Anything except the truth

Has a Major Top Been Reached?

2011-05-13T12:53:00.000-07:00

I dont usually brag but maybe it is time I should. I called the crash of 2008, just days before it began (click images to sharpen):

I also called the bottom in 2009, again just days before the actual bottom was put in:

Including a very specific call on General Electric (GE):

Check out this chart of GE, which shows just how accurate and prescient this call was:

I have never before or since recommended GE, and I probably will not again for a long time, if ever. I post this stuff not to gloat, but rather to show that I have a pretty good sense about these things. All of the texts I am quoting can be found using google. Here is an example. These calls are real, though they are haphazardly strewn about the web.

I have been waiting for confirmation before posting, but truth is I think the top was in two weeks ago. Now I am not saying I am always right, because "The Bernank" can rally the market any time he wishes, via the printing press. This actually happened last August when the markets looked like they were ready to collapse. Being somewhat wise to his antics, I made the following post, inset onto a chart of HL(Hecla Mining Company, a silver miner):

Notice that the market rallied immediately following that post. I was wrong then, because I was calling for a major move down. But I made the perfect hedge call for silver to rally hard if Bernanke did something stupid to try to prevent a necessary correction. Well, Bernanke did do something stupid, and we call it QE2. Hecla Mining Company's Dec $6 call options went on to be worth 6 dollars, a nearly 3000% gain. All based on the possibility that Bernanke would print. Well, print he did. And now, he needs to do it again. The market is starting to demand it. A correction is even more necessary now than it was last august. But printing more money is too dangerous an option for this political season. There is a political price to be paid for printing money, because they are basically stealing money from the poor and the retired and giving it to the rich every time they print. I have explained how that works ad infinum and ad nauseum in previous posts. Suffice it to say I see no way for them to stop the correction at this time. Hence the top call here.

Note: I am not a registered investment advisor, and those people can all KMA, because they're a bunch of blathering idiots.

How a $50 billion company can evaporate overnight

2011-05-12T07:46:00.000-07:00

Facebook is supposedly worth $50 billion. I have to laugh at that because I know that it isn't worth even a small fraction of that price. At any given moment, another company could come along and completely eviscerate Facebook overnight. Let me give just one example of how simply and quickly it could happen.

There is a portion of the population that seems to love having their every movement and action traced, tracked, logged, recorded, and whatnot. Dumb as these people are, their numbers are growing, and they do present a wealth of new business opportunities. So let's say someone forms a new company, with a website called fbfriendsync.com.

Our hypothetical Friend Sync offers the following wonderful service: it tracks your location (via your phone) and compares that data with the location of all your facebook contacts (if they opt in of course). For example, if one of your facebook contacts is at the bar or club next door to where you are on a friday night, this wonderful service will let you know. But not only that, it can go back in time and tell you all the previous places you both just happened to be at at the same time. It would help find people with the same interests, based on the locations visited. So its as much a match.com as it is a facebook. But considering the fact that most people dont really know most of their facebook contacts, a service such as this is very valuable for providing conversation starters. It could also bring up a map that shows where all your contacts are, so you can arrange a quasi-spontaneous meeting if you happen to be going to that same place. "Quasi-spontaneity" is the key to any app like this. But that is a story for another time.

Ok but how does it actually destroy facebook? Because it is very easy to transfer your facebook data to another site. I mean very very easy. Like 1 button click easy. And once everyone does that, the value of facebook completely evaporates. Facebook has little control over its users data. Facebook cannot copyright your name, your favorite movie, your favorite color, your friend's names, or any information like that! (Though I am certain they will try once the time comes.) So Facebook really has no value at all. What of yours do they really own? They may claim to own it all but obviously that will not stand in court. So they have very little legal protection to prevent a competitor from coming in and overthrowing them overnight. Once a new site comes along that offers a service facebook doesnt, the whole userbase will migrate in an exponential move that will seem like it happened all at once. It WILL happen. It is only a matter of time.

Facebook is sort of like an apartment complex. They may own the walls. But they dont own whatever you put up on your walls. They may claim they do but like I said that is absurd and will never stand in any court. So if you want to take all your stuff off their wall and move it to someone else's wall, there really is nothing they can do. They can't even make you wait until your lease is up! If they somehow manage to keep their rights to your photos and media, then it is not too terribly difficult in today's world to generate new photos. At any rate, going back to the apartment analogy, even if the apartment complex did own the stuff on their walls, it would not prevent people from moving. That precarious right does not add any value to the property. So the question is, what value does facebook have? The obvious answer is very little. About as much as the Hindenberg, the day before it blew up.

What Makes An Apple Rotten?

2011-04-29T08:27:00.000-07:00

Why is Apple such a ridiculously huge and successful company? What is their basic formula?

We know Apple makes a lot of money because they employ slave labor. And we know they sell a lot of units, so they are able to command a very cheap price per unit from all their suppliers. And we know that they offer products that are locked down and oversimplified, which is appealing to a certain segment of the population.

But is that it? I think all of those factors pale in comparison to the product placement. Apple makes a great deal of its money from the zombies staring at the tv screen every night who see the apple signet (on every single notebook on every single tv show, for example) and immediately go into idol worship mode. They are subconsciously convinced that they must possess this symbol because the idols that they worship on tv all seem to possess that symbol. It is simple idol worship, programmed into the masses using the powerful high bandwidth direct download link that we call television.

Apple is a zombie exploitation company. People should not buy their product on PURE MORAL GROUNDS. Why is that so hard to understand? I do not understand why or how so few people comprehend basic morality. There is no reason for any rational person to tolerate what Apple does to advertise their products.

And no, it does not matter whether or not Apple directly pays actors and directors to shovel that symbol onto the screen whenever possible. It makes no difference. Basic morality demands that you admonish that symbol itself, including the company it represents, regardless of the role they played in misusing that symbol. Tolerating this is like tolerating an ad that is literally pasted onto your contac lens. I get the feeling that many people simply would not care if all these mega-corporations' symbols and signets were pasted all over their contac lenses. If you have any foresight at all then you already know that that is the next step if you continue to enable the tactics Apple uses. But whatever. So I just pity the foo who watches tv and hope and pray that their stupidity doesnt screw me over too badly.

Symbolism is very powerful in our culture. Abuse of symbolism should not be tolerated. The societal penalties for abuse of symbolism should be severe. In the case of Apple I do believe it will completely destroy the company once broad recognition of this abuse becomes clear to the masses. Especially when they find out that Apple destroyed more American jobs than it ever created.

At what point did a small and innovative company morph into a behemoth monstrosity that invades people's subconscious minds while simultaneously tracking their body's every movement?

Charting the Fiscal Trainwreck

2011-04-13T06:44:00.000-07:00

http://grab.by/9S7A
Average monthly tax revenue:

http://grab.by/9S7B
Average monthly tax revenue for the first quarter:

What do these graphs say? In the first quarter of 2011, US Federal Tax revenue is down 10% compared to the first quarters of 2007 and 2008. While 10% may not seem so bad, you have to keep in mind that the federal government has borrowed and spent no less than $5 Trillion in the last 3 years in a madman's attempt at propping up the economy (and therefore propping up tax revenue).

Charts made from data taken directly from www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

Ignorance and Bliss

2011-04-07T12:38:00.000-07:00

I refer to the season finale of V (2009) Season 2. I'm not saying there is a literal reptilian queen casting bliss on the entirety of humanity. However, it makes for a strong metaphor that in many ways can be taken quite literally. The people who control this planet are part of a death cult, and the powers they wield against us could be described as black magic, for lack of a better phrase. Instead of mind controlling us through "bliss", they stage events that capture our attention. Events like 9/11. We do not literally stand there staring up at the sky, but our attention is stripped away and forced to be focused onto something we had not planned. In many ways it is the same effect as if we were all just staring blankly up into the sky. If you take away the sensationalism of the idea of some lizard queen casting a spell on us, and look at strictly the empirical data, it is clear that we are being influenced by an occult force very similar to the fictional bliss. It is this force itself that is responsible for most of the lack of any intelligent discourse in politics.

Now if you look at Washington DC you see it is full of occult symbols. That is no coincidence. Washington DC is nothing but one large festering stinking occult ritual. How else do you describe democrats and republicans quibbling over an absolutely meaningless disagreement about 2% of a massive deficit. 2 percent... that is the difference between them. It is nothing. It only makes sense if you see them for what they are. Both parties are completely controlled by very powerful forces that we cannot understand. We know little about these forces, except that they are there, and they are real. The first step in changing this paradigm is to remove all the occult symbolism from Washington DC. ALL of it. Either that or sit helplessly and watch the country implode as these politicians discuss more and more absurd nonsense.

Above all else it is critical to understand that the reason there is no difference between these two parties is because they are both under the influence of the same force, and that force is most likely tied directly to the landscape and the surrounding architecture. It may not make much sense to the scientifically minded skeptic, but then again wifi wouldnt make much sense to the scientifically minded skeptic from the 19th century. I'm sure there is a scientific explanation behind the forces at work here, but unfortunately we cannot afford to sit around waiting for that explanation before acting.

1 in 12 Workers Still Jobless Since Start of Depression

2011-02-17T13:18:00.000-08:00

Forget the unemployment rate. Everyone knows it is so gamed it is meaningless. 9%? 16%? 22%? What number you pick is all about how you want to spin it, truth be damned. But there is a number that cannot be spun: The employment-population ratio. This is the percent of people who are employed.

Looking back over the half century, the employment-population ratio typically runs at around 60%, +/- 5%. When this current recession began, it was at 63%. Now it is at 58%. That means that 1 in 12 Workers who had a job in 2007 no longer have a job. In other words, 1 in 12 Workers are still jobless since this Depression began.

Now here is the most amazing tidbit of all.

Look back at the numbers from the 1982 recession, which was previously the worst recession of the last 50 years. Right now we are at just about the 2 year marker, past where the recession ended. (Where it supposedly ended anyway.) Notice how at this point after 1980's recession ended, the employment-population ratio was already back at its pre-recession peak. That is what an economic recovery looks like. What we're in now is nothing of the sort.

We need to create 16 million jobs to get back to 63%. That gap grows by almost 2 million a year. In case you are curious, a 1983-1985 style true economic boom recovery would create 390,000 jobs a month. Each and every month over a 3 year period. That is what a true economic recovery looks like.

9 Millions Jobs Not Saved or Created!

2011-01-14T08:41:00.000-08:00

Remember when Obama said he would "save or create" 3.5 million jobs by 2011? Now that it is 2011, how far off was he from reality?

I tried to get all the BLS data on screen at once so I could take a screenshot. In the screenshot below, I have circled the 3rd quarter 2008 total labor force of 154.6 million, as well as the number of employed at 145.3 million.

http://grab.by/8nsn

I have also circled the same numbers from Novemeber 2010. They are 153.95 million total, and 138.9 million employed. My god we have lost 6.4 million jobs in 2.5 years. Keep in mind that even a population growth of just 1% yields an extra 3 million potential workers each year. With a participation rate of roughly 2/3, that means we need 2 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. If we dont get those jobs we can safely say those jobs were "lost". If we had 145.3 million jobs in 2008, and population grew at 1%, with a 2/3 participation rate, then 2 years later we should have 148 million jobs at the very least, if not over 150 million. Instead we have just 139 million. That means in reality there are 9 million jobs missing from this economy, bare minumum. And this is AFTER 18 months of so-called recovery. Shocking.

How Does A 60% Marginal Tax Rate Promote Growth?

2011-01-13T09:43:00.000-08:00

It is rather counterintuitive to think that raising the top tax bracket to 60% would result in significantly greater economic growth. But nonetheless, there is a great deal of historical evidence and mathematical modeling that proves it is indeed true. A high marginal tax rate does indeed promote significantly greater economic growth.

I'm not going to argue the data with anyone, since the numbers speak for themselves. In today's mind-numbed sound bite infested attention deficit world order, debate is no longer about supplying and defending actual facts. It is all about sounding good. Making something sound believable to a person on the street with 81 IQ. The echo chamber cares not about truth, statistics, or raw data of any type. Sad but increasingly true. People buy it, to their detriment, over and over. I dont know why Charlie Brown always falls for Lucy's trick, but that is exactly what happens when people accept something because it "sounds good". At any rate, I am going to play their game and attempt to explain how a 60% marginal tax rates is good by making it "sound good".

For the record, I do believe that 10-20 years from now we will all suddenly agree that a 60%+ tax rate is indeed for the better. (Assuming our nation survives this current era of intellectual raping of the citizenry by Mr Stupid and his gang of media cohorts.)

The Machine Shop: A 5 Year Analysis of High vs Low Tax Rates

Ok we're going to visualize two scenarios. In each scenario, one lucky guy wins a few auctions, acquires a few pieces of equipment for dirt cheap, and decides to start his own machine shop. He has little debt and his first year revenue minus expenses is $150,000.

What he does with that money depends greatly on the marginal tax rate. If the tax rate is low, he can and most likely will be tempted to take that money as personal income and spend it on personal consumption. Because he can. Because that is what we are trained to do these days. Spend spend spend.

However if the tax rate is 65% he is highly likely to fold that money back into the business rather than taking it as income. So instead of making $150k, he takes just $75k and uses the other $75k to buy a new piece of equipment. In doing so, he is now able to generate additional revenue. So after the second year, revenue is up to $175k. The next year he hires an employee. Now, after 3 years, revenue is up to $220,000. He hires another employee. After 4 years revenue is 260k. And he hires yet another worker. After 5 years revenue is $300k.

So here he is after 5 years. He has 3 employees, generating twice the revenue and supplying 3 others with income to spend out into the economy. Sure, he could have made more income if he didnt reinvest in more capital. But it makes no sense to take more income for yourself when you have to pay such high taxes. By reinvesting each year he now has a business that he could sell for twice as much. So even though the tax rate is double, the actual money he can make by selling the business remains the same. The big difference is that he has created 3 jobs. And that is what really contributes to growth. In a low tax environment, he would have been tempted to take more income out of his business and spend it on consumption. That does provide a small boost to the economy, but at the expense of job creation. As well all know this is exactly what has been happening over the last 10 years. Jobs are not being created, and incomes for the rich have been increasing dramatically. Knowing all this, does it makes sense why they hire 10,000 media and academic goons to promote and parrot the idea that low taxes is better. Of course it is better. Better for them. From here, the people have two choices. Either we reverse course and see their rhetoric for what it is. Or we continue down this road until the middle class is wiped out and the rich own 99.99% of the country.

