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf
24 pages worth. These are not CT hacks...it's fucking Johns Hopkins, dammit! And yet the sheeple sleep and Faux News spins it as no big deal as well as MSNBC on line and on TV and every other media outlet...they spin it away while the sheeple give the republic up...or vise versa...
Offshore Company Captures Online Military Vote
by Lynn Landes 7/16/03
Last year, while President Bush marshaled U.S. forces for the invasion of Iraq, the patriots at the Department of Defense awarded the contract for a new online voting system for the military... to an offshore company.
It gets worse.
Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) is the system and Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting of Arthur Andersen/Enron bankruptcy fame) is the company. And although Accenture has not been officially implicated in the Enron scandal, they have created a reputation of their own that is already raising eyebrows.
[ENRON? ENRON...rings a bell...forget about them...been so long since a peep has been made about them on the boob tube...heard about OJ for almost two years and Monica for almost three...ENRON they must not be very important, right?]
This is hot off the newswire -- 7/15/03 "NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- Accenture Ltd., the former Andersen Consulting, disclosed Tuesday that it might have violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Chairman and CEO Joe Forehand, on an earnings call with analysts and reporters Tuesday, said the consulting firm's Middle East operations could be in non-compliance with the Act, which prohibits the bribery of foreign government officials by U.S. persons."
The Canada-based Polaris Institute published a scathing report on Accenture, saying, "Accenture's efforts in government outsourcing have often been very expensive and/or of poor quality. There is good reason to question Accenture's track record in outsourcing of government services."
Accenture is the leading offshore beneficiary of government contracts whose main business is the privatization of government services, according to Lee Drutman of Citizen Works, a non-profit founded by Ralph Nader. Accenture has a troubling track record, a close business relationship with Dick Cheney's Halliburton, and 2500 partners - more than half are not U.S. citizens.
[The problem is the thing is so big (bush, bin-laden, enron cheney, haliburton, oil, gold, drugs, 911) that you can't step back far enough to get a picture of the whole thing...and in order to unravel it it takes a lot of reading which takes a lot of time which for the most part Joe Citizen doesn't have hence the nice bite sized news articles and sound bites...anything morte than that and the most convienent way of denial is to just call it CT...and go about your business...otherwise you might have to do something and god knows you're way to busy for that too...]
Since 2001 Accenture and Election.com have been strategic partners "to jointly deliver comprehensive election solutions to governments worldwide," according to their press release. Last month Accenture bought the public-sector election assets of Election.com, which suffered its own scandal this year when it was discovered that Osan Ltd, a firm of Saudi and other foreign investors, bought controlling interest in it. According to Mark Harrington of NewsDay.com, "Several shareholders of the company said they were surprised by the recent buyout and have asked for securities regulators to investigate."
[Read this paragraph twice:]
Election.com has had other problems. In January 2003, during Canada's New Democratic Party leadership convention, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported, “Earl Hurd of Election.com said he believes someone used a "denial of service" program to disrupt the voting – paralyzing the central computer by bombarding it with a stream of data”…service was restored, then… "Toronto city councilor Jack Layton's victory on the first ballot surprised many, who had expected a second or even third round of voting before a leader was chosen from the pack of six candidates."
For election security experts, a strong and growing suspicion is that computer glitches or disruptions are actually vote rigging. A surprise election result should raise a red flag.
Accenture is big. It has more than 75,000 employees in 47 countries, and generated net revenues of $11.6 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2002. On their Board of Directors is Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO and known to many as Bad Boy Ballmer for his ruthless, if not illegal, business practices. Microsoft has been sued by the federal government and several states for monopolistic business practices which were designed to destroy their competition. Massachusetts’s Attorney General is still pursuing Microsoft. In March 13, 2000 Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) and Microsoft signed a "$1 Billion Pact To Form Joint Venture and Expand Global Alliance." What's the alliance? To control voting systems around the world?
A sense of civic duty isn't high on Accenture's list of priorities. According to an article last year in TheDailyEnron.com, "Accenture is lobbying furiously on Capitol Hill to defeat a measure that would deny federal contracts to US companies that move offshore to escape US taxes. Accenture, you see, has incorporated in Bermuda. But, Accenture also holds nearly $1 billion in government contracts in the US. The company earned nearly $700 million last year working for Uncle Sam and - ironically - is currently under contract with the Internal Revenue Service itself to redesign its online and Internet operations."
