The Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved (Revised April 2000)

 Permission to reprint/distribute hereby  granted for any non commercial use  provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact.

 Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth  Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate  in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against  those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

 The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

 A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that  one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point  of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these  evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory  is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

 It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is  really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion  in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent  rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself  IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run  for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]

Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request   (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.  

2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  'How dare you!' gambit.  

3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public  can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.  

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's   argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.  

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.  

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other  attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.  

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.  

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source. 

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. 

12. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.  

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.  

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.  

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.  

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.  

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'  

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.  

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.  

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other  empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. 

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.  

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.  

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.  

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven  distinct traits: 

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about  their presentation implies their authority and  expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have  an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face  conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they  really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes  itself and the author. For instance, one such  player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site: <http://www.proparanoid.com>  

Holiday Terror: Weaponized Candy Canes! Noooooooo!

Author: Mac Slavo - December 21st, 2010

It would have seemed ridiculous a decade ago, but in today’s terror prone world it’s become business as usual. The latest threat?

Candy Canes.

If reports are to be believed, administrators at Battlefield High School in Haymarket, VA punished ten members of the school’s Christmas Sweater Club for participating in the spreading of Christmas cheer, part of which included the tossing of small, individually wrapped candy canes to students.

According to accounts by several students, the school punished them with detention and cleanup work because the popular holiday treats pose a possible threat to others due to the ease of weaponizing the candy canes.

Skylar Torbett, a junior, says he was told, “candy canes are weapons because you can sharpen them with your mouth and stab people with them.” Zakk Rhine, another member of the club, was told that the candy canes could, “maliciously maim students with the intent to injure.”

School administrators deny the allegations, citing unruly behavior, littering and creating a disturbance. The official student “referrals” sent to parents made no mention of candy canes or the possibility that they could be used to maim or wound.

One can surmise that the students, being part of a cheer club, may have been somewhat excited about Christmas and may have engaged in some unruly behavior while tossing candy canes and spreading the Christmas spirit. However, the reports that candy cane weaponization may have played a roll in the punishments cannot be completely dismissed given that children in federally funded public schools across the nation have been subject to disciplinary action for things like holding a hand in the shape of a gun, drawing a weapon or even writing stories that contain hints of violence.

Now that the threat of candy canes as weapons has been identified, it’s only a matter of time before school administrators across the nation realize that disasters may loom around every corner and they’ve been there unbeknownst to most for quite some time. Pencils and pens, of course, should be first on the list, as they are already weaponized and can be easily transformed from educational tools to deadly weapons. Lockers, backpacks and even books may also potentially lead to violence and injury.

The Vermont Resolution for Food Sovereignty

by Rob Williams on Tue, 12/21/2010

'In response to the recent passage of "food safety" bills S. 510 and corresponding H.R. 2751, the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty has drafted its own resolution called "The Vermont Resolution for Food Sovereignty." Crafted to declare and protect the food and health freedom rights of all Vermont citizens, the resolution is essentially a warning to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it does not have jurisdiction over the food choices of the People of Vermont.

The resolution declares that food freedom is a "fundamental prerequisite to life," and that individuals have every right to save seeds, grow what they wish, and buy and sell the fruits of their labor without interference from an over-zealous, tyrannical government. And if any federal official tries to infringe on these rights, the People "shall resist any and all" of them.'

***

WHEREAS All people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and

WHEREAS Food is human sustenance and is the fundamental prerequisite to life; and

WHEREAS The basis of human sustenance rests on the ability of all people to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products; and

WHEREAS We the People of Vermont, have an obligation to protect these rights as is the Common and Natural Law; and in recognition of the State’s proud agricultural heritage; and the necessity of agricultural, ecological and economic diversity and sustainability to a free and healthy Society;

THEREFORE, Be it resolved, that We The People, stand on our rights under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution and reject such Federal decrees, statutes, regulations or corporate practices that threaten our basic human right to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the State of Vermont; and,

Be it further resolved, that We The People, shall resist any and all infringements upon these rights, from whatever sources that are contrary to the rights of the People of the State of Vermont.

North Korea ready to unleash 'Holy Nuclear War' on South

vidlink

The Oil BP Tried To Hide Has Been Discovered, In Thick Layers On the Sea Floor Over An Area of Several Thousand Square Miles

Washington's Blog - Wednesday, December 22, 2010

BP and the government famously declared that most of the oil had disappeared. But as much as 98% of the oil is still in the ocean.

BP and the government applied massive amounts of dispersant to the Gulf Oil Spill in an effort to sink and hide the oil. BP and the government denied this, of course. But the oil is not remaining hidden.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal noted on December 9th:

A university scientist and the federal government say they have found persuasive evidence that oil from the massive Gulf of Mexico spill is settling on the ocean floor.

The new findings, from scientists at the University of South Florida and from a broad government effort, mark the latest indication that environmental damage from the blowout of a BP PLC well could be significant where it's hardest to find: deep under the Gulf's surface.

***

Scientists who have been on research cruises in the Gulf in recent days report finding layers of residue up to several centimeters thick from what they suspect is BP oil.

The material appears in spots across several thousand square miles of seafloor, they said. In many of those spots, they said, worms and other marine life that crawl along the sediment appear dead, though many organisms that can swim appear healthy.

***

Tests now have started to link some oil in the sediment to the BP well could add to the amount of money BP ends up paying to compensate for the spill's damage.

***

The test results also raise questions about the possible downsides of the government's use of chemical dispersants to fight the spill.

***

Under federal direction, about 1.8 million gallons of dispersants were sprayed on the spilled oil in an effort to break it up into tiny droplets that natural ocean microbes could eat up. At the time, officials said the dispersants shouldn't cause oil from the spill to sink to the seafloor. However, more recently, a federal report said dispersants may have helped some spilled oil sink to the sediment.

Scientific teams have reported in recent months finding a strange substance on the Gulf floor, in some cases as far as about 80 miles from BP's ill-fated Macondo well, which blew out in April and spilled an estimated 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf before it was capped.

***

"The chemical signatures are identical," said Mr. Hollander, who found the contaminated samples in an area of the Gulf floor off the Florida Panhandle. Although it's conceivable the tests could show a false match with the BP oil, "the statistical probability of something like that is unimaginable," Mr. Hollander said.

The federal government also has found oil matching Macondo oil in Gulf sediment, Steve Murawski, a top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, said in an interview. He declined to disclose how much sediment contamination the government found, or exactly where in the Gulf it was, saying experts still are analyzing the test results.

***

Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia oceanographer, also has found what she believes to be evidence of BP oil in Gulf sediment. She is awaiting lab results tracing the chemical fingerprints of sediment samples she took.

On a research cruise in the Gulf that ended Friday, she saw worms that crawl along the Gulf floor "just decimated," she said. But eels and fish, which can swim away, often appeared fine, she said.

The Journal noted on December 18th:

Oil from BP PLC's blown-out well has lodged in the sediment of the Gulf of Mexico at levels that may threaten marine life, according to a federal report released Friday.

***

There is no practical way to clean up the spilled oil that has settled deep in the Gulf, officials said, adding that microbes in the water could eventually eat it up.

The massive application of dispersants to hide the amount of oil spilled has caused major problems to the Gulf:

• The use of dispersants prevented clean up of the oil by skimming, by far the easiest method of removing oil from the water

• Dispersants make the toxins in crude oil more bioavailable to sealife, and scientists have found that applying Corexit to Gulf crude oil releases many times more toxic chemicals into the water column than would be released with crude alone (and see this)

• Dispersant might have caused some of the chemicals in oil to become airborne (and see this and this)

• The crude oil which does not become aerosolized sinks under the surface of the ocean, and can delay the recovery of the ecosystem by years or even decades (see the Wall Street Journal article quoted above)

• The overwhelming majority of studies find that dispersants slow the growth of oil-eating microbes

• Dispersants cause Gulf fish to absorb more toxins and then make it harder for the fish to get rid of the pollutants once exposed

• Dispersants may bioaccumulate in seafood

• Blood tests show elevated levels of toxic hydrocarbons in Gulf residents

Extend-And-Pretend Will Fail

As I noted in May - shortly after the spill started - the responses of the government to the Gulf Oil spill and to the financial crisis are remarkably similar, as both have focused on covering up the problems, instead of actually fixing them. Because the financial system was never really reformed, the next financial shock will send the economy reeling. Because the oil was never properly cleaned up, the next hurricane will stir up immense quantities of oil now lying on the sea floor.

Extend-and-pretend is being attempted in both cases, and - in both cases - it will fail, because nothing has been fixed, and the fundamentals can only remain hidden for so long.

Moreover, in both cases, the government used "highly toxic" measures to try to hide the real problems. The government has used "emergency measures" and virtually all of its resources to prop up the giant banks instead of using the proven methods of restructuring insolvent banks and prosecuting the criminals who caused the crisis, which has caused major problems for the real economy.