Taxation Without Representation

2010-10-28T13:27:00.000-07:00

CNN has released an article called The Fed's 'tax on the consumer'.

After all this time, after all this looting, after all this open outright theft for a hundred years, most people still do not understand how this system works.

It is very simple. The rich make bad bets, so they go crying to the Fed that they need more money to be made whole. Just like when you are broke in a game of Monopoly and you land on someone's boardwalk. Instead of going bust, the bank "prints" new money and loans it to you to keep you in the game. Now there is more money in the system, so prices rise to reflect the change in total money.

But what is really going on here? It can be seen as a bailout, but in the simplest terms it is merely a tax. Mind you, this is all out in the open. Here is a Bloomberg mainstream article reporting on how the rich banksters are deciding how much to tax the sheeple. That's what this is. That's all this is. They decide, openly and publicly, how much money they are going to steal from the people.

In the simplest possible terms, they are taxing the poor by destroying the value of the currency. Buying debt for more than it is worth is the EXACT same thing as taxing everyone in general, except those few who actually get paid.

It is taxation without representation. Notice that this isnt Congress voting to raise taxes. No this is private bankers openly conspiring to tax the poor and middle class by debasing the money supply.

This is King George level tyranny, right out in the open. They make no attempt to hide it except passively through their moneyed influence on our education, information, and entertainment institutions. (Notice how even the CNN article I referenced does this? It says "the Fed's Tax on the Consumer?" What consumer? That's obfuscation. It's a tax on all people, it has nothing to do with consumers. They put that word in there to hide the fact that this is open class warfare. And they certainly will not mention class warfare. But the banksters do not have the power to stop these kind of articles altogether, as much as they'd like to.)

But how often do you hear the so called "Tea Party" talking about any of this? They are unfocused on this issue, for a variety of reasons. But in order to put an end to this tyranny, there must be a political party that maintains a razor sharp focus on this one issue. The Tea Party can still be that, but everyone who calls themself a tea partier must learn the history of "Taxation Without Representation" and make it their slogan now. The louder those words echo, the less ability the banksters will have to steal from the poor, and the more the rich will have to eat their own bad bets. That's when the speculation starts to end and the wealthy begin to focus on capital formation rather than wild speculation. That is the only way out of an economic depression.

What happens when a congressman buys a house for $200k, then turns around and sells it two years later for $800k? When the market value is only $250k? Well, generally speaking he (and a couple other people) might go to jail, or at least pay a big fine. Or at the very least get exposed by some fearless news reporter. But this is EXACTLY what the Federal Reserve does. It buys debt for more than it is worth! People who engage in these acts should be hit with racketeering charges, since that is exactly what is happening. You can even argue that deliberate currency debasement should carry the same penalties as counterfeiting. This sort of open outright criminal conduct can only result in one thing: more criminal conduct. I predict that, piece by piece, this country is going to get dumped into the harbor until this stops.

22883 Counts of Insanity

2010-09-24T04:46:00.000-07:00

I was perusing a thread on the Freeper site (Free Republic) when I came across this wall of text:

California Academic Performance Index (API) * California Access for Infants and Mothers * California Acupuncture Board * California Administrative Office of the Courts * California Adoptions Branch * California African American Museum * California Agricultural Export Program * California Agricultural Labor Relations Board * California Agricultural Statistics Service * California Air Resources Board (CARB) * California Allocation Board * California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority * California Animal Health and Food Safety Services * California Anti-Terrorism Information Center * California Apprenticeship Council * California Arbitration Certification Program * California Architects Board * California Area VI Developmental Disabilities Board * California Arts Council * California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus * California Assembly Democratic Caucus * California Assembly Republican Caucus * California Athletic Commission * California Attorney General * California Bay Conservation and Development Commission * California Bay-Delta Authority * California Bay-Delta Office * California Biodiversity Council * California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists * California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors * California Board of Accountancy * California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology * California Board of Behavioral Sciences * California Board of Chiropractic Examiners * California Board of Equalization (BOE) * California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection * California Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind * California Board of Occupational Therapy * California Board of Optometry * California Board of Pharmacy * California Board of Podiatric Medicine * California Board of Prison Terms * California Board of Psychology * California Board of Registered Nursing * California Board of Trustees * California Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians * California Braille and Ta! lking Bo ok Library * California Building Standards Commission * California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education * California Bureau of Automotive Repair * California Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair * California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation * California Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine * California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services * California Bureau of State Audits * California Business Agency * California Business Investment Services (CalBIS) * California Business Permit Information (CalGOLD) * California Business Portal * California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency * California Cal Grants * California CalJOBS * California Cal-Learn Program * California CalVet Home Loan Program * California Career Resource Network * California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau * California Center for Analytical Chemistry * California Center for Distributed Learning * California Center for Teaching Careers (Teach California) * California Chancellor’s Office * California Charter Schools * California Children and Families Commission * California Children and Family Services Division * California Citizens Compensation Commission * California Civil Rights Bureau * California Coastal Commission * California Coastal Conservancy * California Code of Regulations * California Collaborative Projects with UC Davis * California Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth * California Commission on Aging * California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation * California Commission on Judicial Performance * California Commission on State Mandates * California Commission on Status of Women * California Commission on Teacher Credentialing * California Commission on the Status of Women * California Committee on Dental Auxiliaries * California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, Junior Colleges * California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office * California Complaint Mediation Program * California Conservation Corps * California Const! itution Revision Commission * California Consumer Hotline * California Consumer Information Center * California Consumer Information * California Consumer Services Division * California Consumers and Families Agency * California Contractors State License Board * California Corrections Standards Authority * California Council for the Humanities * California Council on Criminal Justice * California Council on Developmental Disabilities * California Court Reporters Board * California Courts of Appeal * California Crime and Violence Prevention Center * California Criminal Justice Statistics Center * California Criminalistic Institute Forensic Library * California CSGnet Network Management * California Cultural and Historical Endowment * California Cultural Resources Division * California Curriculum and Instructional Leadership Branch * California Data Exchange Center * California Data Management Division * California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission * California Delta Protection Commission * California Democratic Caucus * California Demographic Research Unit * California Dental Auxiliaries * California Department of Aging * California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs * California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board * California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control * California Department of Boating and Waterways (Cal Boating) * California Department of Child Support Services (CDCSS) * California Department of Community Services and Development * California Department of Conservation * California Department of Consumer Affairs * California Department of Corporations * California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation * California Department of Developmental Services * California Department of Education * California Department of Fair Employment and Housing * California Department of Finance * California Department of Financial Institutions * California Department of Fish and Game * California Department of Food and Agriculture * California Departmen! t of For estry and Fire Protection (CDF) * California Department of General Services * California Department of General Services, Office of State Publishing * California Department of Health Care Services * California Department of Housing and Community Development * California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) * California Department of Insurance * California Department of Justice Firearms Division * California Department of Justice Opinion Unit * California Department of Justice, Consumer Information, Public Inquiry Unit * California Department of Justice * California Department of Managed Health Care * California Department of Mental Health * California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) * California Department of Personnel Administration * California Department of Pesticide Regulation * California Department of Public Health * California Department of Real Estate * California Department of Rehabilitation * California Department of Social Services Adoptions Branch * California Department of Social Services * California Department of Technology Services Training Center (DTSTC) * California Department of Technology Services (DTS) * California Department of Toxic Substances Control * California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) * California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVets) * California Department of Water Resources * California Departmento de Vehiculos Motorizados * California Digital Library * California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification Program * California Division of Apprenticeship Standards * California Division of Codes and Standards * California Division of Communicable Disease Control * California Division of Engineering * California Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control * California Division of Gambling Control * California Division of Housing Policy Development * California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement * California Division of Labor Statistics and Research * California Division of Land and Right of Way * Cal! ifornia Division of Land Resource Protection * California Division of Law Enforcement General Library * California Division of Measurement Standards * California Division of Mines and Geology * California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) * California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources * California Division of Planning and Local Assistance * California Division of Recycling * California Division of Safety of Dams * California Division of the State Architect * California Division of Tourism * California Division of Workers’ Compensation Medical Unit * California Division of Workers’ Compensation * California Economic Assistance, Business and Community Resources * California Economic Strategy Panel * California Education and Training Agency * California Education Audit Appeals Panel * California Educational Facilities Authority * California Elections Division * California Electricity Oversight Board * California Emergency Management Agency * California Emergency Medical Services Authority * California Employment Development Department (EDD) * California Employment Information State Jobs * California Employment Training Panel * California Energy Commission * California Environment and Natural Resources Agency * California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) * California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) * California Executive Office * California Export Laboratory Services * California Exposition and State Fair (Cal Expo) * California Fair Political Practices Commission * California Fairs and Expositions Division * California Film Commission * California Fire and Resource Assessment Program * California Firearms Division * California Fiscal Services * California Fish and Game Commission * California Fisheries Program Branch * California Floodplain Management * California Foster Youth Help * California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) * California Fraud Division * California Gambling Control Commission * California Geographic Information Systems! Council (GIS) * California Geological Survey * California Government Claims and Victim Compensation Board * California Governor’s Committee for Employment of Disabled Persons * California Governor’s Mentoring Partnership * California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services * California Governor’s Office of Homeland Security * California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research * California Governor’s Office * California Grant and Enterprise Zone Programs HCD Loan * California Health and Human Services Agency * California Health and Safety Agency * California Healthy Families Program * California Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau * California High-Speed Rail Authority * California Highway Patrol (CHP) * California History and Culture Agency * California Horse Racing Board * California Housing Finance Agency * California Indoor Air Quality Program * California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission * California Industrial Welfare Commission * California InFoPeople * California Information Center for the Environment * California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) * California Inspection Services * California Institute for County Government * California Institute for Education Reform * California Integrated Waste Management Board * California Interagency Ecological Program * California Job Service * California Junta Estatal de Personal * California Labor and Employment Agency * California Labor and Workforce Development Agency * California Labor Market Information Division * California Land Use Planning Information Network (LUPIN) * California Lands Commission * California Landscape Architects Technical Committee * California Latino Legislative Caucus * California Law Enforcement Branch * California Law Enforcement General Library * California Law Revision Commission * California Legislative Analyst’s Office * California Legislative Black Caucus * California Legislative Counsel * California Legislative Division * California Legislative Information * Califo! rnia Leg islative Lesbian, Gay , Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus * California Legislature Internet Caucus * California Library Development Services * California License and Revenue Branch * California Major Risk Medical Insurance Program * California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board * California Maritime Academy * California Marketing Services * California Measurement Standards * California Medical Assistance Commission * California Medical Care Services * California Military Department * California Mining and Geology Board * California Museum for History, Women, and the Arts * California Museum Resource Center * California National Guard * California Native American Heritage Commission * California Natural Community Conservation Planning Program * California New Motor Vehicle Board * California Nursing Home Administrator Program * California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board * California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board * California Ocean Resources Management Program * California Office of Administrative Hearings * California Office of Administrative Law * California Office of AIDS * California Office of Binational Border Health * California Office of Child Abuse Prevention * California Office of Deaf Access * California Office of Emergency Services (OES) * California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment * California Office of Fiscal Services * California Office of Fleet Administration * California Office of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Implementation (CalOHI) * California Office of Historic Preservation * California Office of Homeland Security * California Office of Human Resources * California Office of Legal Services * California Office of Legislation * California Office of Lieutenant Governor * California Office of Military and Aerospace Support * California Office of Mine Reclamation * California Office of Natural Resource Education * California Office of Privacy Protection * California Office of Publi! c School Construction * California Office of Real Estate Appraisers * California Office of Risk and Insurance Management * California Office of Services to the Blind * California Office of Spill Prevention and Response * California Office of State Publishing (OSP) * California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development * California Office of Systems Integration * California Office of the Inspector General * California Office of the Ombudsman * California Office of the Patient Advocate * California Office of the President * California Office of the Secretary for Education * California Office of the State Fire Marshal * California Office of the State Public Defender * California Office of Traffic Safety * California Office of Vital Records * California Online Directory * California Operations Control Office * California Opinion Unit * California Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN) * California Park and Recreation Commission * California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) * California Performance Review (CPR) * California Permit Information for Business (CalGOLD) * California Physical Therapy Board * California Physician Assistant Committee * California Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services * California Policy and Evaluation Division * California Political Reform Division * California Pollution Control Financing Authority * California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo * California Postsecondary Education Commission * California Prevention Services * California Primary Care and Family Health * California Prison Industry Authority * California Procurement Division * California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) * California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) * California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) * California Real Estate Services Division * California Refugee Programs Branch * California Regional Water Quality Control Boards * California Registered Veterinary Technician Committee * California Registrar of Charitable Tru! sts * Ca lifornia Republican Caucus * California Research and Development Division * California Research Bureau * California Resources Agency * California Respiratory Care Board * California Rivers Assessment * California Rural Health Policy Council * California Safe Schools * California San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission * California San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy * California San Joaquin River Conservancy * California School to Career * California Science Center * California Scripps Institution of Oceanography * California Secretary of State Business Portal * California Secretary of State * California Seismic Safety Commission * California Self Insurance Plans (SIP) * California Senate Office of Research * California Small Business and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification Program * California Small Business Development Center Program * California Smart Growth Caucus * California Smog Check Information Center * California Spatial Information Library * California Special Education Division * California Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board * California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) * California Standards and Assessment Division * California State Administrative Manual (SAM) * California State Allocation Board * California State and Consumer Services Agency * California State Architect * California State Archives * California State Assembly * California State Association of Counties (CSAC) *0ACalifornia State Board of Education * California State Board of Food and Agriculture * California Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) * California State Children’s Trust Fund * California State Compensation Insurance Fund * California State Contracts Register Program * California State Contracts Register * California State Controller * California State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) * California State Disability Insurance (SDI) * California State Fair (Cal Expo) * California State Job! s Employ ment Information * California State Lands Commission * California State Legislative Portal * California State Legislature * California State Library Catalog * California State Library Services Bureau * California State Library * California State Lottery * California State Mediation and Conciliation Service * California State Mining and Geology Board * California State Park and Recreation Commission * California State Parks * California State Personnel Board * California State Polytechnic University, Pomona * California State Railroad Museum * California State Science Fair * California State Senate * California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science (COSMOS) * California State Summer School for the Arts * California State Superintendent of Public Instruction * California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) * California State Treasurer * California State University Center for Distributed Learning * California State University, Bakersfield * California State University, Channel Islands * California State University, Chico * California State University, Dominguez Hills * California State University, East Bay * California State University, Fresno * California State University, Fullerton * California State University, Long Beach * California State University, Los Angeles * California State University, Monterey Bay * California State University, Northridge * California State University, Sacramento * California State University, San Bernardino * California State University, San Marcos * California State University, Stanislaus * California State University (CSU) * California State Water Project Analysis Office * California State Water Project * California State Water Resources Control Board * California Structural Pest Control Board * California Student Aid Commission * California Superintendent of Public Instruction * California Superior Courts * California Tahoe Conservancy * California Task Force on Culturally and Linguistically Competent Physicians and Dentists * C! aliforni a Tax Information Center * California Technology and Administration Branch Finance * California Telecommunications Division * California Telephone Medical Advice Services (TMAS) * California Transportation Commission * California Travel and Transportation Agency * California Unclaimed Property Program * California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board * California Unemployment Insurance Program * California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission * California Veterans Board * California Veterans Memorial * California Veterinary Medical Board and Registered Veterinary Technician Examining Committee * California Veterinary Medical Board * California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board * California Volunteers * California Voter Registration * California Water Commission * California Water Environment Association (CWEA) * California Water Resources Control Board * California Welfare to Work Division * California Wetlands Information System * California Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch * California Wildlife Conservation Board * California Wildlife Programs Branch * California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) * California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board * California Workforce and Labor Development Agency * California Workforce Investment Board * California Youth Authority (CYA) * Central Valley Flood Protection Board * Center for California Studies * Colorado River Board of California * Counting California * Dental Board of California * Health Insurance Plan of California (PacAdvantage) * Humboldt State University * Jobs with the State of California * Judicial Council of California * Learn California * Library of California * Lieutenant Governor’s Commission for One California * Little Hoover Commission (on California State Government Organization and Economy) * Medical Board of California * Medi-Cal * Osteopathic Medical Board of California * Physical Therapy Board of California * Regents of the University of California * San Die! go State University * San Francisco State University * San José Stat e University * Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy * State Bar of California * Supreme Court of California * Teach California * University of California * University of California, Berkeley * University of California, Davis * University of California, Hastings College of the Law * University of California, Irvine * University of California, Los Angeles * University of California, Merced * University of California, Riverside * University of California, San Diego * University of California, San Francisco * University of California, Santa Barbara * University of California, Santa Cruz * Veterans Home of California