Then there’s the Accenture connection to Halliburton, vice president Dick Cheney’s former employer. Halliburton is widely criticized for doing business with brutal regimes and was the subject of a SEC investigation and several lawsuits surrounding their accounting practices during and after Cheney’s tenure at the helm. The Polaris Institute says that in July 2000 David Lesar succeeded Dick Cheney as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company. Before joining Halliburton, Lesar was employed by the Arthur Andersen, Accenture's former parent company. Polaris says, "…while defending Halliburton's accounting practices, David Lesar publicly acknowledged that Cheney knew about the firm's accounting practices..."
In an October 2001 press release, Halliburton and Accenture announced a major expansion of their longstanding relationship with the signing of an alliance between Accenture and Landmark Graphics Corporation, a wholly owned business unit of Halliburton.
And unlike the words of the U.S. military's anthem, "I'm proud to be an American”, Accenture owes its allegiance to "partners" outside of the USA.
[Get the picture? This goes a litte beyond republicans and democrats...I've said numerous times before the enemies of this nation are not happy to see a free sovereign people; they want a piece of your labor...every one of us' labor...and control of the populace...always have, always will...]
In a letter to the editor of the Austin Chronicle last year, Accenture's Director of Corporate Communications, Roxanne Taylor wrote, "When Accenture's parent company, Accenture Ltd., was first incorporated last year, the organization's 2,500 partners, more than half of whom are non-U.S. citizens, decided to incorporate in Bermuda. With thousands of partners and employees of many nationalities, it was important commercially and culturally for the organization to select a neutral location such as Bermuda for its parent company.”
How very global of them.
Potentially, 6 million U.S. military and civilian voters could soon be using the military's new online voting system. According to computer voting security experts, any online system will be easy to rig by company insiders and vulnerable to attack by outsiders. Apart from that reality, does the U.S. military really want a company owned by non-U.S. citizens in charge of their vote?
Can anyone at the Pentagon spell "national security"?
http://www.ecotalk.org/serveaccenture.htm
See also:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=91
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59874,00.html
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=71
A BILL To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2239:
Anti-Gun Group Opposes So-Called 'Newspaper Loophole'
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
August 08, 2003
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Gun control activists nationwide are pressuring newspapers to stop accepting legal classified advertising of firearms for sale by private citizens. Advocates of gun owners' rights said Thursday that anti-gun forces apparently aren't content with ignoring the Second Amendment and now want to ignore the First Amendment as well.
"The issue is not guns, but the way guns are sold," claimed John Johnson, coordinator of the so-called National Campaign to Close the Newspaper Loophole, in a press release Wednesday. "In an age of increasing concern for public safety, we find it difficult to defend a newspaper's part in the private sale of firearms by unlicensed sellers without a criminal background check of the would-be buyer."
The campaign acknowledges that it is completely legal for private citizens to sell guns to other private citizens but wants to use privately owned newspapers to inhibit such sales.
"We recognize that classified ads for guns are perfectly legal under federal and [your State] state law," the campaign writes in a sample letter for activists to send to newspaper publishers. "But just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is good policy."
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, first disputed the campaign's use of the word "loophole" in its name.
"'Loophole' is Washington-ese for 'freedom,'" Pratt said. "And some of these folks would probably be happier if we got rid of all of the 'loopholes' in the Constitution because that would entail getting rid of the Bill of Rights."
Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Rifle Association (NRA), dismissed the campaign's efforts.
"This is an annual exercise by a politically irrelevant gun-ban group to circumvent the legislative process and curtail the sale of a perfectly legal product by law-abiding Americans," he said.
While enemies of the Second Amendment have mostly been unsuccessful in convincing elected legislative bodies to curtail the rights of gun owners, this campaign has seen some victories, according to its website. Since it began in November 2001, the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Sandusky (Ohio) Register, Willoughby (Ohio) News-Herald, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Dubuque (Iowa) Telegraph-Herald, Houston Chronicle and, most recently, the Dallas Morning News have limited classified advertising of guns for sale by private citizens at the campaign's request.
Campaign cites case of white supremacist
As justification for opposing classified advertising of guns for sale by private citizens, the campaign highlights the case of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of a white supremacist group, who illegally tried to buy two 9mm handguns and a shotgun from a federally licensed gun dealer in Peoria Heights, Ill., on June 23, 1999.
"The purchase was denied by the dealer after a background check revealed that Smith was under a court restraining order secured by an ex-girlfriend," the campaign reports on its website. "Three days later, Smith purchased two guns...from [a private citizen] through a classified ad...in the Peoria Journal Star newspaper."
Smith later used those guns to kill two people and wound nine others in Illinois and Indiana. But the campaign fails to mention that federal law makes it illegal to even attempt to purchase a firearm if the intended buyer is disqualified from such a purchase. Smith was not arrested for that crime, which left him free to obtain the other weapons he purchased.