Similarly, the government applied close to 2 million gallons of highly toxic dispersant to hide the amount of oil instead of using it's resources to deploy tried-and-true clean up methods, which has caused significant problems for the Gulf.

Finally, new and potentially bigger crises will take place, because regulation hasn't been put in place to prevent them. Regulation of the financial system - including international agreements like Basil III - have been gutted (and see this). And as Time magazine notes:

Congress never managed to pass legislation that would have overhauled drilling safety.

Grocery stores erect fake "farmer's markets" in parking lots to trick shoppers

Saturday, December 25, 2010 by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Grocery stores across the country have begun appropriating the term "farmer's market" as a way to appeal to more environmentally and socially conscious consumers.

At farmer's markets, local farmers gather to sell their fresh produce directly to consumers. The popularity of these markets has surged in recent years and there are now 6,132 of them nationwide, 19 percent more than in 2009.

"Most likely, you can find a local farmer's market in or near your city, especially near rural areas," writes Edward F. Group III in his book Health Begins in the Colon.

"A farmer's market is the best place to buy your food because it is grown in your local environment and picked ripe, plus it supports local, small-production farmers."

Seeking to capitalize on this popularity, grocery chains such as Arizona-based Sprouts Farmers Market and Sunflower Farmers Market have simply taken the term as part of their names.

Although many consumers still understand the difference between a grocery store and a farmers market, some chains have taken the deception one step further.

In June, Safeway stores in the Seattle area put up signs next to outdoor stacks of produce announcing a "Farmers Market" -- yet the produce being sold was the same as that inside the store. A complaint by the Washington State Farmers Market Association led the store to rename the display.

Complaints had no effect on Albertsons supermarkets in Washington, Oregon or Idaho who have pursued similar tactics, however. A spokesperson for parent company Supervalu defended the term, noting that all the produce on display was indeed grown locally.

Joel Wachs, president of the Washington State Farmers Market Association, is unconvinced by the semantic argument.

"If we don't have ["farmer's market"] stand for a very simple thing -- farmers selling directly to consumers the produce they grow -- then you've lost what so many people find valuable and magic about these events," Wachs said.

'Bin Laden possibly dead; US silent'

A former White House spokesman has lashed out at the US government for using 'Osama bin Laden' as a pretext to continue its occupation of Afghanistan.
Sat Dec 25, 2010

"Since 2004, we have seen no new bin Laden videos," wrote ex-spokesman Robert Weiner and James Lewis, a US national security analyst at Robert Weiner Associates, suggesting bin Laden may be dead.

"We've only heard audios. One video released in 2007 could be a compilation of older videos. So why does the intelligence community continue to support the impression that he's alive?" read the article published in The Washington Times last Thursday.

"Last week, al-Qaeda issued its annual Christmas threat to the United States, promising suicide bombings during the holidays. Here's a better idea for a Christmas present from al-Qaeda: a video showing Osama bin Laden - or his grave," read the article.

"Is bin Laden dead or alive? Nobody seems to know for sure, or, if anybody does, he isn't saying. The White House's Afghanistan-Pakistan review this month didn't even mention him despite an ongoing, decade-long manhunt," said the two analysts in their article.

They also underlined that bin Laden is unlikely to be still alive due to his ill health.

"CIA reports, doctors and biographers have asserted that bin Laden had a range of diseases from typhoid to renal disease, Addison's disease, secondary osteoporosis and Marfan syndrome. Intelligence agencies think that in 2000, he had kidney-dialysis devices shipped to him in Afghanistan. His 1987 biography states that bin Laden was being treated with insulin for diabetes and suffered serious low blood pressure. Is it likely that the most wanted man in the world has been regularly receiving medical attention without detection for the past 10 years?" Weiner and Lewis wrote.

"In 2008, former CIA case officer Robert Baer asserted, 'Of course he's dead'," said the two analysts.

"In 2002 and 2009, Pakistani Presidents Pervez Musharraf and Asif Ali Zardari separately stated that bin Laden was dead. In 2002, FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson stated that bin Laden 'probably' was dead," read the article.

The two analysts also raised the possibility of bin Laden lookalikes or impersonators appearing in the videos.

"Everyone in America knows how spot-on impersonations can be. 'Saturday Night Live' ('SNL') has been doing them for years. Without the glasses, Tina Fey is herself; with them, she is Sarah Palin. Even the cast had difficult telling the difference and mixed them up when Mrs. Palin actually showed up. Amy Poehler's Hillary Clinton and Darrell Hammond's Bill Clinton have riveted late-night viewers for decades. Has Tina Fey met her match in al Qaeda?" wrote Weiner and Lewis in their article.

"Al Qaeda wants America and the world to believe bin Laden is still alive. His image is a specter of the horrors of Sept. 11, helping build public support for everything from troop surges a globe away to warrantless wiretaps at home," the article said.

"But the image of bin Laden is getting moldy, and there's little reason for his ghost to scare anyone anymore. If al Qaeda wants America to believe bin Laden is alive, it should put up or shut up," the analysts said.

Weiner and Lewis challenged al Qaeda to "send a new video that can be analyzed properly" to substantiate the terrorist group's claim that bin Laden is still alive.

Tax Cut Bill Signed By Obama Packed With Obscure Stocking Stuffers For Businesses

Saturday, December 25, 2010 by Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The massive new tax bill signed into law by President Barack Obama is filled with all kinds of holiday stocking stuffers for businesses: tax breaks for producing TV shows, grants for putting up windmills, rum subsidies for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

There is even a tax break for people who buy race horses.

Millions of homeowners, however, might feel like they got a lump of coal. Homeowners who don't itemize their deductions will lose a tax break for paying local property taxes.

The business tax breaks are part of sweeping legislation that extends Bush era tax cuts for families at every income level through 2012. Obama signed the $858 billion measure a week ago. It also provides a new payroll tax cut for wage earners and extends jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed.

Most of the business tax breaks - about 50 in all - are part of a package that expires each year, creating uncertainty for tax planners but lots of business for lobbyists. Many of these tax breaks have been around for years but expired at the end of 2009 because lawmakers couldn't agree how to pay for them.

The new law extends most of them through 2011, some through 2012. They will be paid for with borrowed money.

Nearly 1,300 businesses and trade groups formed a coalition urging Congress to extend the business tax breaks. Others lobbied for specific provisions, including a generous tax credit for research and development and subsidies to produce alternative energy.

There is a generous tax break for banks and insurance companies that invest overseas, a tax credit for railroad track maintenance, more generous write-offs for upgrading motorsport race tracks, and increased deductions for businesses that donate books and computers to public schools and libraries.

Many of the tax breaks are designed to encourage economic activity. But passing them each year at the last minute, or skipping a year and passing them retroactively, isn't terribly efficient, said Clint Stretch, a tax expert at Deloitte Tax LLP.

"It gives it a lot of dignity to call it a 'system,' " Stretch said.

Every year, taxpayers risk losing their favorite tax breaks, if they are not renewed. That's what happened to millions of homeowners. For 2008 and 2009, homeowners who didn't itemize their deductions were able to get an extra deduction - on top of the standard deduction - for paying local property taxes. Individuals could reduce their taxable income by as much as $500, couples could cut theirs by $1,000.

The provision, which has saved homeowners about $1.6 billion a year, expired for 2010 and was left out of the new tax law.

"A lot of Americans don't make so much money that they itemize their tax returns. But those same Americans own property," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who sponsored the original tax break. "It seems to me that they, too, should have the ability to deduct it. It's a matter of equity."

Taxpayers who itemize will continue to be able to deduct local property taxes. About two-thirds of tax filers don't itemize.

Among the provisions in the new law:

• A tax break that allows profitable companies to write off large capital expenditures immediately - rather than over time - giving some companies huge tax shelters.

The tax break, known as bonus depreciation, benefits automakers, utilities, heavy equipment makers like Caterpillar Inc., and John Deere, air freight companies like Fedex Corp., and wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T, said Anne Mathias, director of research for the Washington Research Group, which provides research to institutional and corporate investors. It will save companies nearly $21 billion over the next decade.

"It helps companies that use expensive capital equipment, that spend a lot of money," Mathias said. "It also helps places where the economy is growing, like wireless infrastructure, because there is a pretty big wireless build out right now."

The tax break is also available to people who buy race horses and farmers who buy cattle for breeding or dairy, according to a depreciation list produced by the Internal Revenue Service.

• An exemption that allows banks, insurance companies and other financial firms to shield foreign profits from being taxed by the U.S. through 2011. Cost: $9.2 billion.

The tax break is important to major multinational banks and financial firms, such as Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and to the financing operations of other international companies, Mathias said.

• A tax credit for research and development, benefiting a wide range of industries, including pharmaceutical and high tech companies. The law extends the tax credit through 2011, at a cost of $13.3 billion.