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ****? 22883 characters. 13 double spaced pages of pure text. Ever wonder whether it is the whole country that's gone mad, or if you think it might just be you? This should help answer that question. No sane person could look at that list and rationalize it. A LOT more of this needs to happen:

As the list above keeps growing, there is another list that grows right along with it:

Companies Fleeing California For Utah Over Confiscatory Tax Rate

Abraxis Health, Adobr Systems, Inc. Alza Corp., American AVK, American Racing, Apple Computer Audix Corporation, Apria Healthcare Group, Assurant Inc., Barefoot Motors Bazz Houston Co., Beckman Coulter, Bild Industries Inc., Bill Miller Engineering, Ltd. BMC Select , BPI Labs, Buck Knives, CalPortland Cement California Casualty Group, CalStar Products Inc., Checks To-Go, Chivaroli & Associates CoreSite, A Carlyle Company, Creel Printing , Dassault Falcon DaVita Inc. , Denny’s Corp., Digital Domain, Ditech DuPont Fabros Technology, ebay, Inc., EDMO Distributors, Inc. Edwards Lifesciences, Electronic Arts, Inc., EMRISE Corp., Facebook FallLine Corporation, Fidelity National Financial, First American Corp., Fluor Corp. Foxconn Electronics, Fuel System Solutions, Gregg Industries, Hewlett-Packard Hilton Hotels Corp., Hino Motor Manufacturing USA, Intel Corporation, Intuit of Mountain View J.C. Penney , Kimmie Candy Co., Klaussner Home Furnishings, Knight Protective Industries Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc., LCF Enterprises, Lennox Hearth Products Inc., Lyn-Tron, Inc. Mariah Power, Maxwell America, Miasolé, MotorVac Technologies Nissan North America, Northrop Grumman, One2Believe, Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. Paragon Relocation Resources, Pixel Magic, Plastic Model Engineering, Inc. Precor, Premier Inc., Pro Cal of South Gate, Race Track Chaplaincy of Amer., Red Truck Fire & Safety Co. SAIC, Scale Computing, Schott Solar Inc., SimpleTech Smiley Industries, Solaicx, SolarWorld, Special Devices Inc. StarKist , Stasis Engineering, Stata Corp., Tapmatic Teledesic, Telmar Network Technology Inc., Terremark, Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Toyota, True Games Interactive Inc., TTM Technologies, Understand.com US Press shifted, USAA Insurance, Yahoo. And many more

US Intelligence Community Inefficient, Unmanageable

2010-07-21T15:27:00.000-07:00

Report: U.S. intelligence community inefficient, unmanageable

Unmanageable? Please, tell me something I don't already know.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

So what is this massive overbloated intelligence apparatus doing? Combating terrorism? Not a chance. See that picture of the Orly owl above? That picture could contain a message hidden within the individual pixels. How about this:

Cute eh? Well, that picture too could contain a hidden message by means of slightly altered pixels. No human or computer would ever be able to see it, as slight changes in pixels are indistinguishable from noise. That baby's face contains thousands of pixels of slightly different color variation. The same camera could take that same photo 1 million times, and each time, the pixels on the baby's face would ALWAYS be slightly different. As long as the original, unaltered image is never uploaded to the web, no supercomputer in the world could ever decode the message, or even have ANY way of telling whether or not it contains a hidden message. With today's 12MP+ digital cameras, it is not only possible to encode long messages within photos, but it is also possible to encode entire files, even entire photos(!) within a seemingly innocuous photo posted on facebook. This type of message encoding is not new. Similar methods were used in WWII. The basic technique was even used in the middle ages. There is absolutely no way the US intelligence community can track anyone's communications if they do not wish to be tracked. And they damn well know it. So the question remains... Just what in tarnation are these people doing? How do you justify an 11+ figure intelligence budget when it is absolutely impossible to detect hidden messages that could be right in front of your nose every single day? Simple... you can't justify it. It is just a waste of money. At best. At worst, they are up to no good. As is usually the case, it is only our ignorance that allows this sort of waste to continue.

The Inevitability of Singularity

2010-06-17T19:32:00.000-07:00

The internet is full of supposedly educated, self-professed prognosticators from what I can only describe as "an earlier era". They do not understand and cannot comprehend the transformation we are currently undergoing. "Technology cannot continue to evolve in a finite world." So they claim. What sort of nonsense is this?

Sure, there are limits to resources. There may even be limits to how many humans can coexist on this planet before we cause irreparable damage to the biosphere. I disagree, but I can see that argument. But those erudite prognosticators confuse these limits with the limits of technological growth. In reality, there are no such limits. Even in the worst case scenario, technological progress will not be stopped. I doubt it would even be slowed in any measurable sense. Yes, even if things get so bad that 50 million Americans lose their homes. Even if oil production really has peaked and entered inexorable decline. Yes, even if oil production is 20% lower 10 years from now. Yes, even if World War III claims the lives of 2 billion people. Yes, even if industrial civilization collapses to 1/10 of its former glory. None of that matters. The genie is out of the bottle. What is done cannot be undone.

Surely you've seen one of those "Did You Know?" videos, yes? They all toss around a bunch of facts and extrapolations for the future. Here is one example:

For less than $500, anyone can buy enough storage space to store the entire library of congress. In ten years, it will fit on a thumb drive.

For the same $500, anyone can go to Best Buy, and get a PC with enough power to:

- Store all the documentation needed to completely rebuild a technological civilization from the ground up. All the blueprints, all the schematics, all the bills of materials, everything.
- Run all the necessary design and documentation software.
- Print all the necessary documentation.
- Even store the instructions on how to rebuild an entire civilization, step by step.

There is no way that this knowledge can be lost, except in the event of a planet killing asteroid or something on a similar scale.

Once the wheel was invented, there was no way to uninvent it. And now, there is no way to lose any of the vast sums of knowledge we have accumulated. That is why technological progress is secured regardless of how far the average human's standard of living declines.

In ten years you will be able to store the entire library of congress on an ipod. And an iPod probably wont even have a screen. It is likely to be the size of a thimble. What good is an iPod or an iPad without a screen? Well, the screen will be a high resolution 3D display embedded in a pair of eyeglasses! Not long after that, it will be a contac lens. Rest assured, the input interfaces will be equally advanced. People can already play Pong without using their hands, using a cheap device called the OCZ NIA. Yes it is gimmicky, but so was the iPod when it first came out.

In ten years, I predict that at least 1 billion people will be spending the majority of their waking hours plugged into some kind of advanced interface, for both work and play. The work is the key. Right now, that sort of interface is mainly recreational. But soon millions will be making a living doing actual work in a completely virtual world.

Can this transformation really occur so rapidly? Have you been to a concert recently? All you see now is screens. On one hand, it is pure insanity. But it is a transformation nonetheless. I didn't say it was a positive one; I'll reserve that judgement for others to make. I'm just stating what will happen, not what should happen. Look at Japan. Many people there live in houses the size of my closet. And my closet is not that big! Surely you've seen the "japods" some of them sleep in?

Now take that image and combine it with feeding tubes, 3D display implants, and an electronic input interface and what do you have? The Matrix comes to mind.... Now with that disturbing image in mind, imagine a bunch of greedy multinational corporations hiring a million Chinese to "live" in this Matrix-like environment to do work. Say $100 for a month of being plugged in. My guess is that many will "choose to never leave". They will be upgraded with the better and better technology at regular intervals. Do you really have any doubt that they wont do this? Greed knows no bounds! Not only will they do this, but if you have a 401k, you're going to fund it, whether you remain blissfully ignorant of it or not.

That is all disturbing, for sure. But what is even more disturbing is when you introduce self replicating nanotechnology into the picture. I believe that is the next big step. And it will be here in ten years. Even if it takes a million Chinese living in the "podmatrix", working 12 hours a day for months on end to make it happen. It will happen. It is inevitable. And once it's here, everything changes. Nanomachines can be programmed to build anything that we can design. So you can have millions of humans plugged into machines, each one furiously working to program a nanomachine to build something. Something. God knows what. It wont really be like building, per se. It will be more like painting or drawing. Much like CAD now.

Maybe it was delusional to envision things like this ten or twenty years ago. Now, it is delusion to deny it. It cannot be stopped.

Let's go back to those self-professed prognosticators I mentioned. These are all the people in the so called "sustainability movement". Also, they are anyone who says we need to return to subsistence farming. Basically, anyone who thinks the world is going to de-complexify due to resource constraints. Or that we're all going to grow gardens in our backyards. "Relocalization" is their mantra. These people live in a fantasyland that has no bearing on reality or any actual human history. Human beings are not wired to make the sort of changes required by these philosophies and ideologies. It can not, and therefore will not happen. So all these people, good intentions or no, are just urinating into the wind. And that makes them pretty dumb.

Ok so obviously I don't believe any of that nonsense is actually going to happen on a societal scale. Sure, people who are currently middle class might become poor, in which case they have no choice but to live "sustainably". But notice that "sustainably" is nothing more than a euphemism for destitute. What these relocalization advocates are really saying is "You got ripped off by a bunch of banksters and a demonic educational/entertainment system which left you totally ill-informed and unprepared for what was coming. And so now you have nothing. You can either learn to survive with nothing, or perish." It is not such an appealing message is it? So they try and dress it up. But to me, its just lipstick on a pig. There is no way to dress up the reality of what happened to the middle class in America. So why play these semantic games? How about the truth? "You were lied to. You were robbed. You gave trust to that which should never have been trusted. You watched American Idol and played World of Warcraft, when you should have been reading Ayn Rand and Bertrand Russell. And most of all, you let this demonic system teach you to laugh at and denigrate anything and anyone who tried to tell you the obvious. You deserve nothing less than what you get." What a wonderful campaign slogan that would make!

Regardless of what happens to these sheeple who got fleeced, the system will continue on its path. Technological progress will continue unabated.

What exactly is technological progress? It is nothing less than the gestation phase of a new form of life. New to us anyway. In reality it probably predates us. One could argue that this lifeform in fact exists right now, even though it technically has not yet been born. It is only our inability to properly understand Time which prevents us from easily comprehending how this new form of life can actually exist before it has even been created. If it helps, you can think of it as an embryonic form. Think of the human race and the planet earth as a mother, pregnant with a rather unusual offspring. (Mother earth! Such a revolutionary concept eh!?) As it grows and develops, we encounter instincts never felt before. Unexplainable compulsions. Technological progress is one such compulsion. At this point is is deeply embedded in our culture. This compulsion is no different than the force which compels any pregnant female to radically alter her diet to obtain the nutrients the fetus requires. It is an occult force, one of many at work on humanity.

Now if humanity was actually undergoing some kind of conceptual pregnancy, you would naturally expect the race as a whole to become extremely protective of the embryo it is carrying. And there is certainly plenty of evidence of that. Governments abuse their citizens in the name of "progress". (Progress toward what? They never answer that with anything that makes sense, do they?) Large corporations abuse consumers so that they can make more money to invest in better technology. But why? Why get on this treadmill? Why struggle to make a smaller iPod? What use is a smaller iPod? It can only be explained by an unnatural compulsion. Profit motive is purely inadequate as an explanation. A steady state technology is much more profitable. If a company can make the same telephone for 10 years, they can make immense profits. But today, it is all transitory. Even the products themselves are specifically designed to be transitory. They are not built to last. They are not meant to last. Because none of this is meant to last. It is meant to transition. To evolve. To what end? That is the question.

I predict that it won't be long before this topic, whatever you want to call it, becomes known and understood by more than just the fringe of the fringe. It goes beyond singularity. There isn't really even a name yet for what I'm talking about. Geotechnovita? Geotechortis? At any rate, it is real. And the closer we get to it, the more people are going to talk about it.

Karl's Nervous Breakdown?

2010-06-07T14:21:00.000-07:00

Karl were you long the market today? Lol. That is the only way to explain the arrogant childlike drivel you’ve been posting today.