Neal Knox, chairman of the Firearms Coalition, believes Smith could have easily found similar guns on the black market even if classified advertising of guns had been banned by the local newspaper.
"It'd make it, maybe, a little bit more difficult," Knox said. "It's going to irritate him but - as far as not being able to buy illegally - no, it's not going to affect him."
That having been said, Knox believes he understands the motivation behind the campaign.
"It makes people like these 'close the loophole' types, it makes them feel better," he said. "They think that they will have cut off another point of access."
But Pratt compared the premise - that banning classified advertising of private gun sales would hinder criminal access to weapons - to similar theories behind Britain's gun laws.
"England has banned all the legal handguns, they're just gone. And yet, criminals have mostly handguns, some 3,000,000 of them, police estimate," Pratt explained. "So, if you can't keep guns out of the wrong hands on an island with a total handgun ban and on virtually every other gun, then I'm just not impressed with anything that the gun controllers are going to try to do."
Campaign accused of 'stepping all over the First Amendment'
Gary Mehalik, director of communications for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the problems he perceives with the campaign extend beyond its Second Amendment implications.
"I see this as stepping all over the First Amendment," he said. "The mischaracterized 'gun show loophole' is now being called a 'classified gun ad loophole,' and soon, it will be a 'free commerce loophole' because what's being proposed is the cessation of the American way of doing business."
Anti-gun activists coined the term "gun show loophole" to denigrate lawful sales between private citizens that occur at gun shows. Second Amendment opponents have worked for years to require buyers to submit their names, addresses and other personal information to the FBI's National Instant Check System (NICS) before being allowed to make a purchase.
Some shooting enthusiasts fear their opponents will try to use the NICS system to create a national registry of gun owners as a precursor to confiscation attempts. They point to New York City and California as examples of jurisdictions that have registered gun owners, promising not to infringe on their rights, but later used those registries to confiscate lawfully purchased firearms.
What about classified ads for 'getaway cars' and 'arson tools?'
Mehalik also wondered why the campaign is not targeting other products routinely offered for private sale through classified ads.
"The fact of the matter is: Every day, newspapers carry advertisements for products and services that criminals might misuse," he continued. "They sell 'getaway cars' in the used car section, 'arson tools' in the sports section, whether it be lighters or gasoline or waterproof matches for sportsmen. There's lots of stuff that can be misused."
The reason those products aren't being targeted, both Pratt and Knox argue, is because cars and fires are "politically correct," while guns are not.
"This is one of the incremental ways that people who don't believe we ought to be able to protect ourselves with guns are endeavoring to get rid of our guns," Pratt said. "Along the way, they'll also try to make it expensive to own guns [and] to store guns."
Knox stressed that the campaign's members are entitled to their opinions but should not be allowed to force those beliefs on others or to coerce newspapers into submitting to their agenda.
"If they don't want to have a gun, that's their business. I'm not going to tell them they have to have one," Knox said. "But they don't have any business telling me or my wife or my daughters that they cannot defend themselves. And that's what it's all about."
The consensus among the Second Amendment advocates contacted by CNSNews.com was that gun owners who want to sell their firearms and potential buyers will meet face to face at shooting ranges and other venues, or contact one another through the Internet to conduct private sales. The only long-term effect they predicted from the campaign was a loss of advertising revenue for the newspapers that participate.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200308%5CNAT20030808c.html
JUDICIAL WATCH INTERVENES IN MASSIVE LAWSUIT TO SEEK INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS REGARDING SAUDI ARABIA
Documents Detail Saudi
Government Involvement in 9/11
JUDICIAL WATCH TO SUBPOENA SAUDI DOCUMENTS FROM JOINT CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY REPORT
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that it has just been granted court permission to intervene in a massive lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against thousands of Saudi Arabian individuals and entities, including members of the ruling Saudi family. This clears the way for Judicial Watch to subpoena the redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Committee’s 9/11 Report dealing with Saudi Arabia.
The pages withheld from public release reportedly detail the incriminating involvement of the Saudi Arabian government and members of the extended Saudi royal family in financing and supporting terrorism, including involvement in the 9/11 attacks against the United States.
Along with its client and hundreds of other victims of 9/11, Judicial Watch will aggressively seek similar vital documents in the ongoing lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. and Dev. Corp. (CA No. 02-1616 (JR)).
The controversial Report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the U. S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence entitled, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” is nearly 900 pages long and features at least 28 pages of redacted material detailing Saudi support of and involvement in terrorism. The full, classified report, dated December 2002, was released to the public on Thursday, July 24, 2003 in a declassified and highly redacted form.
“We are very pleased that the court has now cleared the way for us to get the truth regarding the extensive Saudi complicity in 9/11,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/080703_PR.shtml