"The House and the Senate are in the holiday spirit and giving US companies a present of $13 billion in potential R&D Tax Credits!" says a press release by Braithwaite Global Inc., a firm that advises companies on applying for research tax credits.

• Increased tax rebates to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from a tax on rum imported into the United States. The U.S. imposes a $13.50 per proof-gallon tax on imported rum, and sends most of the proceeds to the two U.S. territories.

Previously, the rebate was $10.50 a gallon. The new law extends a more generous rebate of $13.25 a gallon through 2011. Cost: $262 million.

• Extends a grant program for the production of wind, solar and other renewable energy through 2011. Cost: $3 billion.

"This is a great holiday present for the 85,000 American workers in the wind energy industry, tens of thousands of whom will now be able to get back to work in a sector that has been a bright spot in the recession so far," Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement.

• Extends a 50 percent tax credit for expenses related to railroad track maintenance through 2011. Cost $331 million.
  
  
• Enhanced deductions for companies that donate food to the needy, books to public schools or computers to public libraries, through 2011. Cost: $537 million.
  
  
• A tax break that allows TV and movie productions to more quickly write off expenses, extended through 2011. Sexually explicit productions are ineligible. Cost: $101 million.

Faces of Economic Death

The growing imbalance between real wealth creation and worthless paper pushing is bad news
Sunday, December 26, 2010 by Salon.com
by David Sirota

If you've turned on the tube these last few weeks, you've probably been a collateral casualty of the biggest televisual war of attrition in recent memory. No, I'm not talking about the scripted skirmishes between cable channels, nor am I referring to the Battle of Zombie Talking Points that ate most of our brains during the election. I'm talking about the now never-ending throwdown between two of the most in-your-face salespeople our mediascape has ever manufactured: Geico's unnamed gecko and Progressive Insurance's chipper saleswoman, Flo.

No doubt, you know them both -- the green lizard's smile and cockney accent feign earnestness while the aproned Flo goes for the same effect through the saccharine enthusiasm of an “Office Space” character. It's mildly cute, but don't be fooled: As the best-known avatars of the insurance industry, these two are aggressively competing for our cash through re-education-camp levels of repetition, hoping to harass us into buying their product.

Certainly, there's nothing new about hard sells from TV charlatans. But these two represent something different, something apocalyptic -- and I say that not merely because their maddening ubiquity has driven me to the brink of insanity. I say it because they are peddling the kind of commodity that offers little tangible worth, waging a fight that promises no valuable innovation, and representing a larger insurance and finance sector that's hollowing out our economy.

Think about it: The gecko and Flo do not embody the capitalist vision of private competition fostering innovations that serve the greater good. They are not, say, two private manufacturers grabbing for customers in an entrepreneurial competition that will result in major technological advances.

Instead, the gecko and Flo front an insurance and related banking sector that is a government-supported endeavor -- car and health insurance are mandated and/or subsidized by the state, and deposits are federally guaranteed. This sector, which pools collective resources for (theoretically) collective benefits, provides services that are obviously crucial to the economy. But those services produce little added value beyond their baseline functions -- and that’s why the sector was once regulated like a utility.

Of course, such regulations were eviscerated in recent years, with the promise that competition would encourage self-regulating safeguards and value-added innovation. But as the AIG collapse, the Wall Street meltdown and periodic insurance premium increases exemplify, the effect has been the opposite. Rather than building real wealth for society, unregulated competition between the geckos and the Flos in the insurance and finance sector has often meant fine-print terms like "recission," esoteric maneuvers like "securitization" and acronym-cloaked schemes like CDOs -- that is, ever-more complex "innovations" to reduce customer payouts, increase fees, maximize private profit and limit executive liability, all under the TV-commercial guise of allegedly lower prices and better consumer returns.

In the global economy's increasingly fierce fight for genuine value and better living standards, this might not be so problematic if America's wealth-creating sectors (i.e., making things or providing valuable services) remained substantially larger than wealth-cannibalizing sectors like insurance and finance. But since the 1980s’ decline of manufacturing, the insurance and finance sector has doubled its share of gross domestic product, hitting 8 percent last year. That's twice as large as both the construction and information sectors -- and ongoing taxpayer bailouts promise to exacerbate the asymmetry even more.

This is certainly great for insurance companies -- for example, it provides them excess billions to buy an absurd amount of ads. For the rest of us, though, the growing imbalance between real wealth creation and worthless paper pushing is bad news -- and that’s why the gecko and Flo are so deeply disturbing. More than just the moment's most annoying shills, they are the cheeky visages of our nation's long-term economic decline.

Christmas Cheer the Corporate Way

Sunday, December 26, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
by Christopher Brauchli

"Happy Christmas to all." - Clement Clark Moore, The Night Before Christmas

During the holiday season it is always good to be reminded of one's many blessings. In the case of UBS employees they can be thankful that they work for UBS and not Sanofi-Aventis. The news they received shortly before Christmas is far less upsetting than the news many employees at Sanofi-Aventis received. UBS employees were told how to dress for work. Sanofi employees were told they were no longer working. First Sanofi.

Sanofi has a tradition of firing people at a time when spirits are high and news of the fact that one no longer has a job is not as traumatic as it would be at a time when there is no other reason to be happy. The most recent occurrence came right after Thanksgiving. According to Laura Bassett of Huffington Post, on November 30 of this year, employees received "happy thanksgiving" messages from the company that included a request that the employees check their e-mails at 5 AM on December 2. The 5 AM e-mail told the recipients to call a toll free number at either 8AM or 8:30AM. Those calling at 8AM were told they were still employees of the company and the 1700 employees who called at 8:30 were told they were no longer employees and should leave their desks immediately. A spokesman for the company, skilled in the art of understatement, said "We acknowledged in the call that delivering this news on a teleconference wasn't ideal but given the scope and scale of the reductions, there was no other way to share this news quickly and consistently." That seems a bit odd since it has had plenty of experience with laying people off and it would seem it might have discovered a better way to do it. In April 2010, following the Easter weekend, it sent an e-mail to 400 of its employees notifying them that they were being fired. In doing that it was following the tradition it had started at Thanksgiving time in 2008 when it fired a number of its employees. It also took advantage of the July 4, 2009 weekend to rid itself of chaff, and again at Thanksgiving that same year when it fired 750 employees. It took advantage of the 2009-holiday season to fire many of its contract pharmaceutical sales reps. Those who work at Sanofi are probably grateful that there are not more holidays.

UBS employees are probably grateful that all they got in anticipation of the holiday season was a 43-page book telling them how to dress.

In a tract, whose guidelines bring to mind the blue suit-white shirt days at IBM, UBS has established appearance guidelines for its Swiss retail banking staff. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the intent is to "-re-establish confidence in the Swiss bank's brand and mending relations with clients." Re-established confidence was needed following recent news about the bank's finances. In the fourth quarter the outflow from the bank of the "Wealth Management and Swiss Bank" division was Sfr. 33 billion. The "Wealth Management Americas" division lost Sfr.12 billion and the "Global Asset Management division had an outflow of Sfr. 11 billion. UBS also paid a $780 million fine imposed by the IRS under a deferred-prosecution agreement entered into in 2009. Any bank confronted with such problems was smart to try to regain public support by having its employees dress nicely and look good. The 43-page book is clearly the solution. Here are some of its suggestions and just reading them makes me want to go and open an account there.

Employees are told to wear suits in dark grey, black or navy blue since these colors "symbolize competence, formalism and sobriety." (Women often wear bright reds, pinks, blues, and other colors that inspire in the on-looker feelings of frivolity not usually associated with banking.) Women are advised that "light makeup consisting of foundation, mascara and discreet lipstick . . . will enhance your personality." The book says both men and women can increase their popularity with well cared for hair and a stylish haircut. Men are told that underwear should be of good quality and easily washable but be undetectable. It is not clear in what circumstances the bank's customers would be privy to male employees' skivvies although it is possible that in the super secret vaults access to things other than bank boxes may take place.

In recognition of the importance to the Swiss of wristwatches, employees are encouraged to wear wristwatches. Wrist watches, says the booklet, suggest "reliability and great care for punctuality." Older employees are told coloring hair to retain a youthful appearance is a mistake since youthful hair and aged skin are a poor match and don't fool anyone.

A spokesman for the bank said the guidelines might appear very detailed, and "in line with Swiss precision" an observation with which most readers would agree . Some might even call them anal. Whatever you call them, they are a lot better than the e-mails received by Sanofi workers telling them they were no longer employed by anyone.

More Body Scanners are Coming to an Airport Near You

Sunday, December 26, 2010 by The Washington Post
by Derek Kravitz

The full-body scanners in use at 78 U.S. airports can detect small amounts of contraband and hidden weapons, all while producing controversial images of travelers.

The "good catches," federal officials say, have largely gone unnoticed amid the criticism that erupted over the ghostly X-rays and "enhanced" pat-downs. The Transportation Security Administration, which intensified airport screening last month, points to several successes: small amounts of marijuana wrapped in baggies, other drugs stitched inside underwear, ceramic knives concealed in shirt pockets.