First you attacked Kunstler, in a very immature manner. I dont agree with Kunstler on everything, sure, but there's no need for holier-than-thou saber-rattling pettiness when simple facts can suffice.

Kunstler's long view, his term "the long emergency", is spot on. The United States oil production peaked 40 years ago. You can talk about thermodynamics till you're blue in the face, but doing so only illustrates your own ignorance. We didnt peak 40 years ago because we didnt "drill baby drill." The environmentalists played no part in the peaking of US oil production. The US peaked precisely due to the basic laws of physics.

And then there’s coal and shale. I have written about our "vast" shale reserves in the past.

Coal has a way of revealing people's ignorance. A great deal of damage has been done to this country due to the belief that has been programmed into Americans’ heads about America's vast unending coal and shale supplies. You have fallen victim to that propaganda. I have seen this happen many times, and it is not pretty. I suggest you do some research into our real coal and shale supplies, before you discredit yourself by sounding like a complete moron every time someone brings up the subject. I give both you and Kunstler a pass on 9/11, because there is a “tactical benefit” to willfully suffering cognitive dissonance on that subject. (It is cowardly, but undeniably easier to just "accept" the 9/11 story you were spoonfed.) But on the subject of coal you just sound like a damn fool. And for that I may as well just turn on “tout tv”, as you call it.

The United States already passed "peak btu's" for coal. The more btu's per year we want, the more damage must be done to the environment, in an EXPONENTIAL manner. With all the railing you do over people's failure to understand exponential function, surely you would not dare to commit the same act of foolishness? There is no way to replace our liquid fuel consumption with coal. Only a country in a state of collapse would dare attempt something so foolish so late in the game. Like the Nazis in WWII.

EREOI is NOT a crock of ****. Your logic for calling it such is deeply flawed. So what if EREOI is always negative if one includes the input of the Sun? What does that have to do with anything? Does the word relevant mean anything to you? The input from the sun is a given, as such it is universally agreed upon that it is irrelevant in energy investment terms. You are making a straw man argument. Again, you sound like a damn fool by even saying such things. Sunlight does not matter for calculating EROEI because it of its low energy density. The only exceptions would be situations where sunlight energy is lost in the process of mining. For example if we tear up fertile land to mine tar sands, we might lose some of our food supply, which then has to be replaced with more fuel-intensive farming of non-fertile land elsewhere. That would lower the EROEI of tar sands, but probably only slightly. As I said, the sun's effect can largely be ignored.

EROI is at the heart of everything. What does NOT matter for EROEI is how much oil costs in dollars. The dollar cost is fiat. What matters is how much ENERGY it takes to produce a barrel of oil. It MUST cost significantly less than a barrel of oil worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil. It does not matter whether that oil COSTS $20 a barrel or $200. You have it exactly backwards, and no amount of tantrums and bansticks are going to change that. EROI matters. Ore grades matter. Threatening to ban people because they refuse to accept your misunderstandings of thermodynamics is just sad.

It does not matter how many antelope are out there in yonder field. If it takes more energy for Mr Tiger to catch one than he gets from eating it, then Mr Tiger will not survive. That too is just simple math.

You say The EREOI folks are 100% full of **** and I, for one, am tired of the lies and intentional misdirection they run, when they KNOW they're full of crap as they tolerate a HORRIBLE EREOI every single time they turn the key in their vehicle.

Again here is a logical reasoning error. The 20~30% energy efficiency of a gasoline engine is not in dispute by anyone, so you are making yet another straw man argument. Pretty weak stuff here. How can you possible expect to win any argument using grade school logical fallacies? Oh yeah, you have a ban stick. lol.

Going back to coal. If you graph the amount of btu's of US coal energy production per year, AND subract the amount of equivalent btu's of energy it took to mine that coal each year, you can see that it has peaked. If you just look at the number of tons of coal produced each year, you can't see it. When making an EROEI calculation you have to also subtract the amount of energy used to clean up all the disasters caused by the coal mining. There is a long list of energy costs associated, and they cannot be ignored, even by some 6 year old spaz waving a magic ban-stick. What CAN be ignored is the sun's role in producing the coal. That is just absurd nonsense in terms of EROEI discussion.

My guess is you hate the "EROEI folks" because they go over your head and make your brain hurt. But anyone serious about energy knows that you cannot ignore these hidden costs, as they are very real. For example, take the lake that is polluted by coal mining, causing thousands of tons of fish to be lost. What happens then? Well it means someone now has to venture further out into the ocean to catch fish to replace that part of the food supply that was lost. And guess what? Bingo, it costs more energy to do that. And the BP oil spill in the gulf? Again, it costs energy to clean that mess up and also to look elsewhere to replace the lost food supply. Yes, that does count against the EROEI of oil production! And no, waving your stupid magic stick around does not change that fact. These neverending and ever-expanding "collateral costs" of energy production MUST be factored into the true energy content of our energy sources. That is the essence of NET energy. If we do not get NET energy production, we get severe economic contraction.

Finally, one last thing. You repeatedly mention how $9 or $15 a gallon gasoline will mystically solve the energy problems, because then it will be cheaper to produce alternatives. Dead wrong. What it will do is cut off those who cannot afford the expensive energy. People will be forced to make do with less. And in that process, the economy contracts. Capital becomes scarce. Alternative energy does not get produced because the energy input costs are too great, bankrupting anyone who tries it. (It's that damned EROEI again...) What ultimately happens is that gasoline prices collapse after enough people become destitute, and demand collapses. Then gas is cheap again. The only difference is there are a million or two people who used to live a decent life, but are now living in tent cities and consuming no fuel. But you dont give a damn about them do you? It's not your problem. It's only your faulty arrogant reasoning that helps create such devastation. It is endemic to our propagandized culture.

I once read a comment on the web (probably on Oil Drum) many years ago, about how our post peak world could literally be soaked in oil, like the Gulf Coast is destined to be. How can that be, I thought? Because our reckless and extremely dangerous pursuit of hard-to-reach energy causes so much devastation that it leaves our entire planet in ruins. Such a scenario is possible. And even so, we could still be producing many tens of millions of barrels of oil per day. But we'd still be past the peak of oil production. And most of the civilized world would be in a state of collapse. But I'm sure there'd still be plenty of jackasses cruising around in their SUV's thinking the world is just peachy. Please dont be one of those.

The Reason To Own Gold

2010-05-12T16:53:00.000-07:00

This is a very important article, especially for anyone who uses Euros:

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/amerman/2010/0419.html

Two Individuals And The Redistribution Of Wealth

Let's consider two hypothetical German individuals, Dieter and Gretchen, and examine how the collapse of the euro relative to the new Deutsche mark affects each of their personal situations. We'll say that Dieter, the first individual, recently retired after having responsibly paid down all his personal debts, and that his life savings consists of having accumulated a bond portfolio with holdings in blue chip European companies as well as various government bonds, with a value of 500,000 euros. And we'll say that while his income is coming in the form of euros from outside of Germany, Dieter pays his bills in the new Deutsche marks within Germany. Furthermore, let's be charitable and say that despite the global financial crisis, none of the corporate and government bonds in Dieter’s portfolio actually default.

Once the euro has collapsed relative to the Deutsche mark, the income that Dieter has coming in falls by 90% in purchasing power terms. For instance, if he was earning an average of 5%, or 25,000 euros per year in interest, these payments would now have a purchasing power of 2,500 Deutsche marks. Simultaneously, the principal value of Dieter’s savings has fallen from the 500,000 euros down to 50,000 Deutsche marks.

People like Dieter are the ones who should be buying gold. And judging by the movement in gold, many of them are buying it right now. Gold is not an inflation hedge, it is a hedge against geopolitical instability. It is what you buy when there is serious speculation that your country might be considering abandoning their currency. This is the type of speculation that can really push gold to unimaginable heights.

The COINTELPARTY

2010-02-09T06:30:00.000-08:00

Message to anyone who considers themselves a part of the "Tea Party Movement" or whatever it might be called: If you can't understand why it is bad to spend $100,000 to have Sarah Palin speak at your convention, then you shouldn't be in politics. Please, go back to watching football.

There is a reason there are only two parties in power in Washington. Both the democrats and the republicans may not be accomplishing anything useful relevant to carrying out their constitutional duties. But rest assured they are spending millions assessing their options for staying in power. That is the one and only thing they can do, competently.

If you want to understand Sarah Palin, here's an appropriate Animal Farm analogy: Sarah Palin is the duplicitous fool the Pigs hired to cross out the word "bad" and replace it with the word "better".

Sarah Palin, putting the "better" in "two legs better".

All Hail The Power of the Printing Press

2009-05-04T19:00:00.000-07:00

The Federal Reserve is now buying debt that is not explicitly government backed. Which means they have uninhibited power to print money. This is why the market is rallying. The Fed and its controllers have unlimited power to rally the market to whatever level they wish. Right now they need to restore confidence so that they can actually keep their power. (Otherwise the Fed will likely lose the power it has usurped.) I dont know how many different ways I have to say it for it to sink in: the Federal Reserve System has taken complete control of our monetary system, and has usurped the power given only to Congress by the Constitution. The Fed can now levy taxes any way it wishes via its control of the money supply. They can buy all the toxic assets, creating trillions out of thin air. By doing this they can pump the markets to whatever level they wish, be it DOW 2000 or 20,000.

The only problem is that the Fed cannot print barrels of oil or tons of coal, iron, aluminum, etc. But that only matters to those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. And those on the bottom rung cant comprehend this stuff so they will lay blame on whatever demon the media wishes. The economy is firmly in the grasp of the occult ruling class. It will not matter how poor most Americans become. The Fed cannot make everyone rich. But the Fed CAN inflate the money supply and blow bubbles and push up corporate earnings and thus push up the markets. What's good for Wall Street is not what is good for Main Street, but they know that and they really couldn't give a damn. There is no political opposition as long as about 10% of the population gets to share in the wealth at the expense of the other 90%. This has been the foundation of American economics for 30 years and there is no reason to think it will change now that they have even more power. It wont matter until perhaps 50 million Americans are living in tent cities.

It is absolutely possible for the DOW to be at 15,000 even when 50 million Americans are living in camps. I think most intelligent contrarions are having trouble understanding how that is possible.

Karl Denninger describes the process of uninhibited printing as "Bernanke inserting a gun into his mouth". No that is not what he is doing. He is sticking a gun in some random poor person's mouth, and pulling the trigger. And repeating it a million times. I dont know why people like him cant understand that there is a very clear difference. The bond market wont call Bernanke's bluff, because the bond market loves it whenever he caps off another "useless eater". The Fed has the power to bail out the whole damn bond market now, even if it has to buy all the junk bonds on planet earth. But Bernanke cannot print loaves of bread and heating oil. So you tell me who is getting the shaft here, and who has the financial means and motive to alter this trajectory? Simply put, this is what this system is designed to do: transfer wealth to the rich in such a sophisticated manner that only a small percentage of the population can comprehend it, and then rely on systemic bribery and corruption to pacify that small percentage. My god, it works beautifully doesnt it? Hell, the primary opposition (Limbaugh, Beck, etc) was cheerleading all this for years, and they will cheer it again once the republican buttcheek is back in power. (Republicheek?) Sometimes you have to marvel at the sheer precision; the almost machine-like systematic nature of our destruction.

Prosperity and Decline

2009-04-22T18:41:00.000-07:00

In an Earth Day speech, President Barack Obama said “The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy – it’s a choice between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world’s leading importer of oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy."

I may be a big critic of Obama, but this is one place where we totally agree. And even though I spend most of my time attacking the president, I have also offered solutions. In fact I believe I have offered the most ambitious and realistic 20 year plan for completely eliminating all foreign oil imports. That plan is outlined in the 21st Century Interstate Highway Project. This is not some pie-in-the-sky idea that has no basis in reality. It is a highly scalable solution that does not rely on ANY technology that is not yet proven, such as battery packs that can deliver 200 miles of range at a reasonable cost. Yes, it will be at least 20 years before we have the battery technology to build vehicles that can travel 200 miles on a single charge, at a price that is reasonable.

Consider the fact that it would cost $250 billion just to build the batteries for 50 million cars, assuming that each battery costed $5000 apiece. But $5000 wont get you more than 50 miles today. And a decade from now we'll be lucky to get a 100 mile range out of a $5000 battery. That is why we still dont have any appreciable number of electric cars on the road. Who is going to spend $5000 on a battery when even at $4 a gallon, $5000 worth of gasoline will fuel the average Toyota Camry for about 4 years? The math just doesnt work. At $2 a gallon, $5000 will fuel the average Camry for nearly a decade. Who is going to spend that much on a battery when there is no guarantee that the thing will even last 10 years? Before you scoff at the thought of $2 gasoline being used in a longer term calculation, be aware of the fact that electricity prices rise and fall along with gasoline prices. And surely you are not forgetting that it is going to cost a couple grand in electricity bills to charge the battery over the course of many years? If gas prices double, it is a good bet that electricity prices are going to go up by at least 50%. And here's another thing to consider: the cost of a battery is an upfront capital cost. By using gasoline, you are able to put off paying the upfront capital cost. How much is that worth? Well figure instead of buying that battery for $5000, you take that money and put it in a bank making 4% interest. In one year that gives you $200. Over the course of a few years you get quite a bit of free gasoline out of the deal. This illustrates the huge advantage of not having to pay upfront capital costs. Now imagine having to take out a loan to buy that battery! So instead of getting free gasoline, you are now paying ungodly amounts of interest just for the honor of having that big expensive battery that still costs money to recharge.

See, you have to run through an awful lot of numbers and do a lot of math before commiting to a certain national policy. I'm not convinced that most greenies have done their homework. What I've outlined above I can assure you is merely scratching the surface of the hidden costs of trying to replace gasoline with a battery. But even if you could make the math work, you then have to answer additional questions, like this one: "what happens to the cost of raw materials if we try and build millions of batteries quickly?" They could end up costing more if we have lithium supply problems. That illustrates another huge set of unknown variables that prevents anyone with deep pockets from investing down this path. Yes there is a very clear reason why we are "addicted" to foreign oil. Anyone who thinks that we can magically wean ourselves off of black gold without some very serious effort is simply deluding themselves.

The only realistic option that I see is to build a modular mass transit grid for automobiles. The grid doesnt require many exotic raw materials. Just steel and concrete and lots of labor primarily. (These are things we have in ample supply.) Once the grid is built, it will only cost $1000 per battery. That enables a completely electric vehicle to cost LESS than its gasoline-fueled counterpart, once mass production begins. And make no mistake, money talks. A lower price tag is required to make the transition. And this is without any subsidies at all.

The last time we embarked on an ambitious national highway grid, time proved it to be a valuable investment. Only after 50 years is the basic design starting to become a serious liability. It is that basic design that needs to be updated. By focusing our engineering efforts onto the grid itself and how vehicles travel on it, we allow the individual vehicles to shrink in weight and complexity, and thus shrink in price. That in turn allows more people to own a vehicle. At any rate I dont want to hear anyone say that all I do is attack Obama and never offer solutions. This IS a workable solution. It wouldnt be easy, it would requires many millions of man hours in both engineering and manual labor, but it CAN be done. Building a bunch of windmills and hoping that we somehow magically invent the means to transfer that energy into an affordable battery is not a workable solution. Not to mention there is a whole host of issues involved in the logistics of building a massive number of windmills. Dont forget that those pretty spinny things also require massive resources to build. Why spend all those resources building things that require unproven technologies in order to bring a usable product to the end user? That is a recipe for disaster. We are masters of steel, concrete, and automation. The 21st Century Interstate Highway Project requires only these things in mass quantity.

With all that being said, it is now time to resume my slugging on Obama. There is a problem in the economy that Obama just doesnt recognize. Global crude oil production has been flat for the last 4 years. This year it will register a very significant decline. Given the massive decrease in investment in the oil sector, as well as the severe decline in natural gas rig count, it is safe to say that it will be a long time before energy production reaches 2008 levels. There is a good possibility that we may never see as much total energy produced as was produced last year. That is going to make recovery problematic to say the least. I've been arguing for ages now that it was our energy situation that led to the financial collapse... that's been beaten to death so I'm not even going to get into it now. What I want to focus on right now is the disastrous consequences of Obama's bailout + stimulus strategy.

When we go into a recession, what brings us out of it is a more efficient use of resources and capital. Ideally, what will happen is that all the irresponsible debtors are forced to default. Then the people who know how to manage money and capital are able acquire assets at depressed prices. Meanwhile the irresponsible borrowers are forced to live within their means. This includes a reduction in the consumption of resources. This then causes a reduction in the price of all forms of energy and energy-related commodities. Anyone not in debt is able to take advantage of those lower prices. They are then left with more money to invest how they see fit. Since these are the people who have proven themselves to be best at managing money, they are the ones who are able to allocate capital most efficiently. This is how the free market is able to bring an economy out of recession.

In the bailout & stimulus scenario, here is what happens. Those who have proven themselves unable to manage money and resources are bailed out, which means their bad behavior is given a subsidy. This is ideologically flawed for obvious reasons. However, there is another negative effect. Because they are bailed out, they are not forced to reduce their consumption of energy and all other commodities. This creates a greater demand for these commodities, preventing the price from falling. Since the prices do not fall as much as they should, the responsible people who know best how to manage resources are unable to acquire a larger share of those resources and capital. So they are unable to perform their natural function of increasing resource efficiency in an economy. So the economy is unable to recover. If this dynamic is allowed to continue, the result will be that resources will continue to be wasted, the economy will be unable to restructure itself through free market means. The government simply cannot perform this role effectively. Even Obama concedes that this is a fact, by saying that his stimulus plan is aimed at the private sector. He wants to create private sector jobs, not government jobs, etc. By making such statements he admits that the private sector is more efficient at allocating capital. But what he fails to understand is that the very act of stimulus + bailout prevents the private sector from being able to restructure itself more efficiently. Bad debts must be allowed to be purged from the system. Money needs to change hands. Capital needs to be transferred from debtors to creditors. Only then can the capital be put to more efficient use. And only then can we begin to make more efficient use of resources.

Obama thinks its a good idea to try and keep 5 million people in their homes when they would otherwise be foreclosed upon. By doing so, he is creating an unjustified demand for 5 million extra loads on the electric grid. And 5 million extra loads on the natural gas supply. And 5 million cars sitting in those driveways that all need fuel. It also creates an artificially elevated demand for housing. This means that prices for wood and concrete and drywall and a hundred other things are all artificially inflated. Dont forget that it takes massive amounts of energy to produce or procure ALL that stuff. All that extra energy demand raises energy prices for everyone, including those that did nothing wrong. Thus the economy is not able to recover as it otherwise would. It is this bailout mentality that has, over the course of many years, created artificially high prices and has prevented capital from flowing into hands that can make best use of it. There can only be one result of this type of command and control economic system. Look what happened to the Soviet Union and every other economy that tried to do things this way. It is not capitalism that brings about this type of systemic failure. It is the failure to allow capitalism to run its course. The cycle of bankruptcy must not be impeded. If every insolvent person, corporation, and government were to declare bankruptcy today, the end result would be a massive transfer of ownership to those who best know how to manage resources and capital. As long as the rule of law were upheld, this would result in the most productive allocation of capital.

Peak Oil and The Future of Alternative Energy

2009-03-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

I think it is very possible that 10 years from now we could be in the middle of a Japanese-style longterm recession, and the media will never allow the public to understand that it was ultimately caused by lack of sufficient growth in energy supplies. Everyone will be busy hating the bankster pigmen. No one will understand that despite exponential increases in energy sector investment, oil production still collapsed. No one will understand, despite the abundant evidence indicating that the vast majority of oil exporters have passed their peak production, including Saudi Arabia. (Saudi Arabia peaked in 2005. Despite prices skyrocketing, they were not able to beat their 2005 numbers last year.)

The result of this clampdown of information (called the Energy Iron Triangle) will be that alternative energy will never reach the sort of demand that is required to drive the prices up to stimulate steady longterm investment and growth. Instead, the economy will simply continue to contract according to the scenarios laid out by Kunstler and others. It will be the Long Emergency, and nobody will even realize what caused it. It's already been going for 4+ years, and so few understand. There is little reason to believe that this will change. All public opinion is manufactured based on service of elite interests. It serves the elite to make everyone afraid of climate change, because they will get their global carbon tax scheme in place. Does it matter that peaking fossil energy means less carbon emissions in the future? Even if we waste no resources on scams such as carbon capture & sequesteration? Nope, of course not. They want their carbon taxes, and they will get them. The "tax on life" is one of the ultimate goals of the eugenicists running this planet.

Picking Apart the Policy Journal

2009-02-25T17:42:00.000-08:00

I read the Economic Policy Journal regularly, and certainly am no fan of Obama. But something I read today really struck a nerve.

Check out this quote from Picking Apart The President

The economic crisis was not caused by energy (energy prices have collapsed), it wasn't caused by healthcare or education defects. This a slippery attempt to bring in pet projects that have nothing to do with the crisis.

The economic crisis was not caused by energy? Oh really. Tell me something genius, what do you expect to happen when gas costs $3 or $4 a gallon, and every household is required to pay $300-$600 a month MORE on energy than what they had budgeted when they first bought their home?

You can have your opinions, but the FACT remains that global crude oil production was 74 mbpd in 2005, and the average daily production for 2006-2008 has shown no measurable increase, despite an exponential increase in capital investment. This is just the cold hard data. Global crude oil production has peaked, and THAT is what has popped all the bubbles. The sheer amount of investment in the oil sector during 2005-2008 proves that the nascent credit crunch had nothing to do with the failure to increase oil production. I've covered this in detail in a previous post.

Credit was created predicated upon growth rates that were not sustainable. The reason this happened is because people like you DENIED the geological facts time and time and time again and again and again to the point where the ENTIRE financial system was deluged in misinformation as to the extent of our resource base. If oil production had kept increasing, then all these new homes and cars would not have constrained supplies, prices for energy would not have spiked, and the bubble would not have popped. Sure, the bubble would have popped eventually, as all bubbles do, but the fallout would have been much less severe. Indeed, the bubble would never have occured if so many people did not take an active interest in denying basic geological reality. I've written about this specific subject in more detail as well.

I find it amusing that a google search for

"robert wenzel" "peak oil"

yielded only 10 results, none of them meaningful. I find it incredibly amusing that people in "your circle" simply did not discuss peak oil, denied it outright or through omission, while at the same time you pretend like you know what caused this mess. Buddy, you dont have the first clue. Want to know what caused this mess? Go look in the mirror. If you denied peak oil, then perhaps its time you accept a little personal responsibility for what has happened. I wont hold my breath waiting for that...

I have been writing about the impending catastrophe for years precisely due to the fact that so many people have been so wrong about everything. We've always had fraud in the financial system. We've always had wall street parasites sucking off the broader economy. None of that has changed in the past 5 years, or in the past 50. The multiple layers of ignorance, arrogance, and pure stupidity is what always leads to collapse.

The Haircut-to-Oil Ratio

2009-01-13T14:08:00.000-08:00

I wonder what the "haircut to oil" ratio was during the Great Depression. That is, how many haircuts could you buy for one barrel of oil? In the Great Depression, it had to be at least 100 haircuts for one barrel of oil. Perhaps more. Today, you can buy about 4.

I think that number explains more than anything exactly what's wrong with our economy. Haircuts havent changed since the Great Depression. Yet somehow the market has been manipulated into believing that one barrel of oil, capable of doing the work of hundreds of laborers for hours, is only worth 4 measely haircuts. One barrel of the substance to which we owe our entire civilization, is worth that little? That belief leads to a logical fault. This is proof that the market is completely broken, and collapse is inevitable. The market will be closer to reality once you can buy at least 20 haircuts for a barrel of oil. But 200 is an even more realistic figure.

The Appauling Pall of the Paul Call

2009-01-09T08:35:00.000-08:00

Just yesterday, I heard a caller mention Ron Paul's name on the Laura Ingraham show. He was right in the middle of making an intelligent comment about the economy, and was well within mainstream conservative thought boundaries. Ron Paul is totally relevant in conservative circles, because he predicted this entire debacle and is a champion of true conservatism. You'd think real conservatives would be talking a lot about Ron Paul.

Can you guess what that slimy disgusting Laura Ingraham did? She cut him off and said we cant take any "Paul calls". What the hell is a Paul call? That is yet more proof of how horribly badly the so-called mainstream conservatives on talk radio are "compromised". Yet the listeners are not savvy enough to understand what is going on. It is obvious that conservatism has been hijacked by something goddawful (neoconservatism). But people cannot think abstractly enough to see it for what it is. The same exact thing is happening on the left. That is why you cannot trust ANY voice on mainstream talk radio (ie Clear Channel). Right or left, they are all controlled, all manipulated. And they all serve the same master, and that master wants to see America in ruins.

Fifty Paul Krugmans

2008-12-31T07:01:00.000-08:00

Fifty Herbert Hoovers is an article written by Krugman. In it, he talks about the budget problems states are facing, and how the best solution is to spend more money! More debt! Yes, he is advocating that states too should go into debt to sustain an unsustainable bubble. I guess counties and cities should also go into debt too eh?

This comes from an Economic Nobel laureate? One who gained popularity as a contrarian to the fiscal insanity that is wrecking the world? His great solution is more fiscal insanity? Ha!

And that's my point. The mainstream media builds up these people who pretend to be a contrarian voice, then they use that reputation to manufacture consent. They manufacture a willingness in people to be robbed and looted even more. There are fifty Paul Krugmans out there. (At least fifty.) And each one of them took a great deal of time to build their reputation. But their reputations are destroyed overnight when they are called upon to perform their First Duty, to be a contingent trump card for the elite. To be willingly thrown under the bus to protect the system.

That system is broken. Productive capacity is shutting down. Mines and wells are shutting down too. Many projects that got shelved cannot simply be restarted. Obama could walk into the room with a trillion dollars and say, "Here's some money, now turn everything back on. Continue with Plan: Business As Usual." But it doesnt work that way. That is why stimulus plans fail. There are countless complex systems in the world that require years to cycle back up to the level they were at before they shut down. Even if the shutdown only took weeks, the restart could take months or years. By dumping a bunch of stimulus money into the economy, what it will do is cause a commodity explosion in which Wall Street sucks up all the money into its black vortex. That is precisely what happened with both Bush stimulus plans. And both plans made the recessions even worse.

It doesnt even matter how the money is spent. (Yes even if the money is directed at state budget deficits.) It still creates the same artificial demand for commodities causing the price increases to eat up the stimulus.

I'm sure that Krugman is aware of this, but for some reason just doesnt care. I guess he did it for that fake Nobel prize. Who knows. I dont care what his motivations are. What matters is the sheer number of these people. Most of them claim to be Keynesians. Does it matter to them that Keynesianism is completely unsustainable? No. Does it even matter to them that the philosophy they follow isnt even Keynesianism at all?

Keynesianism as it exists today is complete rubbish. Something like "sustainable Keynesianism" or "steady-state Keynesianism" makes more sense to me. (Though some would call it an oxymoron.) My point is that Keynesianism, if followed strictly in a repeatable, sustainable, and logical manner would involve deficit spending ONLY in a time of recession. AND it would and MUST require a budget surplus during each and every period of GDP growth. This is an absolute must in order for Keynesianism to work. Obviously NONE of these Fifty Paul Krugmans out there are actual true Keynesians.

And that is the heart of what I'm trying to get at here. These people are complete phonies. They're always claiming to be something, and then being something else entirely. And they rely upon the media to redefine terms for the public to support the illusion. The Keynesians arent Keynesians. The Monetarists arent Monetarists. The Conservatives arent Conservatives. I can factually prove that they arent what they say they are, just by looking at definitions. So the question then becomes: just what in the hell are these people?

In short, they are pawns of the global elite. Right now, their primary purpose is to continue business as usual so that the government can rack up debt and get everyone dependent. By continuing to rack up debt, they can keep taxes high. Especially property taxes. That is the key. One central tenant of "new world order philosophy" is keeping property taxes as high as possible, while printing money to stimulate the economy, even if it means printing money to keep people in their homes. This is very important. By setting up this property tax + stimulus scenario, they are able to effectively destroy individual property rights. You are now dependent on government in order to pay your property taxes, to such an absurd degree that property rights are de facto nonexistant. That is the key to all of this. With property rights gone, you have a de facto command and control economy. It can NO LONGER be called capitalism, though the corrupt leaders will attempt to call it whatever they want. All the Krugmans of the world understand this fully. Because they all read the famous quote by Jefferson:

If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

First by inflation and then by deflation? What exactly does that mean? It means they create more and more debt, and devalue the currency, and allow taxes to rise with it. Particularly property taxes. Then when the debt bubble collapses (which it will because interest is an exponential function), no one has money to pay their property taxes. Then they are at the mercy of the corrupt tyrannical government. The Obama stimulus will only make the problem worse. It is an attack on the core principle of capitalism, private property rights. People have to play politics in order to maintain their property, unless they are extremely lucky in their ability to out-profit the destruction of the currency. That is how we transition into the 4th Reich. This is not an opinion, this is a fact I state with complete confidence. The government intervention creates the depression. The coming depression will be the result of the meddling by politicians and others who do not understand (or have contempt for) capitalism.