But the machines could miss something far more deadly: explosive material taped to someone's abdomen or hidden inside a cavity. Researchers and security experts question the technology's ability to detect chemical explosives that are odorless, far smaller than previous incarnations, and easily molded to fool machines and security screeners into thinking they are part of the human body.

Government testing, which has been mostly classified because of security concerns, has also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the full-body scanners.

Based partly on early successes, federal officials are planning to continue an unprecedented roll-out of the technology over the next year. By New Year's Day, about 500 machines will be in use across the country, including at the Washington area's three major airports. By the end of next year, 1,000 X-ray machines will be operational, accounting for roughly half of the nation's 2,000 lanes of security checkpoints.

Following the United States' lead, several nations have begun to test or install full-body scanners, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. U.S. officials have also considered whether the machines could be used to enhance security at passenger rail stations.

Federal officials say the scanners represent the best technology that has passed both lab and field tests. But as with reading an X-ray, training is the most important factor in making sure that TSA officers can spot potentially dangerous items on passengers.

"The bottom line is that we are now able to detect all types of the most dangerous weapons - nonmetallic explosive devices," TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball said. "Even in small amounts, it can be picked up."
Window dressing?

Two types of scanning machines - backscatter and millimeter wave - have been installed at airports since 2007, when they were launched as part of a pilot program at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Both machines produce the same full-body images that attracted controversy; they work by bouncing X-rays or radio waves off skin or concealed objects.

They have been installed at a quicker rate since a failed Christmas Day terrorist attempt last year in which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab hid explosives in his underwear on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The failed attack also prompted federal officials to use the scanners as a primary security technique at airports instead of a secondary, less frequent checkpoint feature.

Still, many security experts say the machines are expensive window dressing meant to put the traveling public at ease.

A recent paper published in the Journal of Transportation Security by two former University of California-San Francisco physicists said that images produced by the backscatter scanners would probably fail to show a large pancake-shaped object taped to the abdomen because it would be "easily confused with normal anatomy." As a result, a third of a kilo of PETN, a type of malleable explosive, which could be discovered by a pat-down, would be missed, the scientists said.

"It's not an explosives detector; it's an anomaly detector," said Clark Ervin, who runs the Homeland Security Program at the nonprofit Aspen Institute. "Someone has to notice that there's something out of order." Ervin was the first inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security.

PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, is hard to detect. Odorless and similar to a white crystal powder, it was used in both package bombs shipped to the United States in October and the Christmas airliner attempt last year. Those who plotted the cargo attack hid the explosive in toner cartridges and "clearly" tried to trick baggage screening technologies, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Brian Michael Jenkins, director of the Transportation Security Center at the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose, Calif., said he was unsure whether an advanced scanner would have discovered the explosives in Abdulmutallab's underwear. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has said it "remains unclear" whether he would have been caught by a full-body scanner. But a random assortment of security measures - and not the reliance on one technology or method - is key, Jenkins said.

"It's the mystery that drives our adversaries crazy," he said. "We need the unknown."
Drawbacks, advances

The Transportation Security Laboratory, a federal Homeland Security testing site created in 1992 at New Jersey's Atlantic City International Airport, began testing on full-body scanners in 2007. The detailed results of the testing performed in Atlantic City are classified because of security concerns, but interviews with more than a dozen former and current government officials and the limited release of its findings found:

- The detection of weapons and contraband varied by who was evaluating the images, indicating that some transportation security officers were less adept at spotting unusual or dangerous items.

- The "backscatter" rays can be obscured by body parts and might not readily detect thin items seen "edge-on."

- Objects hidden inside the body, in cavities, might be missed by both types of the scanning machines altogether.

"If you have someone who is rather fat or who has large breasts or buttocks, that's a factor, too," said Anthony Fainberg, a physicist and former program manager for explosives and radiation detection at Homeland Security.

Fainberg has lobbied for hand-held swabbing of hands and luggage for trace detection of explosives, especially on international flights.

"If you have something hidden behind flaps of flesh, it can be missed," he said. "I'm not worried about the safety of it at all, but I am concerned about what could be missed."

Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, said that the technology expands the TSA's security toolbox.

"It is not going to solve the problem, but it certainly comes a long way from where we were before," Cilluffo said. 'These things take time'

To address the litany of security and privacy concerns over the full-body scanners, federal officials are testing several new technologies that will probably make their way into airports in the coming months.

Homeland Security's research and design division, the Science and Technology Directorate, is testing a software patch being developed by the two companies behind the scanning technology - Rapiscan Systems and L-3 Communications - that would produce only a generic outline of a human body accompanied by a box or colored squares indicating a hidden anomaly or specific substance. An alarm might also be used to alert screeners to potential threats.

But TSA Administrator John S. Pistole said that the software, called automated target recognition, is not scoring well in lab tests, producing too many false-positive errors.

"It is a relatively complex math problem, but we're confident we're going to solve it and solve it soon," said Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan Systems. "But these things take time."

Meanwhile, federal researchers are testing systems that would scan passengers' shoes without having to take them off; a new generation of carry-on baggage equipment, such as conveyor systems; and smaller and faster baggage scanning machines, which could check 1,500 bags per hour, up from an average of 300 to 400 per hour. Technology developed at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory could identify liquids through opaque containers, such as a soda can or juice pouch.

Billionaires Should Pay No Taxes At All!

by James and Jean Anton
www.endendlesswars.org
Sunday, 19 December 2010

When Obama said America was being “held hostage” by the Republicans, that he had no choice but to compromise, he lied.

He could have pushed the Public Option (sorry to bring this up Mr. President. We know how much it upsets you when we “fucking retards” bring it up). He could have extended unemployment insurance. He could have fought unemployment by Just Saying "No" to outsourcing. He could have proposed a jobs program like FDR did in the form of public works, and improved the infrastructure to boot. He could have attacked the decade-old billionaire and millionaire tax empire by proposing to raise their taxes to help pay off the deficit they created. He could have done some of the above using reconciliation, or he could have shown some real leadership.

He could have been the transformational leader that we thought we elected.

Of course, he didn’t. And of course, he wasn’t.

Instead Obama chose to act as if the Republicans were in charge, which they were not, claiming they were holding a gun to his head, which they weren’t - that he was being held hostage, which he was not.

He “compromised.”

He invited the Republican leadership to the White House, and offered to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years. These cuts originally were a “temporary” Bush-era ploy to “help the economy.” They did nothing of the sort. Instead they handed tax-free windfall billions to the most privileged people in America. The cuts cost 544 billion dollars, and resulted in an economic crisis that began in 2008 and continues today.

In addition, he sweetened the “deal” by proposing a Social Security “tax holiday“ (which will deprive the Social Security Trust Fund of 112 billion dollars), and an extension of the Estate Tax windfall that will benefit three-tenths of 1 percent of Americans (and cost Americans another 68 billion dollars over the next 10 years.)
There would be many other tax breaks for energy interests and select businesses as well.

Total cost for his proposal: More than 860 billion dollars. His “compromise” will cost more than the Bush/Cheney tax scam. It is almost as much as the total cost of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan since 2001. It is more than twice the cost of Medicare.

He did not dare run these audacious ideas by the Democratic rank and file. Instead he invited the ultra-conservative Republican leadership to the White House, and made a deal.

There would be no national debate.

There would be no debate at all.

Obama went over to the Republican side, drew a line in the sand, and thumbed his nose at the rest of us.

He declared that Progressives and Liberals shouldn’t act like “sanctimonious purists.” That they should put the interests of America ahead of their own interests. In other words, he accused his own constituency of not caring as much about the welfare of America as his plutocrat constituents do.

Republicans were surprised and delighted. (Some pretended to believe they could have gotten even more... but the reality is that most Republicans felt like they had just taken Ecstasy). Newspapers like the Washington Post hailed the “compromise” as "the most significant bipartisan vote since President Obama took office.” He was congratulated by Senate minority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, who consistently receives a 100% score from the ultraconservative American Conservative Union.

Newt Gingrich approved and applauded. Need we say more?

You don’t have to be an economist or a think-tank devotee to see why they were so happy.

Obama made fools of the American people.

The plutocrats know that in 2012, when Obama runs for reelection, America will still be held hostage. This is because in regular hostage deals, the criminals give up the hostages before they receive the pay off.

Obama never freed the hostages.

Plutocrats are giddy because they know that Obama served them once, and that he will serve them again. His willingness to “compromise” guarantees that the tax empire give-away will soon be made permanent.

They are orgiastic because they know that Obama has no real intention to rescind the Social Security tax “holiday.” He practically said so. Not in 2012, not ever.

As long as the Social Security trust fund is there to prop up the economy, Obama will siphon it off. Money will flow from the nest eggs of the working class into the pockets the ruling class.

And what did Obama get for regular Americans with his “compromise”?