Bailout Blues

2008-12-04T14:56:00.000-08:00

To bailout or not to bailout, that is the question facing congress. Should the Big 3 Stooges be bailed out?

They're currently asking for $34 billion. (The number seems to grow on a daily basis.)

Congress has two choices. If they dont approve the bailout, then it means that they confirm once again that they are wall street shills. Because they've already given over $700 billion to bailout the banks. Ironically, if you take just the bailout money that went offshore, you'd have more than enough to cover the needs of the Big 3 Stooges. Bank of America alone sent $7 billion to China. That's just one transaction. There are dozens of these "malicious" foreign investments of bailout funds.

How can I not use the term malicious? How else can you describe what they're doing? When congress gives money to banks who then turn around and send that money overseas, what does it mean? And when that same congress refuses to give money to GM, Ford, and Chrysler, what does that mean in this context? It can only mean one thing: they are deliberately trying to destroy this country. Such things do not happen by accident. Since most congresscritters have an IQ of at least 80, one cannot simply blame it on pure stupidity.

If congress doesnt bail out the Big 3, then they must take action to reign back in the bailout money that was sent overseas. But what are the chances of that happening? None, if they are indeed controlled by some "as yet unexplained occult force".

When I wrote about the impending fall of GM two years ago, I did not envision this kind of twilight zone nonsense accompanying it. I never imagined that the same congress which sent billions overseas would then refuse to help domestic manufacturers, with millions of jobs on the line. They may as well just pass a bill that transfers all legislative power to the CFR, and be done with it.

What does it matter that the CEOs of the Big 3 flew to Washington in corporate jets? Billions of dollars in bailout funds went to companies with CEOs flying around Asia in corporate jets. Yet we dont hear one peep out of the media about them. How does one explain such things?

We are redefining the phrase "too far gone" on a daily basis. There is simply no "mainstream" explanation of what is going on here.

The Tinfoil Hatter's Gold Trap

2008-10-22T13:12:00.000-07:00

Knowing that peak oil is a real force of nature, and not something that can even be argued against, one tends to realize that there is trouble on the horizon. Also, it is obvious that both Joe-the-Plumber and his buddy, J6P, will never know and will never be allowed to know and will never care to know what peak oil is and what it means.

Therefore it is logical to assume that there will be a 2nd Great Depression, to mask the effects of peak oil for at least another decade.

I am assuming that Helicopter Ben and Co will not be able to print enough fiat currency to prevent a deflationary collapse. And thus the next 10-15 years will see no net growth in the stock market, similar to 1929-1945 and 1969-1983. In other words, we're entering into the next phase of the ~40 year cycle of boom and bust. My question is, if this indeed happens and history repeats itself a THIRD time, then where do you see gold going? The answer from most people who've seen this crisis coming: "Gold is going to the moon! You're crazy if you don't buy gold!"

Indeed.

But all this talk about $2000-$5000 gold just doesnt make any sense to me. And I'm beginning to wonder if all these seemingly trustworthy people who have been right about everything else are part of an ugly conspiracy to sucker so-called informed people out of their cash. I guess I'll just call it the Tinfoil hatter's gold trap.

It makes sense to me. If I was an elite banker, with billions to invest in the business of suckering people out of their money and covering my tracks, then why would I not go as far as to hire a bunch of goons to go speak truths about the coming crises, only to have them recommend throwing their money away on gold heading to $50 an ounce? It explains a lot of things, doesnt it? Alex Jones talks all the time about why he's still alive when you'd think they'd just whack him or whatever. Well, what if he was approached and told he can talk about whatever he wants, as long as he tells people to buy gold? And they listen to him and buy the gold, and then lose all their money in a depression, along with everyone else. This small investment in 100 media personalities such as Alex Jones, all telling people to go buy gold, would cost no more than a few billion dollars. But it would prevent people in the truth/awakening movement from acquiring capital which can be used to mount an effective resistance. Sounds like money well spent, if I was an elite banker. If you were an elite banker, would you want to see a bunch of well-educated and informed people gaining wealth and thus gaining political power? How much would you pay to prevent that?

I'm not going to point any fingers, I just want to bring to light the possibility that there are people out there spreading truth and useful information, who are allowed complete autonomy in exchange for the small favor of pushing gold. IF things like this are indeed happening, then the only proof you might ever see of it is when someone is right about everything else, but wrong on gold.

A New Sheepleskin Robe

2008-10-20T13:30:00.000-07:00

A shiny new Sheepleskin Robe for the Emperor Wolf.

I've seen this catastrophe coming for quite some time now. Tried to write as much as I could about it. But it's hard to fully describe events like these until long after they happen. Here we are, almost a month after the big bailout, and I'm only just beginning to be able to describe the sheer scope of the scandal. I knew it was an economic 9/11. I knew the date would have occult significance. (10/9/08) And I've known for years that they were planning on stealing 401ks and transferring huge masses of wealth to the ultra-elite rich. lol I guess I just never thought they'd actually do it, so out in the open like this.

I want to try to explain how this scam works, for those who havent figured it out yet. This may take some revisions until I get it simplified as much as possible, but here goes:

GS went to the treasury and asked for a bailout. Paulson is GS, so of course he's going to go along with it. They get their money and they use it to "shore up capital".

Shore up capital. That's a real hoot. That's an occult phrase. You know, sort of like "whack that guy" is an occult phrase. Sooner or later people are going to learn that all it takes is a few talking heads to redefine terms for us, and we buy into it every time. Our instincts tell us to mistrust, but our higher reasoning centers tell us to defer to the authority. Curious isnt it?

Anyway... what they're really doing is putting in a bottom. Shoring up capital means going out and buying a bunch of stocks, basically. So they did, at bargain prices. And they leveraged that capital in the process. Then they sell them after the market bounces, pocket a commission, pay some bills, and then go buy more stocks. Each time they do this, the smalltime investors throw a fit because these actions cause huge waves to ripple through entire sectors of the market. It's basically just a big money laundering scheme. They take the bailout funds, buy stocks, leverage that money out 10-1, and by putting in a bottom they are guaranteed to get a bounce. Because of the leverage, they get a huge profit. But since the money is laundered through the stock market, the profit is "legitimate". Yes, even though it pretty much comes directly from people's 401ks. So the big wigs get to keep all of it. And we're stuck with the over-leveraged mess they leave behind. The process of de-leveraging is what swallows up pensions and 401ks. All predictable. All predicted. Legalized theft.

It really is a beauty of an irony isnt it. 401k and pension money is transferred to the elite, and the mechanism for which to do it is provided by the bailout funds. So the taxpayer pays their own money to have their pension and 401k stolen. Ha ha HA!! How can you not laugh? Hell, it almost makes my own 401k losses seem worth it, just to witness this comedy/horror show that rivals anything Hollywood has produced. But it gets sad when you realize that the average american has not simply paid taxes to have his retirement stolen, but in fact has actually gone deep into debt in order to do it. Where exactly does this end? Tell me, in the simplest possible terms, what is the most logical next step here? When a government has this much deep-seeded contempt for its people, what's next?

Proving How Peak Oil Caused the Financial Crisis

2008-10-09T14:11:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has been studying peak oil for years has known without a doubt that it is what caused this mess. Yes Bush borrowed a whole bunch of money. Yes Bush ruined the value of the dollar from all that borrowing. Yes Bush promoted an Ownership Society doctrine which overpromoted home ownership. Yes the dollar devaluation caused energy prices to rise. Yes it was this increase in energy prices that made it impossible for many homeowners to pay their mortgage. Yes there was billions of dollars of scamming and looting and predatory lending and predatory deregulation. But ultimately it was a lack of energy that brought down the house of cards. That was the root cause.

In an economic model that is based on infinite growth, it was the halt in growth that brought it down. Since this general economic model has been the same for generations, we cant just all the sudden start blaming it now! When did the growth begin to halt?

Notice that the 14 year trendline in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) was broken back in mid 2005. Here is another graph that clearly shows the divergence began before Katrina. And check this out:

This chart implies an early 2005 peak in gasoline sales. That is more than a year before the Case Schiller index peaked.

2 years before the stock market began to notice there was a problem.

It takes a lot to break a 14 year trendline in VMT.

In 2005, the financial system was moving along like a well oiled (albeit corrupt) machine, lining the pockets of rich guys around the world. Meanwhile, while the CEOs were raking in the cash, VMT was breaking a 14 year trendline. What does that tell me? It tells me that VMT, and thus oil, was a root cause. Otherwise, the trendlines would have been broken AFTER Case Schiller peaked. And AFTER the banks started having problems.

The evidence is clear: peak oil, and peak VMT, caused the financial meltdown. You can say that it was all a house of cards, but that was as true in 2004 as it was in 2006, as it was in 2008, so why did it continue until 2008? Why not break down in 2005? Because it took 3 years for peak oil to eat up enough credit and rack up enough debt to cause the financial bubbles to pop.

I know there are some incredibly obtuse people out there, and they just wont get it until you draw them a picture. So I'm going to attempt to do that. Here are 4 steps to understanding peak oil and the financial markets:

1. Our financial system is global, and it is growth based. Because it is growth based, it requires about 1.5% growth in energy supplies every year in order to keep from imploding in on itself.

2. Global Oil production peaked, or plateaued, in 2005, at about 30 billion barrels a year.

3. For 2006, the economy was expecting one and a half percent more oil than in 2005, or about 450 million barrels more. Instead, it only got the same as in 2005.

4. For 2007, the global economy again required one and a half percent more oil than in 2005. But again, in 2007, the global economy only got the same 30 billion it got in 2005. That is yet another 450 million barrels missing. Now we're up to 900 million barrels missing. Again, that is what caused the problems in 2008. Depending how you look at it, because of compound growth (30*1.015*1.015), you could even say the economy required another 450 million on top of the 900 million. That's a total of 1.35 billion barrels missing from the economy. But to be conservative let's just focus on the 900 million. How much oil is that? Well, here is a tanker:

It's a very large tanker. It holds somewhere around 3 million barrels of oil. We're missing about 300 of these from the economy. There is a 300 tanker difference between what we've gotten, and what we needed to keep growing.

This is how much extra energy the financial system needed in order for all its models to prove correct:

Peak Oil Tankerz! It is incredibly difficult to properly visualize that much oil!

Because that extra energy never arrived at the market, it caused all the financial models to be wrong. That led to huge losses. That missing oil also led to some very real supply issues that drove up prices and led to even greater losses. The paper economy is driven by the real world economy, not the other way around. And it doesnt get more real than an oil tanker. The question is, did the financial industry willfully ignore reality as tanker after tanker failed to deliver the oil needed to make their profit models work? Of course they did. And why not? That's what happens in a system that socializes the risk and privatizes the profits.

If you're still not convinced the collapsing housing bubble had anything to do with energy, then here's a thought experiment. Imagine if the price of homes kept rising. Instead of leveling off in 2006, they just kept going up. People kept getting home equity loans, refinancing, buying bigger homes, buying more cars, etc etc. What would have happened? The prices of food and energy would have gone up even more. They would have kept going up until people started to not be able to afford the energy they need to maintain their lifestyle. Then the demand for new homes would have fallen. In other words, the collapse in real estate was inevitable. Houses need energy. Cars need energy. More cars, more houses, yet only the same size pool of energy. That made a recession inevitable. During the recession is when the cars and the homes get more efficient, which allows more homes and more cars to be built. Then the recession is over. But the media ignored the energy dynamic, or downplayed it. They instead focused on words such as "subprime". By doing this, they risk turning a recession into a depression.

The 21st Century Interstate Highway Project

2008-10-03T06:49:00.000-07:00

My own vision is somewhat similar to Christer Lindstrom's and others. I call it the New Interstate. I am envisioning a hybrid semi-autonomous rail system with roads much like we have now, but with the addition of New Interstate terminals located in each city. You drive your car (a PHEV) into the terminal and onto a big long rail car (a Carrier), and it whooshes you off to the New Interstate terminal in your destination city. Then you drive away autonomously for the last mile(s) of your commute. The New Interstate system would be computer controlled, managing traffic 10 times as efficiently. A trillion dollar investment could expand current highway capacity tenfold and eliminate the need for more than a 20 mile battery in most PHEVs. The amount of oil this transportation model could save is nigh immeasurable. The US alone could save 10 million barrels a day. The current economic collapse (brought in part by the failure of the Old Interstate highway system) is what will provide the fuel to build the New Interstate. All that is needed is imagination, and resolve.

I dont like either candidate, but somehow we've got to get them to see how big of a long term economic boost the New Interstate could be. The Interstate is everything, because an electrified Interstate removes the need for more than 20 miles of range on a PHEV battery. It's worth trillions of dollars in both energy savings and economic growth. And we have everything we need to build it, right now.

What is needed:

- An inexpensive PHEV with a 20 mile range
- An electrified rail grid, with the ability to charge the PHEV batteries while aboard the Carriers.
- Rail Terminals designed to allow large throughput of PHEVs.
- Wind and solar arrays to power the grid.
- The ability to conceptualize how much energy it would take to build all this, vs the energy saved during the first 5 years of use. Hint: in 5 years we will import nearly 3 trillion dollars worth of petroleum. At what point do we decide that it is better to invest money in infrastructure that saves fuel, rather than simply burning it up as fuel‽

I am not an artist so I cannot draw my recommended design of a terminal, but it would look a lot like the above image. That image is just a row of toll booths. But if you picture the row of toll booths as the Carrier car, you can see the basic design of the terminal.

The idea is that many cars will simultaneously drive aboard the Carrier. Then a pair a doors will close around the cars and the Carrier will take off. Then a new carrier arrives and the doors open, the cars drive away and a new line of cars loads onto the Carrier. The terminals would not have to be very big. They need not be much bigger than the row of toll booths pictured above.