Those who pay into Social Security get a little extra pocket money from Obama’s “tax holiday.” Obama hopes that we spend every dime of it, to stimulate the economy. If we put it in the bank, the “tax holiday” will not stimulate anything.

People who are dependent upon Social Security get nothing.

Obama will show how serious he is about deficit reduction by freezing Social-Security payments for eternity. Not only will the trust fund be siphoned off, it will be steadily diminished by inflation.

Employees who are exempt from paying Social Security (who have exempt state-run or other pension plans) also get nothing. No extra cash. Nada.

Low-income workers may actually see reductions in their paychecks. The way the law is written, approximately 50 million taxpayers (approximately one out of three) who make less than $20,000 will see an increase in taxes.

The unemployed get a short-lived extension of benefits. But Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicts that it will take four or five more years before we are back to “normal” unemployment levels. Do you think Obama will have the guts or the will to ask the hostage takers to pay out unemployment checks for four or five years?

And no one seriously expects the Obama “compromise” to create jobs for anyone.

What will happen when the economy does not improve (for us regular Americans)? What will happen when the Social Security trust fund shrivels away? What will happen when unemployment benefits run out again? And again... ?

We are not supposed to worry about that for now.

One can only speculate.

Maybe Obama will go to the plutocrats again and take their advice. Maybe he’ll draw another line in the sand and dare us “fucking retards” to cross it.

Maybe he’ll declare that BILLIONAIRES SHOULD PAY NO TAXES AT ALL.

And give us regular Americans a Medicare Tax Holiday!

Those claiming there is a 'War on Xmas' Ignore its Pagan Roots

Christians' Worries About So-Called 'War on Christmas' Ignore Holiday's Pagan Roots 
By SKEETER SANDERS

Monday, 20 December 2010

Ah, December.

'Tis the season when most of us are thinking about opening gifts under brightly lighted trees. Of kissing someone special under the mistletoe. Of eating, drinking and making merry. And, above all, of hoping for peace on Earth and goodwill to all.

But in 2010, on what ought to be the most festive time of the year -- despite the lingering recession -- "goodwill to all" again appears to be in short supply in America among certain people, who continue to rail against what they perceive as a so-called "War on Christmas" because of what appears to be a lessening in recent years of the Christian symbolism of the holiday.

And a new survey out this week is likely to add to the conservatives' worries.

IT'S CATHOLICS VS. ATHEISTS AGAIN -- THIS TIME WITH DUELING BILLBOARDS

A battle of dueling holiday billboards has erupted between the New York-based Catholic League and the New Jersey-based American Atheists, with the atheist group's signs blaring "You Know It's a Myth! This Season, Celebration Reason!" -- referring to the birth of Jesus, and the Catholic League's billboards blaring back, "You Know It's Real! This Season, Celebrate Jesus!"

The League, angered by what it saw as an anti-Christmas billboard put up by the atheist group at the New Jersey entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel that connects New Jersty and New York City, countered by putting up one of its own on the New York side of the tunnel.

"We decided to counterpunch after a donor came forward seeking to challenge the anti-Christmas statement by American Atheists," Catholic League president William Donohue said on the organization's Web site.

But David Silverman, president of American Atheists, insisted, in a statement to CNN, that his group's billboard isn't aimed at believers, but at "the 50 million atheists in this nation" and to get passing commuters to "think hard about whether or not they actually believe in what is, in reality, an invisible magic man in the sky."

This isn't the first time that atheists and Catholics have clashed over Christmas. In 2008, the atheist group Freedom From Religion erected a sign in Olympia, Washington that didn't sit well with some christian conservatives.

Freedom From Religion's sign, aimed at staking its own claim on the holiday season, proclaimed the atheist reliance on reason, rejects common religious beliefs and asserts the independence of the natural world:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

The sign drew a sharp rebuke from conservative Fox News talk-show host Bill O'Reilly, a devout Catholic, who branded it part of a "War on Christmas" by secularists that he's been railing against on his TV program every December since 2003.

NEW SURVEYS FIND MANY AMERICANS IGNORE RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF CHRISTMAS

Two new surveys released Monday aren't likely to quell conservatives' anxiety about Christmas becoming less and less about the birth of Jesus.

The polls -- conducted by Gallup and by LifeWay Research, a Nashville-based Christian research organization -- found that more than 90 percent of Americans observe Christmas, regardless of whatever faith they follow -- or not follow.

But the surveys, published Monday in USA Today, also found a wide discrepancy in how American view the religious aspects of the holiday. In the LifeWay poll, 74 percent regarded Christmas as primarily a religious holiday, but in the Gallup poll, only 51 percent felt that way.

The LifeWay survey found that more than a third of Americans who celebrate Christmas place little to no emphasis on the holiday be a celebration of the birth of Jesus -- as USA Today put it, for this group, "O Come-all-ye-partiers trumps O Come, All Ye Faithful."

"A lot of Americans celebrate Christmas like they participate in yoga: Unaware and unconcerned about its religious roots," Ed Stetzer, LifeWay's president and a Southern Baptist pastor, told the newspaper.

DECEMBER 25 HOLIDAY PRE-DATES BIRTH OF JESUS BY THOUSANDS OF YEARS

Yet Stretzer and other Christians who lament what they see is the "de-Christianization of Christmas" are ignoring the fact that the holiday's roots go back farther -- much farther -- than the birth of Jesus.

They're also ignoring the fact that there are literally millions of Americans who are not Christian and have December holidays of their own. Why should Hanukkah or Kwanzaa or Yule not get the recognition they richly deserve? Why should those holidays be ignored or subsumed under Christmas?

And contrary to what O'Reilly and other conservatives say, Christmas is not a strictly Christian religious holiday in the first place. If it were, Christmas could not, under the U.S. Constitution, be designated a public holiday without violating the First Amendment's ban on the government favoring one religion over another -- Good Friday and Easter Sunday aren't public holidays for that very reason.

Christmas is observed not only by millions of non-Christians in America, but also by billions of non-Christians around the world and is a public holiday even in countries where Christians are a minority, including Nigeria, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, China (Hong Kong and Macau), India, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Palestinian Territories, Singapore and Taiwan.

Christmas has never been -- and will never be -- a Christian-only celebration and the time has come for Christian conservatives to stop denying the holiday's true origins, for it didn't start with the birth of Jesus in a Bethlehem stable. The truth is, the holiday the world celebrates each year on the 25th of December is the most ancient holiday on the planet.

What we now call Christmas is actually the Christian adaptation of the many millennia-old Pagan celebrations of the Winter Solstice. With the notable exception of the Nativity creche, all of the symbols and decorations that we associate today with Christmas -- the tree, the wreath, the holly and the ivy, the lights, the mistletoe, the eggnog, the Yule log, the caroling and even Santa Claus -- are of Pagan origin and have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Indeed, the very word "Christmas," with its direct reference to Jesus as "The Christ" -- which is derived from the Greek word kristos, or "savior" -- is almost exclusive to English-speakers. In only nine other languages -- Dutch (Kerstfeest), Farsi (Cristmas-e-shoma), French (Noel), Greek (Kristouyenna), Indonesian (Natal), Italian (Natale), Portugese (Natal), Spanish (Navidad) and Ukranian (Khrystouvym) -- does the name of this holiday come even close to referring to the birth of the Christ child.

Many Americans often refer to Christmas as "the Yuletide." And no wonder: Yule is the Winter Solstice. Most modern Pagans still celebrate Yule. Even most Christians use "Christmas" and "Yule" interchangeably to describe the season without even thinking about its Pagan origins.

Yule celebrates the beginning of the sun's light and warmth returning to the northern hemisphere after reaching its southernmost point on the Earth at the Tropic of Capricorn on the Winter Solstice -- which this year will occur this evening (Tuesday) at 6:38 pm EST, some 13 1/2 hours after the end a spectacular total lunar eclipse that took place during the pre-dawn hours of this morning. It is one of the two very ancient Pagan holidays that are still widely celebrated in the Western world -- and beyond -- relatively intact. The other is our modern celebration of Halloween.

[In the interest of full disclosure, this writer is obliged to state for the record that I, a former Roman Catholic, am a Pagan; more specifically, a Wiccan. Yule has special significance for me personally: It marks the anniversary of my conversion in 1984 to Wicca, the largest and best-known "denomination" of modern Western Paganism.]

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTMAS TREE

If you really want to be historically accurate, then the Christmas tree should rightly be called the Yule tree, for it dates back nearly 5,000 years to the Celtic Druids. They revered evergreens as manifestations of deity because they did not "die" from year to year, but stayed green and alive when other plants appeared dead and bare. The trees represented everlasting life and hope for the return of spring.

Best known today for their celebrations of the Summer Solstice in June at Stonehenge, the Druids decorated their trees for the winter solstice in December with symbols of prosperity: a fruitful harvest, coins for wealth and various charms such as those for love or fertility.