Such terminals could be placed ubiquitously around a city. With computer controlled traffic flows, it could take literally 5 minutes to commute from one side of downtown Atlanta to the other. Clearly there is more than just energy savings at stake here. Productivity could go way up as well.

List of advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages:

-Supports the existing paradigm popular in America. People want autonomous vehicles rather than to be tethered to an inflexible public transportation system. Now we can have the advantages of both.
-Reduces oil consumption by eliminating 50% of the demand for gasoline and 10% of the demand for diesel fuel.
-The same grid and terminal design can be used for much of our commercial shipping. Because the Carrier charges the batteries, even companies like the UPS could use low-cost PHEVs to ship containers over vast distances. They just wont be able to stray very far from a Carrier.
-Terminals can be built directly at the locations of big box retailers like Walmart. Fully commercial Carriers (the equivalent of semi-trucks) can be built to travel on the same grid, making deliveries directly to Walmart in much the same way that trucks do now. Note: the same Carriers that transport PHEVs around during the day can be used to transport goods at night.
-Highway accidents would be almost completely eliminated, saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Any accidents that do result will result from software errors in the control logic. That means that all accidents would eventually be eliminated as the software is perfected.
-Commuting would be less stressful because all the highway traffic management would be done by computers.
-The rail infrastructure can also act as part of a 21st century direct-current power grid, delivering cheap solar-thermal power from the desert to cities like Atlanta and Houston, with limited transmission line losses.
-Can easily integrate with pedestrian transport. You can have People Carriers and PHEV Carriers operating on the same grid. Perhaps even on the same carrier.
-Emergency vehicles would be able to function much better because they can be given priority on the network. Police and fire stations could have their own private terminals, as would hospitals.
-Easy transition to interstate, intercity, and intracity terminals. Intercity and Interstate Carriers would be built to travel much faster, possibly even over 200 mph, while intracity Carriers would be built for rapid acceleration and deceleration to take you to many different terminals within a single city. If you needed to ride one local Carrier to a central Main Terminal, where you drive off that carrier and onto an Intercity or Interstate carrier, it would not be difficult or overly complicated to do this. In fact, the whole process could even be automated.
-The ability to promote domestic manufacture of goods. This is very important. By providing free electricity for shipping while on the grid, we eliminate or nearly eliminate the impact of high shipping costs for domestically manufactured goods. Imported goods will be more expensive because they were shipped overseas, whereas domestic goods were produced in the US and shipped across the network for free.
-The Carriers can act as part of an extremely high capacity emergency evacuation and wartime supply infrastructure. Millions of people could be evacuated out of a city in a few hours. Troops and weapons can be shipped in. All using the same infrastructure.
-Carriers fitted with a large number of ultracapacitors can act as mobile power units, delivering emergency power to areas that need it. (I am assuming that ultracapacitors will advance significantly over the coming decade.)

Disadvantages:
-High upfront capital costs
-Vulnerable to the same potential software problems as other computerized networks.

Cost control and funding strategies:
-Implement a tiered priority pricing scheme. If you are rich, and you want to avoid any queues, you can purchase a priority pass.
-Free grid power? The government would be able to decide whether or not to charge users for their electricity use while traveling on the network. They could give everyone a certain amount of free credit, and then start charging if you go over that limit. (Say 1,000 miles per month for example.) Grid power should be free to promote the use of PHEVs. But it could also be based upon income.
-Start with Interstate and Intercity first. Intracity can come later. Just having an Interstate system will allow most PHEVs to make trips like SF to LA, or Chicago to Detroit, relying on the PHEV range to get them to their final destination within each city. Later, intracity terminals can be built to eliminate all but the last mile of travel.

Laura Ingraham: Flower On a Land Mine

2008-09-05T08:53:00.000-07:00

I listen to the Laura Ingraham Show for about 15 minutes every day, as part of my ongoing analysis of right wing radio. Needless to say 15 minutes is about all I can stand to hear.

She was responding to someone's comment that said
the presence of the teenage boyfriend, father-to-be at the Republican National Convention does everything you'd expect from planting flowers on an active land mine, when she said she didn't quite understand what that meant. Let me explain it for you. People plant flowers on top of a land mine when they want to lure innocents (mostly children or anyone else with love and happiness in their hearts) into getting themselves blown up. It is a particularly despicable act, because of the people it targets. It is the kind of tactic you'd expect to see used in places like 1968 Vietnam.

While I was thinking about this, it occured to me that this is exactly what Laura Ingraham is: a flower on a land mine. And listening to her is like picking flowers on a land mine. It is sad that so many people fail to see Ingraham and Hannity and Limbaugh for what they are. They are not conservatives. They are paid hacks whose job is to distract you with their smiles and friendly voices while their bosses rape the living daylights out of this country. They are not your friends. They couldnt give a damn about this country. They will be safe in their gated communities as the policies they push bankrupt this country. I just wish for once they would come out and tell the truth. It might go something like this: "In order to pay for the war on terror, you must let us take all your money and assets. You will be safe once we've taken everything, and you are living in a dirt-floor tent village with the millions of other suckers who bought into this bull."

Like picking flowers on a land mine, you listen to these right wings hacks at your own peril.

Even today after nearly 7 years of post 9/11 mafia style rule, this criminal cabal is still using the same tactics. Ingraham is one of the hired PR goons for that cabal. They will not stop holding the billy-club over America's head until the country is broke and half the population is living in refugee camps. The text on that billy-club reads "Islamofascism". Hundreds of media figures are wielding that word in a mafia style. These media personalities are paid hacks. They are hired hitmen who do their dirty deeds not with real pistols and clubs, but with words. Intellectually bankrupt words... and they don't care how intellectually bankrupt their words and logic are. Because their call screeners will ensure that the real paradigm will never be exposed to their listeners. These hacks would never survive an open debate in the style of Chomsky vs Perle. But they don't care, because even though Perle was completely demolished in that debate, he still went on to help wreck this country with his flawed logic and the perfectly predictable outcome that resulted from his flawed thinking.

By invoking that word Islamofascism, they are in reality saying "pay us protection money or yer windaz is gonna be smashed." Now, 7 years later, we've all paid massive amounts of protection money. At least 10,000 on average. Perhaps 20,000 when you add in all the inflation and debt that they have caused. But it's still not enough. They want you to literally lose your assets and even lose your earning ability. They are pushing the country toward civil war. They are selling off public assets in order to pay for a police state to suppress the dissent they know is coming. All the while, they're telling you how great a job they're doing by lowering taxes. It's a complete lie. They aren't lowering taxes. They are taxing the hell out of us, but not calling it a tax. Islamofascist is the key word. They don't even know what the word means, but that won't stop them from using it. This is all very simple and well understood by many, yet it still holds this country and the world in a deathgrip.

Is Industrial Agriculture really such a bad thing?

2008-08-27T11:16:00.000-07:00

I hear a lot of talk in the peak oil community about how bad industrial agriculture is. One of the most prominent solutions offered to peak oil is the idea that mankind has to return to smaller scale, local farming. Such a suggestion requires a serious sacrifice. Because of that, the premise deserves a very careful critical analysis. What is so bad about industrial agriculture? Can the problems be fixed by any means other than living life as a peasant subsistence farmer? And more importantly, what if it turns out that the people suggesting we need to localize are incorrect in their analysis?

Keep in mind that industrial agriculture itself has absolutely nothing to do with our wasteful manner of shipping food all around the world in a highly inefficient manner. Take the often mentioned "10,000 mile caesar salad" as an example. It is very possible to use industrial agriculture and ship food moderate distances in a very cost effective way. 10,000 miles is clearly an absurd waste. I wont defend that. The 10,000 mile salad is not a product of industrial agriculture in the strictest sense. That's just braindead marketing and sales people gone amok.

But lets say you could use industrial ag methods to produce a 100 mile salad? If it could be done 1000 times more efficiently than a 0.1 mile salad, due to economies of scale, then where is the loss? There is none.

We currently waste millions of barrels a day driving around doing "food related activities". But if push came to shove, most of us could get a weeks supply of food from the nearest "food hub" for no more than a couple gallons of gasoline a week. We don't do that, but that's not because industrial agriculture is too inefficient. It is because industrial ag is actually too efficient. It is in fact so efficient that it allows us to waste money on complex food rituals, such as driving a gas guzzling vehicle to a restaurant and dining out. The industrial agriculture component of your tab at that restaurant is probably only a couple bucks. Thats only a few percent of your check. Hardly an issue. The real issue is the inefficiency of the service economy that is built around the highly efficient industrial agriculture component. It is the inefficiency of the service economy that comprises the vast majority of everyone's food bill. Unless you prepare all your meals nearly from scratch.

There's no need to grow food yourself.

There's no need to grow food locally.

What there IS a need for is to NOT waste ten or twenty gallons a week driving around this place or that for the purpose of dining, or buying food products that have been shipped around all over the place for whatever reason.

So... industrial agriculture itself is clearly not the issue. Why not just focus on the chemical runoff, GMO, and transport network inefficiencies rather than flushing the baby down with the bathwater?

I am beginning to suspect that people attacking industrial ag (whilst simultaneously not focusing any effort at combatting the true agricultural problems I mentioned) are yet just one more sad layer of cointelpro wrecking the world. Think about it. Industrial agriculture is one of the true godsends of an advanced civilization. Why would anyone want to throw that away and tell people to go spend half their life growing their own food? If that isnt disinfo then I'm sorry but I don't know what is. Who are the ones who would truly benefit from a large portion of people stuck on farms? Think about it.

Do you really think governments would spend less fossil fuels on their war machines even if millions of people went to live on farms as peasants? Ha! And how are you supposed to stop them if you live on a farm? By not paying taxes? Oh, they'll find a way to tax you. Even if you make nothing. They'll come in with tanks and guns blazing to take your land because you didnt pay your taxes. Does it matter that they will, in one day, waste more fossil fuels than you saved in a year? Hell no. My message to people who are advocating subsistence farming as a replacement for industrial agricutlure: you had better wake up and realize that you've been scammed into a false paradigm of thinking.

Hoodwinked.

The same way that "conservatives" have been scammed into adopting liberal tax and spend policies via a tangled web of propaganda that uses deficits and inflation to mask the actual taxation.

The same way that environmentalists have been scammed into helping shut down US industries and moving them to China where they end up increasing the pollution while destroying the economy.

The same way that global warming is being used to set up a sham carbon taxation scheme that will further choke off the economy.

The same way that feminism has been used to destroy the family and get everyone working and mindlessly consuming so no one would pay attention while they robbed and looted us.

I could go on and on. You'd be a fool to think that with an issue as important as peak oil, there wouldn't be any attempts by big money to derail the movement. Question everything. All solutions must be built on the most solid logical foundation. Advocating a total end to one of the greatest advances in all of history is not a logical solution.

Russia Georgia Conflict: Background and Timeline

2008-08-18T18:17:00.000-07:00

First a few links to timelines. That's always a good place to start.

Georgia-Russia Conflict Timeline (includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia)

Russia: Annotated Timeline Of The Chechen Conflict

Timeline of Georgia-Russia Conflict

Here is Stratfor's Analysis of the Russia/Georgia Situation (http://www.stratfor.com/)

This conflict is riddled with what appears to be occult symbolism.

The rest of the links below are from last year when Russia supposedly dropped a bomb in Georgia, as well as some earlier events. I am posting these because they are likely to be buried and lost in the flotsam of new links that are being created on a daily basis.

Georgia accuses Russia of bombing village

ATS: Georgia: Russia dropped bomb on village

Stand up to Russia over Georgia

Georgia leader Mikhail Saakashvili: Russia is a menace to peace

Russia says threat of war between Georgia, South Ossetia real

Georgia prepared to declare war against Russia

http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2817627

Q&A: Georgia-Russia tensions (May 2005)

05.08.200712:14 (GMT)

Georgia’s arms race

Parliament Endorses Increase in Troop Levels in Iraq

Georgian hostile strategy towards Moscow may alienate Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Georgia fires at 'Russian plane'

Russia-Georgia dispute escalates (8-27-2007)

Wikipedia: 2007 Georgia missile incident

Wikipedia: 2007 Georgia plane downing incident

Be sure to read all the comments that were posted back in 2007. They may not be the best writers, and they may not be blessed with an overabundance of brains, but they were there writing about this before it escalated.

Peak Oil and the Occult Ruling Class

2008-07-25T08:30:00.000-07:00

Why is there so much resistance to the idea that there are people above Bush who are really in control?

It is part of what John Michael Greer of the Archdruid Report calls “scapegoat logic”. I guess he uses this term because it makes people blame the illuminati or reptoids, and then say "there’s nothing I can do", and then go back to watching television. I don’t believe in that way of thinking. I think that anyone who responds in that way is part of the problem. It is an attitude manufactured, in part, by the mind controlling content on that television. I would say that it is scapegoat logic to blame the reptoid conspiracy rather than general apathy and ignorance. (Which is worse, people who think too much about things they cant really prove? Or people who think too much about absolutely nothing at all?)

I wont go as far as to say there is a reptoid conspiracy. But I will say (and you'd be a fool if you didnt agree with me when I say) that our leaders know about Peak Oil. They know, and they also know what it means for civilization if the proper steps are not taken. And when I say "our leaders" I mean both those on the political / financial levels, and the occult rulers above them. They all know about Peak Oil. They all clearly understand what exponential growth is. They've asked if humans were smarter than yeast. They have a basic understanding of all of that. Maybe not Bush, but he’s just the wallpaper.

If you cannot agree on my points so far, then I don’t know what to say. May as well stop reading.

The next key point is that the occult ruling class controls nearly almost everything of importance.

There is a reason there is so much occult symbolism on the dollar bill. And its not to make people like me talk about reptoids either. They put all that symbolism on the dollar bill out of hubris. They're saying "we won". They took control of the money supply of the greatest nation on earth. And then they sat back laughing as they implemented their 100 year plan. That plan was to use the USA as an engine of global domination and consumption. They are stampeding humanity right off a cliff, just like buffalo.

They knew that people would notice that peak oil represented a grave threat. To counter, they used a number of control mechanisms. They funded communism, nazism, maoism, the eugenics movements, you name it... if it’s bad, then it’s been funded by wealthy bankers with strong occult religious beliefs.

And they of course used the two party system to control Americans.