Scandinavian Pagans, particularly the Norse, became the first to bring their decorated trees indoors, as this provided a warm and welcoming environment for the native fairy folk to join in the festivities.

The Saxons, a Pagan tribe from what is now Germany, were the first to place lights on the their trees in the form of candles (an extremely dangerous fire hazard by today's standards). For centuries, the ancient Romans decorated their homes with evergreens at the winter solstice festival of Saturnalia -- which also marked the Roman New Year -- and exchanged evergreen branches with friends as a sign of good luck.

Christians' use of the tree symbol for the December holidays did not begin until the 16th century, when devout Catholics in what is now Italy brought decorated trees into their homes. The German-born Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria, is credited with starting the tradition in England in 1841 when he brought the first Christmas tree into Windsor Castle.

THE EIGHT PAGAN HOLIDAYS

Nature's cycles of winter, spring, summer and fall (and everything else in between) are so much a part of human life and society on Earth that to acknowledge, celebrate and even sanctify those cycles is a primal need we simply cannot ignore. Just ask any ski-resort operator in winter or swimming-pool operator in summer -- or any farmer, for that matter.

Yet those who follow the world's three great monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- have long been reluctant to do so and instead instituted their own rituals, holy days and festivals. The fact that many of the major Christian, Jewish and Muslim holidays -- and even some civic and national holidays -- often occur in tandem with the eight major Pagan holidays during the course of the year is no accident.

In addition to the Winter Solstice celebration of Yule on December 20-22 (depending on the actual date of the solstice itself from one year to the next), the other seven Pagan holidays are:

• Imbolg or Candlemas (Groundhog Day, February 2) -- also known among Catholics as St. Brigid's Day;

• Eostre or Ostara (Spring Equinox, March 20-22);

• Beltaine (May Day, May 1);

• Litha (Summer Solstice, June 20-22);

• Lammas or Lughnasadh (Midsummer's Day, August 1);

• Mabon (Autumn Equinox, September 20-22);

• Samhain (pronounced SOW-en), the Wiccan New Year (Halloween, October 31).

This is one reason why Easter (whose name in English is a derivative of Eostre) always falls on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the Spring Equinox and why Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, almost always falls in close proximity to the Autumn Equinox.

Jews transformed the three ancient harvest festivals of the Canaanites into the three festivals of Creation (Tabernacles), Revelation (Pentecost), and Redemption (Passover). Likewise, Christians and Muslims transformed their ancient, Nature-based festivals into celebrations of the singular events in, respectively, the life of Jesus and the career of the Prophet Mohammed.


HOW AN ANCIENT ROMAN HOLIDAY BECAME CHRISTMAS

After Christianity was proclaimed the state religion of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine in 312 C.E. (Common Era), the early Christian church -- now the Vatican -- used the transformation of the ancient holidays and festivals as a tool to convert Pagans to Christianity throughout the empire and beyond.

Yet the church barred Christians from holding any kind of celebration to honor the birth of Jesus, primarily because the actual date of his birth was unknown -- and remains unknown to this day, although there is some astronomical and archaeological evidence suggesting that Jesus was actually born in the spring.

The church's ban was lifted in 350 C.E., when Pope Julius I proclaimed a feast day to celebrate Jesus' birth -- and deliberately chose December 25 as the date to hold "Christ's Mass" to absorb and Christianize not only Yule, but also Saturnalia, which honored Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture.

Saturnalia was celebrated with feasting, gift-giving and role-reversal between men and women and between slaves and their masters. It was also marked by the unabashed enjoyment of sensual and erotic pleasures, which many conservative Christians today strongly condemn as wanton debauchery, but still survives in our time (primarily around New Year's Eve).

And because Saturnalia also marked the Roman New Year under the Julian calendar, the changeover to the present-day Gregorian calendar in 1582 resulted in the one-week interval between Christmas Day and New Year's Day.

Upper-class Romans also celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the sun god, on December 25. It was believed that Mithra, an infant god, was born of a rock. For them, Mithra's birthday was the most sacred day of the year -- especially since the daylight from the sun began to lengthen on the 25th, following the winter solstice.

CHRISTIANITY VS. PAGANISM

The current debate in the United States over "Christmas" versus "Holiday" trees, decorations and greetings is part of a much deeper clash of cultures that has gone on for centuries: Christianity vs. Paganism.

Paganism is pantheistic and circular; Christianity is monotheistic and linear. Pagans celebrate the eternal natural cycle of being. Christians venerate the linear concept of progress, from creation to ultimate redemption.

Pagans live in the realm of the eternal recurrence. Pagan rites maintain harmonious relationships among the gods; thus, these rituals guarantee the continuity of Nature's cycles, which Nature-based human societies depend on for their sustenance.

Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) worship the God who created all natural things and stands above them. To them, when God intervenes in the world, it is not to create a disruption of natural events, but rather to generate some wonderful new direction in human affairs.

It is at the Winter Solstice -- more so than at any other time of the year -- that people of Judeo/Christian/Muslim faith feel most acutely the tension between the origins of their religion in Pagan Nature worship on the one hand and the evolution of their faith into belief in a single God and a linear remembrance of historical events and teachings on the other.

SURVEY REVEALS AMERICA'S GROWING RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

And for many conservative Christians in particular, that tension could only have grown sharper in recent years as the number of Americans who do not identify themselves as Christian has been growing sharply since 1990, according to data compiled by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), a private poll conducted by researchers at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and funded by the Lilly Endowment and the Posen Foundation.

The U.S. Census Bureau is constitutionally barred from directly compiling data on the religious affiliations of Americans, thus the ARIS survey -- the third conducted by Trinity College since 1990 -- is considered authoritative.

The latest ARIS survey of more than 54,000 people conducted between February and November of 2008 and released in March of this year showed that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christians -- inclusive of all its denominations -- has fallen to 76 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990.

Those who do call themselves Christian are more frequently describing themselves as "nondenominational" "evangelical" or "born again." Significantly, the ARIS survey found, this increase corresponds strongly with a dramatic decline in the number of Americans who identify themselves as so-called "mainline" Protestants -- particularly Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians -- which fell from 17 million in 1990 to only five million today.

A SHARP RISE IN 'SPIRITUAL, BUT NOT RELIGIOUS' AMERICANS -- ESPECIALLY IN NEW ENGLAND

At the same time, the ARIS survey found the proportion of Americans who declined to state any religious affiliation has skyrocketed, from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 15 percent today, with the vast majority of this group identifying themselves as "spiritual, but not religious."

This group is most heavily concentrated in northern New England and the Pacific Northwest. Vermont leads all other states in this category by a full nine percentage points, with a record-high 34 percent of its residents identifying themselves as "spiritual, but not religious."

Out of a total U.S. adult population of 175.4 million people who professed a religious or spiritual belief system in the first ARIS poll in 1990, 151.4 million, or roughly 85 percent, identified themselves as Christian.

In the second ARIS survey in 2001, 159.5 million out of a total 207.9 million believers -- 76 percent -- identified themselves as Christian.

Now, out of a total U.S. adult population of 228 million believers, 173.4 million identified themselves as Christian, unchanged in percentage terms from the 76 percent the ARIS survey found in 2001.

A SHIFT IN ROMAN CATHOLIC POPULATION TO THE SOUTHWEST

The 2009 ARIS survey notes that America’s religious geography -- particularly of the nation's 57.2 million Roman Catholics -- has been transformed since 1990. "Religious switching along with Hispanic immigration has significantly changed the religious profile of some states and regions," the survey's principal authors, Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, reported.

"Between 1990 and 2008, the Catholic population proportion of the New England states fell from 50 percent to 36 percent and in New York state, it fell from 44 percent to 37 percent, while it rose in California from 29 percent to 37 percent and in Texas from 23 percent to 32 percent."

BAPTISTS, MORMONS, MUSLIMS AND PAGANS UP; BUDDHISTS, HINDUS DOWN; JEWS HOLD STEADY

Other key findings in the 2009 ARIS survey:

• Baptists, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, have increased their numbers by two million since 2001, to 36.1 million, but continue to decline as a proportion of the population, from 16.3 percent in 2001 to 15.8 percent today. 

• Mormons -- members of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- have increased in numbers enough (3.1 million) to hold their own proportionally, at 1.4 percent of the population.

• The number of Muslim Americans continues to grow, from 527,000 in 1990, to 1.3 million today. Immigration accounts for the most of the increase, including Iranian refugees from the 1979 revolution, Bosnians from the 1990s war in the Balkans and Somalians from the still-ongoing violence there.

• Adherents of co-called "new religious movements" -- including Wiccans and self-described Pagans -- have grown faster this decade than in the 1990s. While there was no census of American Pagans in 1990, the 2001 ARIS survey did report at least 307,000 Americans identifying themselves as such, with 134,000 professing to be Wiccans, 33,000 as Druids and 140,000 as eclectic "neo-Pagans" of a wide spectrum of traditions.

(For the 2009 survey, there was no faith-specific breakdown of adherents in the "new religious movements" category, instead listing 2.8 million such Americans today, compared to 1.7 million in 2001.)

• The number of American adherents of Eastern religions -- Buddhism, Shinto and Hinduism -- which more than doubled in the 1990s -- has declined slightly, from 2.02 million in 1990 to 1.96 million today. However, the number of Buddhists alone edged up slightly from 1.08 million in 2001 to 1.18 million now.

(Buddhists have their own major holiday in December: Bodhi Day -- December 8 -- which celebrates the story of how the philosopher Siddartha Gautama of India became the Buddha by sitting under a bodhi tree and vowing to remain there until he achieved total enlightenment.)

• In strictly religious terms, Jewish Americans continue to decline numerically, from 3.1 million in 1990 to 2.7 million today -- 1.2 percent of the population. However, when defined more broadly as an ethnic group, including those who do not practice the faith, the American Jewish community has remained remarkably stable since 1990.

ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS REMAIN SMALL PROPORTION OF U.S. POPULATION; SECULARISTS DROPPED FROM SURVEY

The number of Americans who call themselves atheists or agnostics remains relatively small, the new ARIS survey found. But based on stated beliefs, 1.62 million, or 2.3 percent, are atheists (believe there is no God) and 1.98 million, or 4.3 percent, are agnostics (unsure if God exists or not).

The 2001 ARIS survey counted an even smaller number of Americans -- 53,000 -- as identifying themselves as "secular" and still fewer -- 43,000 -- calling themselves "humanists." There was no accounting of either group in 1991 and they were dropped from the 2009 survey as statistically insignificant.

The truth is, America at the close of the first decade of the 21st century is more religiously and spiritually diverse now than it's ever been before in its more-than-234-year history -- and conservative Christian majoritarians are going to have to deal with it, whether they like it or not.

IS IT A PAGAN CHRISTMAS OR A CHRISTIAN YULE?

If they wanted to, today's Pagans could reclaim the Christmas tree -- indeed, all the decorative trappings of Christmas, save for the Nativity creche -- as being rightfully theirs, since Pagans created them in the first place.

But modern Pagans are a practical lot, with most viewing Christmas simply as the Christian world celebrating Yule in their own way -- albeit, three to five days after the actual winter solstice -- and thus see no conflict in celebrating at least the secular aspects of Christmas themselves.

And December isn't called the holiday season for nothing. There's also Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Boxing Day and scores of other holidays and festivals around the world this month -- all of which culminate in the ringing in of the new year at midnight on December 31.

Thanks to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar as the universal calendar used worldwide and the global system of 24 time zones, New Year's Day is our only truly global holiday -- which we all got to watch unfold on our TV screens in all its joyful glory a decade ago as we greeted the turn of the millennium (albeit, a year too soon, since there mathematically never was a Year Zero).

So whichever way you celebrate the holidays, may yours be filled with joy, peace and love.

Bottom of the Barrel

by John Turner| RSN
Thursday, 23 December 2010

There is widespread agreement that the Senate of the United States is a pathetic institution. If that’s true -- and I guess it is -- then the inhabitants of the Senate must also be less than sterling examples of humanity. If they were as bright as the members of a national legislature ought to be they wouldn’t have allowed their body to descend to its degenerate condition.

Thinking about the Senate raises the question of just how bad senators can get. Obviously, there are many candidates for the nadir, so many you wonder what was in the minds of voters who sent them to the capitol. You can even wonder if such voters have minds. But which state has voters so benighted they would choose the worst members of the U.S. Senate? That’s a question for the Christmas season.

Clearly -- really beyond doubt -- three states are in the running. They are -- in alphabetical order -- Arizona, Oklahoma and South Carolina. They have selected six men for the senate who are virtually unbelievable. But which pair is the worst? This is not a walkaway contest. There’s genuine competition here.

From Arizona, we have John McCain and Jon Kyl. As soon as you list their names you say, “My God!” and put your hand to your forehead. But you need to remember they both have been in the headlines recently for saying astoundingly dopey things about legislation that has just been passed. Yet this is a contest for behavior over a longer period than just the last month. Both Kyl and McCain have said insane things throughout their careers. So I’m not ruling them out. But we should insist that recent headlines alone not be allowed determine the winner of this contest.

Oklahoma has sent us Tom Coburn and James Inhofe. These are men who are not aware that the 20th Century occurred. In the case of Inhofe it seems almost insensitive to accuse him of being a bad senator. It’s as if the citizens of Oklahoma had sent a mule to the senate. Would you say that a mule was a bad senator, or would you just sit back and be regaled by the spectacle? Coburn is so obsessed by gay people he says they constitute the greatest threat to American freedom that exists. What can be made of a man who, in a world with fairly serious threats from disease, atomic weapons, and rampant climate changes, thinks that gay people out-threat them all? It’s hard to know what sort of mind that is.

The Palmetto state presents us with Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint. The latter falls almost into the same category as Jim Inhofe. You just can’t say what’s going on there. Should it be called mental illness? Like Coburn, DeMint is obsessed with sex and he seems almost to take his curious attitudes farther than the Oklahoma senator does. He doesn’t want single people who are schoolteachers to be able to have sexual relations. I don’t recall that he has announced a plan for sniffing them out but he must have a scheme of some sort or other. Thinking about it gives me the willies.

Then we come to Lindsey. You’ll recall that when he was in the House, and Republicans were in a state of mania about Bill Clinton, Lindsey led the charge for impeachment. Since then, there have been times when he hasn’t seemed quite as loony as his five companions. But when he does go nuts he does it in a bigger way. He wants, for example, to bomb Iran, evidently right now. He doesn’t think people born in the United States should automatically receive citizenship; he wants the Constitution changed to repeal that provision. And though he once seemed concerned about global warming, he has decided recently it’s not all that big a deal. He’s also incredibly smarmy.

I told you it wasn’t an easy choice. I couldn’t say, for sure, you were wrong if you chose any one of the three states. But after jumping back and forth, back and forth, Lindsey Graham’s face floats before my mind’s eye and I feel compelled to go with South Carolina. It’s the smarminess, I think, that does it for me. Lindsey may be not only the smarmiest person in the United States but the smarmiest person in the world. I say that but then of course, I think of Joe Lieberman.

I trust you understand all this is opinion. There’s no factual way to say who are the worst senators because there’s no factual way to say what’s bad. In your opinion, gay people may be the biggest threat, in which case, there you are.

And the rich get richer

December 18, 2010 | Tim Rutten | RSN

Today's Republicans might want to remember that the estate tax's modern champion was a president they used to regard as among the greatest the party has produced — Theodore Roosevelt.

Of the several objectionable provisions included in the tax compromise that congressional Republicans extorted from the Obama administration, none is more noxious than the one that all but guts the estate tax.

Even the needless and unfair continuation of tax reductions for families making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year merely extends a benefit already enjoyed by affluent households. Estate tax cuts, by contrast, create a whole new windfall for those who already enjoy privileges and security undreamed of by the vast majority of Americans.

The provision is the work of Arizona's John Kyl, the Senate's second-ranking Republican and a longtime advocate of abolishing the estate tax. To most eyes, the former estate levy didn't look like much of a burden; it allowed couples to leave their heirs?$7 million tax free and taxed any additional inheritance at 45%. Kyl's plan, which he has crowed is as good as abolition, increases the exemption to $10 million for couples and reduces the tax rate on the rest to just 35%. The average windfall for the approximately 6,600 wealthy taxpayers annually affected by the estate duty will top? $1.5 million.

Abolishing the estate tax has been a goal of some conservative Republicans since the 1940s, so it's easy to forget that its modern champion was a president the GOP used to regard as among the greatest the party has produced — Theodore Roosevelt. Like many thoughtful Americans of his era, he believed the disproportionate accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few would make a mockery of our meritocracy and, ultimately, of our democracy. In 1910, he summed up those feelings. "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used," Roosevelt said. "It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.... The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

In 1916, eight years after Roosevelt left office, Congress finally recognized the justice of his case and incorporated a levy on estates into the tax code.

In fact, American governments have taxed estates, at least on a temporary basis, since the founding. The first estate duty was imposed by the Federalists to finance the undeclared war with France; Abraham Lincoln imposed a temporary inheritance tax during the Civil War. It clearly is a pillar of any rationally progressive tax system, and it is no accident that it's under assault in what amounts to a new Gilded Age in which wealth is accumulating with ever-greater rapidity in a smaller and smaller number of hands. The hereditary advantage such unchecked concentration confers undermines our notions of equal opportunity and turns the American dream into little more than a genetic lottery.

Arguments that the existing estate tax frustrates initiative simply are nonsense. Has anybody noticed a shortage of rich people lately?

It's also no mystery how such advantages are obtained. Again, Roosevelt's appraisal of the first Gilded Age is sadly resonant. "The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state," he said, "because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."

It is particularly grotesque that, in this instance, those who derive their special advantage from the government by reason of the wealth they've amassed have secured this benefit by holding hostage the meager assistance Washington affords the one in 10 Americans who currently are jobless. In California, 12.4% of the workers are unemployed; in L.A. County, where bankruptcies have risen by 30% over the last year, nearly 13% are jobless. Of the 15 million Americans who are without work, 42% have been looking for a job for more than five months. An additional 9 million have been forced to accept part-time work, though they'd like full-time employment.

Those are the people the Republicans held hostage, so that the children of the rich might grow fatter still.

Fracking America

by Madeleine Kando- Reader Supported News
Saturday, 25 December 2010

If you are as naive as I am about where the heat in your house comes from, then the expression 'ignorance is bliss' applies to you. I, too, was blissfully ignorant until I spoke to my friend Jan. She has a little thirty acre farm right on Cayuga Lake in upstate New York, where she tries to make ends meet with her new husband Michael. I visit her sometimes and the ride from Boston is long enough to remind me, once again, how BIG this country is. Big and beautiful.

There is this feeling of generousness about America. The land itself is so enormous that you can drown in it. When I fly to Hawaii, while everyone else is sleeping or trying to kill time any way they can, I look out the window and I am mesmerized by the vastness of it all. There is no end to the deserts, canyons, valleys and mountain ranges that pass us by.

But after my most recent conversation with Jan, huge cracks have started to appear in my vision of America as an invincible giant. Let me tell you why.

The area where Jan lives, the Finger Lakes area, sits on top of the Marcellus shale, a geologic formation with huge natural gas deposits. The problem is that the gas is trapped inside rock (shale) and the only way to get at it is to crack the rock. The gas industry has come up with an ingenious method called 'hydraulic fracturing' or 'fracking' for short, whereby they pump water mixed with sand and chemicals under very high pressure into the rock, eventually creating fissures. The millions of gallons of water they need, they take (often without permission) from the local lakes and rivers. The elaborate cocktail of chemicals which gets mixed in is a very well guarded 'secret of the trade'.

They have to drill very deep, under the water table. At the depth of the gas deposit, they continue drilling sideways (it's called horizontal fracking) to get at as much gas as possible. They inject the water mixed with chemicals and frack a large sub-terranean area reaching for miles around the original well pad.

I won't go into too many details for want to space, other than to say that, in the fracking process, the ground water often gets contaminated. It makes the cattle sick, water can be set on fire and children develop mysterious diseases.

Forget terrorists. That's child's play compared to what big Oil and Gas can do to us. The Marcellus shale sits under the Upper Delaware River Watershed which supplies water to about 40 million Americans, including New York City and Philadelphia. Intensive drilling for natural gas has already started there. Numerous cases of contamination have been reported so far.

It's not just New York State and the Marcellus Shale where the nightmare is playing out. Here is a movie about the Upper Green River Valley in Wyoming. It is one of the great migration routes for much of the wildlife in that area. Unfortunately for the wildlife, it also sits on top of large gas deposits. The Bureau of Land Management is allowing gas companies to destroy this beautiful bastion of the Wild West. Rather than manage the land so that it benefits wildlife and the ranchers, BLM bids off the extracted gas to the highest (international bidder). Granted, drilling for gas does help the local economy. But at what cost?

This is what America looks like when it's fracked. Who knows, maybe in the not too distant future, we will only be able to view the 'Wild West' in John Wayne movies. The real thing will have disappeared without us noticing it, because we are blissfully ignorant.

'You are a hypocrite', the voice in my head is saying. 'Where do you suppose the gas comes from that you use for cooking and heating your house?' Yes, I know. But there must be a less destructive way for us to satisfy our energy needs. Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, in an interview on 60 minutes says that there are two Saudi Arabia's of gas in our soil. That makes you think that we have a huge amount of 'oil' in our soil. But natural gas is not oil and cars can not run on natural gas. These misleading statements only prevents us from exploring and developing truly renewable sources of energy like solar energy, wind farms, hydro power, geothermal energy and energy from biomass.

I have tried to get a sense of what European countries are doing about their energy needs. It is a complicated picture. All I know is that, whenever I visit Holland, I see huge white wind turbines scattered all over the landscape. If I am not mistaken Europe as a whole gets four times as much energy from wind as America. Since shale gas is mostly used for electric energy why not invest in this type of renewable energy instead of ravaging the most beautiful parts of America? Once the Wild West is gone it is gone for good.

Crisis Dominoes Start Falling With Lehman Auditor, Ernst & Young

(I used to work at Ernst & Young. This doesn't surprise me one bit.--jef)

***

December 20, 2010 | By Matt Taibbi
 

It took more than two years, but there might finally be some capital sentences handed out for crimes committed during the financial crisis. That’s metaphorically speaking, of course. Like the accounting firm Arthur Anderson, whose head was sacrificed during the Enron debacle, the once-proud financial auditing firm Ernst and Young now looks poised to take a spin down the toilet of history thanks to its role in the Lehman Brothers debacle.

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is about to file civil fraud charges against E&Y for the work it did helping Lehman cook its books during 2007 and 2008. The short version of what happened goes something like this. Lehman Brothers, like all the other big banks on Wall Street in those years, was nearing insolvency and desperate for cash. In advance of its quarterly reports in 2007, the firm executed a series of something called Repo 105 transactions in an attempt to make their balance sheet look healthier than it was.
These Repo 105 transactions are just loans that Ernst and Young and Lehman Brothers conspired to book as revenue from sales. If I go to you and I ask you to lend me a hundred bucks to pay for Knicks tickets, that’s a loan, and you and I and the SEC and every investor on Wall Street all know I’m in debt to you, that I owe you a hundred bucks.

Here’s how Lehman Brothers paid for their Knicks tickets: a week before the game, they went to you and offered to you “sell” you their worthless puke-stained lava lamp for a hundred bucks, with the understanding that two days after the Knicks game, it would come back and “buy” the lamp back for the same $100 (plus a small commission for your trouble). And when Lehman pocketed that $100 from the initial transaction, they decided to call that not borrowing but a true sale, i.e. they booked that hundred bucks as revenue from an honest sale of a worthless piece-of-shit lava lamp.

In 2007 and 2008 Lehman would do this before the end of every quarter. They would "sell" billions of dollars of assets, typically bonds, to various companies, and use that money to pay down debt before the quarter’s end, so that they didn’t look so flat-ass broke to investors. Then, a week or so after the end of the quarter, they would go out and borrow more money, and then "buy" the assets back. The reasons they did this were myriad, but in most cases the assets they were "selling" were depressed in value at the time and could not have been sold at anything like face value had they really gone out on the market and tried. So instead of really "selling" these items on their balance sheet, they worked together with other companies to jury-rig these “repurchase” agreements that looked like sales but were actually loans.

Lehman was doing massive amounts of these deals every quarter. In the second quarter of 2008, they lightened up their balance sheets with $50 billion worth of Repo agreements. This technique, apparently known as "window dressing," isn’t that much different conceptually from the Enron-style book-doctoring that used "independent" special purpose vehicles to hide liabilities. In this case Lehman didn’t use shell companies but instead scattered its dent in the financial atmosphere by booking loans as sales. Ernst and Young, which made over $100 million in fees between 2001 and 2008 working with Lehman, aided the process by signing off on Lehman’s crazy accounting. In the report by bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas that came out last March, he describes how Ernst and Young threw up a brilliant "We’re not corrupt, we’re just incredibly stupid" defense when confronted with the question of the $50 billion in Repo 105s in the second quarter of 2008. The report (a PDF of which you can view here) talks about what E&Y’s Lehman auditor Hillary Hansen had to say when future E&Y whistleblower Michael Lee confronted her about the $50 billion in Repos:

During the Examiner’s interview of Hansen, Hansen recalled that while Ernst & Young questioned Lee about his May 16, 2008 letter, Lee "rattled off" a list of additional issues and concerns he held, one of which was Lehman’s use of Repo 105 transactions. Ernst & Young had no further conversations with Lee about Repo 105 transactions. Prior to her interview of Lee in June 2008, Hansen had heard the term Repo 105 “thrown around” but she did not know its meaning…

In other words, the lead auditor reviewing one of the world’s largest investment banks had no idea what a series of regularly-occurring billion-dollar transactions committed by her main client were, and apparently wasn’t interested. It also didn’t seem to bother E&Y that Lehman was not disclosing any of this to its investors in its SEC filings.

My guess is that this suit is the beginning of the end for Ernst and Young and, who knows, may be the beginning of a series of investigations that ultimately take down the auditors and ratings agencies that made the financial crisis possible. Without accountants and raters signing off on all the bogus derivative math and bad bookkeeping, a lot of this mess would never have happened. Zero Hedge has an excellent piece detailing all the ass-covering and finger-pointing going on at Ernst and Young; check it out if you have time.