At no point in history has it ever been more obvious that both parties are controlled by the same forces. Everyone knows this. (We know this, because “at the end, all will be revealed.” That’s the beauty of it, from their perspective. We will figure this thing out right at the end, long after it’s too late to do anything about it.)

They knew that not everyone would be fooled by the primary control mechanisms, such as the two party system and the demonization of “communism”, the Red Scare, Domino Theory, etc, etc. That blends right into terrorism and cave dwelling boogeymen. They knew that at least 5% of the population would be immune to these traps. So they implemented a handful of secondary countermeasures:

1) Global warming. It's totally obvious that this was manufactured by the occult. How else can you explain why people would worry so much about the climate 50 or 100 years from now when society is going to be steamrolled long before then, by peak oil? Global warming is based completely on the flawed assumption that the global economy is going to keep expanding without any problems, until the climate becomes a problem. What kind of dreamworld do you have to be living in to believe that?

2) The above countermeasure fooled the scientists and the environmentalists. This countermeasure fools the economists, and to some extent, the fringe movements, ie the "conspiracy nuts". This countermeasure is Inflation. We know it has been used as a weapon against populations in the past by lowly tinpots. Here is how it works when the occult rulers use it.

We have 90% of people buying the sophomoric mainstream media bull about lack of drilling, "no new refineries in 30 years" and speculators run amok. I wont address the lack of drilling and the no new refineries because it is well documented in many places with overwhelming evidence that both those "causes" are not correct.

I will say something about speculation though. It is important to note that speculation serves a vital role in a free market. If there is something worth speculating about, then you should expect there to be speculation. This is why speculation is a symptom rather than a cause of a problem. This is basic market economics 101 stuff. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who blames the price of oil on speculation is placing a little sign on their forehead that says "I dont know a damn thing about the market." These people simply are not thinking. If they were, then they would eventually reach the conclusion that something very real is driving the speculation. And that's what this countermeasure #2 is all about. Enter Ron Paul. He is there to tell us that it is the erosion of the dollar that has caused oil to go up. And gold, and silver, and everything else that requires energy to build or dig out of the ground. There is some truth to this, but it is difficult for many people to establish proper causation. Was it the threat of peak oil that created a need to go into Iraq? Or was it us going into Iraq and creating huge deficits that destroyed the dollar and caused oil to go up? It seems like a tough question for anyone who hasnt taken a couple hundred hours out of their life to study peak oil. All one needs to do is read Cheney's now infamous oil speech from a decade ago to know what he knew. His speech totally and completely removes any doubt as to whether he was aware of the problems the oil undustry faced. He laid out the numbers. Quoting Cheney:

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

He never did answer that question. No one has.

Even if you think everything I'm saying is useless drivel, you should still be wondering why no one is able to accurately answer that question that Cheney asked. The future of America depends greatly on the answer to that question. Because even though no one has an answer to that question, even 9 years after it was asked, America has still been proceeding as if someone has the answer.

3) Technology. This countermeasure hasn’t fully played out yet. You've got the television brainwashing as an obvious first step. Then you have satellites, thermal imaging and tracking, GPS and cellular tracking, the list literally goes on and on. It was all built to ostensibly to "make life easier". But on the occult level it is clearly here to control us.

4) 9/11: A honeypot for "conspiracy nuts" who weren't captured by countermeasure #2. Also, a distraction. Thousands of the most intelligent and more importantly, free and independent thinking people, had their talents rerouted onto pictures of molten iron and thermal hotspots and planes that might not be planes and holes with no wreckage and the countless lies told by the Bush administration and their sycophants in the media and god... the list goes on and on. Meanwhile the country was pillaged and raped and it took this long for people to begin figuring out what 9/11 truly was. And most importantly, it is logical to assume they have a list of anyone who has ever questioned 9/11, even though there is no constitutionally legal justification for anyone to have such a list.

So, they got the scientists. They got the environmentalists. They got the economists. They got the technophiles. They even got most of the conspiracy nuts. There were other groups targetted with other countermeasures. Feminists for example. The whole civil rights movement is part of the occult system of control. They allowed for equal rights because they were so close to achieving their goals that it didnt matter anymore. Just like it doesnt matter if everyone in Zimbabwe is a billionaire, because the currency was destroyed. If you're angry now, then you had better get over your denial quickly...

By using secondary countermeasures like these, they have succeeded in stampeding the vast majority of the population toward the cliffs. Call it scapegoating if you want. But this IS happening. Peak oil is not that complicated. Fire drills are more complicated, yet 8 year old children can handle them with ease. Do you honestly think that we as a society could not muster up enough competence to deal with the simple fact that every faucet has a maximum flow rate? (That's all peak oil says...) Or that every car has a maximum top speed? etc etc. There is no rational reason for the entire species to be marching off a cliff like this. In near total ignorance. Blindsided by a bell curve so obvious it is absurd.

Only a powerful, occult, arcane force can explain these levels of cognitive dissonance. The mind has to be trained to function in that way. That training, aided by the television set, has been provided by the same occult ruling class that brought us the Federal Reserve.

100 years from now, will the remaining humans wonder what the hell happened to make us so colossaly ignorant? I think they will know, because the story is told on every single dollar bill. You just have to step back and look at things from a larger historical perspective.

But the question is, why do this? Why run this sort of scam against the entire species? Clearly this was more than just a 100 year plan. The Federal Reserve was simply the final leg of the journey. It's been going on for centuries.

But why?

Why not? "Because we can" is always a good answer. Why did Jim Jones kill off his cult? Things like that have happened thousands of times throughout history. But the scale of this is so massive and so hard to comprehend. And that's why some people turn to things like reptoids. The underlying theme behind those kinds of theories is not a hatred of lizards, but the simple idea that it is some sort of offworld intelligence that is really running things. This may be true. Who knows? If true, then were we ever meant to know? If not, then humanity must simply accept slavery.

But if humanity was meant to be slaves, then why provide so much freedom in the first place? Why not just have us all be slaves at the pyramids of Egypt?

I think we were meant to know. I think we were meant to figure out who or what is controlling this occult system, and we were meant to fight them.

If you’re familiar with Star Trek, you probably understand the Prime Directive and how it relates to warp drive and alien contact. In Star Trek, a culture had to develop the capability to travel beyond the speed of light in order to be contacted. Well, I believe something similar may be happening with these occult rulers. Some sort of test. We have to figure it out in order to advance to the next level, the next plane of existence, level of consciousness, whatever. This could be the key to explaining all the UFO activity and many other things. They could all be watching, waiting, for humanity to cross the threshold and pass the test and destroy the illuminati. Or fail and have a massive die off. Either way, it probably would make for decent entertainment for whoever might be watching.

Note that the "Archdruid" actually deleted the link to this post, while leaving several other links in his comment section intact. I cant say I'm surprised. Why is it that when most people see anything to do with the occult ruling class, they dont just ignore it, but they actually go out of their way to prevent others from seeing the information? Why bother? What purpose does it serve? This need in people to act this way is, I believe, the root and core reason why the occult ruling class holds so much power over America. If what I'm writing here is useless babble, what harm is useless babble? The world is full of it. However, if there is any truth to this babble, then what? How about another buffalo analogy. If you're a buffalo running with a herd and you realize that the herd is running towards the cliffs, what do you do? If you stop, you get trampled. If you dont stop, you fall with the rest of them. What do you do? It is only the natural human predisposition towards selfishness that makes this a difficult question to ponder. It's really not a difficult question at all.

The Lies That Bind

2008-07-23T10:27:00.001-07:00

For years and years, the oil shills and hacks in the media have been telling Americans that it is ok to go on with their drunken sailor oil binge, because there will always be more. These repeated affirmations and suggestions to continue mindless consumption have gotten more desperate over the years. And now they have ventured further into absurdity with the oil shale scam.

In the above chart, you can see how these shills are attempting to reaffirm the same status quo mindset that is currently wrecking America. They are in essence saying

“it’s ok to go on behaving as if there is an endless supply of oil. There’s no need to alter your lifestyle. There’s no need to save up to prepare for an economic future which may be significantly worse than the present. And there is definitely NO need to establish conservative policies that at least match what the rest of the world is doing.”

In other words:

(Nothing to see here, keep sucking the world dry so you can go back to being slaves on the feudal farm asap!)

By putting out completely fraudulent charts like the one above, these shills are in fact dealing irreparable damage to the country. How do I know that chart is fraudulent? Because when making these sorts of comparisons of US energy reserves with those of Saudi Arabia and Iran and Russia, the amount of the resource is irrelevant next to the amount of energy contained in that resource. The relevant information in this case is not the amount of shale we have, but the amount of energy contained in that shale as it compares to the amount of energy contained in the oil reserves from Saudia Arabia and Iran and Russia. That chart explicitly and directly implies that we have nearly seven Saudi Arabias worth of net usable energy trapped in US oil shale. This is completely untrue, and there is not one hack geologist who can provide any evidence whatsoever that US oil shale contains anywhere near the amount of net BTUs of energy that the Saudis have. The trick is, they aren’t talking about BTUs or joules or any other widely accepted unit of energy. And they definately aren't subtracting the amount of BTUs or joules required to take that oil out of the shale and bring it to the market.

They’ve actually been pushing shale for more than 30 years, but fortunately few listened because… well take a look at oil shale:

Common sense should tell you it isn’t really oil. It’s more rock than oil. It actually has an energy density roughly equal to that of a baked potato.

(Interestingly enough, the butter on that potato actually contains a significant portion of the energy in that baked potato. 30% would be my guess.)

Keep in mind that if you take a pound of potatoes and try to make fuel out of it, you’ll be lucky if that amount of fuel moves your Flex-Fuel™ SUV out of the driveway. On the other hand, a pound of gasoline, refined from light sweet Saudi crude oil, will move your SUV at least 2 miles down the road, possibly 3. The energy densities of shale rock and crude oil really cannot even be compared.

Here is a chart that more accurately reflects the true realistic amount of energy contained in US oil shale, once accounting for all the massive amounts of energy required to remove the oil from the shale rock. It's an extremely rough estimation, but it does at least attempt to factor in the extraction cost overhead.

There is energy to be had, but it is certainly not enough to be telling anyone that it is ok to continue the status quo. It would require massive amounts of capital investment, to such an extent that it would dwarf ALL the existing oil infrastructure in the entire world. And we cannot even begin to calculate how much that capital equipment would cost, since it would all have to be built during an era of increasing energy scarcity. It should probably be done, because it would create lots of jobs for americans. But there will be no direct profits to be had. The cost overruns from this type of venture would dwarf what investors have seen from projects such as the Canadian oil sands.

Take one more good look at that chart.

These are the lies that help to explain why Americans own so many SUVs. These are the lies that cause companies like Ford and GM to bleed like a stuck pig. Americans have been fed a steady diet of misinformation for years. And now America is trapped in this cage of lies. They are truly the lies that bind.

Interdisciplinarianism

2008-07-18T13:21:00.000-07:00

Interdisciplinary...

Interdisciplinarianism!

I think that is the key word. It's 9 syllables, jeez it must be important!

Interdisciplinarianism is the skill that allows one member of a society to see and understand what the others are doing. Without this skill, we would have no way of knowing whether one branch of society has become aberrant. Any group, doctors, lawyers, politicians, scientists, environmentalists... it doesnt matter... without interdisciplinarianism, we would have no way of keeping all these separate groups in check, and even more importantly, each group would have no way of communicating with every other group. It would be like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Yesterday I wrote about how Al Gore has made a career speaking about fossil fuels and alternative energy, but he does not appear to understand the basics of energy economics. He lacks that interdisciplinarianism. So he cannot see how our need to cut emissions could actually cause an economic catastrophe. You can tell he was in government... governments suffer from this all the time.

Here's another example of how a lack of interdisciplinarianism can cause problems: most of the Ron Paul movement is somewhat on the right track talking about how deficits lead to currency devaluation. But it is really the interruption in the trendline of energy supply growth that initiated the currency devaluation we're all seeing today. After all, we've had a policy of deficit spending for the last 30 years, and the problems have just started to get really serious recently. Surely it is not fiscal irresponsibility that caused this? I mean, 25 years ago you could say that fiscal irresponsibility is going to lead to an energy and economic crisis. (And Ron Paul did say it 25 years ago.) But to say it now is kind of late. So that has rendered the Ron Paul movement effectively ineffective. And that's just one political group. The McCain group and the Obama group are even more clueless. They dont know anything at all about energy or basic economics. It seems they do not even possess high school educations. But that is a separate issue from interdisciplinarianism. Basically, they're just plain dumb. This is very unfortunate, to say the least.

What we need is a way to synthesize esoteric information like the "Peak Energy Positive Feedback Loop", so as to move it into the mainstream. The process of synthesis is what will bring the greatest understanding for everyone, including the experts. Take Al Gore's film, and also the film Day After Tomorrow as examples. Those films helped to popularize some of the scarier possibilities of climate change. I don't care much for the idea of overdramatizing something to the point of discrediting a field of science. But I think it is harmless to help people to imagine scenarios where rapid climate shifts can occur. After all, that possibility is not fiction. The climate can and has undergone rapid shifts in the past. (I dont know about days or weeks, but definately in timescales of just a few years.)

Unfortunately, at this point in time people are 10 times more concerned about catastrophic climate change than they are about the types of catastrophies that can and will occur if we allow ourselves to drive right off the energy cliff. Humanity has been asked a simple question: are we smarter than yeast? We are on the threshold of checking the NO box.

What is oddly frightening to me is the fact that I have not seen even one pop culturalization of an energy crisis. At least, nothing that I can remember. Nothing that really fits what seems most likely to happen. Considering all the incredible scenarios that have been played out in movies, that strikes me as incredibly extraordinarily odd, to the nth degree of oddness. From earthquakes, volcanos, asteroids, plagues, world wars, alien invasions, post apocalyptical scenarios, evil dictators, even killer bees! Why is there no box office hit movie involving a peak energy scenario? To be honest, the Matrix is the closest thing I can think of.

But the Matrix's main premise was fatally flawed, since the human body will never be a net producer of energy. And the very idea that people actually think the human body can "produce" energy is rather scary. This is basic physics. But that doesnt really matter because that film was not really about enslaving humans to be used as AA bateries.

That was just the sugar coating, to acclimate us to the much darker reality that may be coming. 30, 20, or even 15 years from now, reality may be so harsh that many people may willingly choose to be plugged into a matrix. But they will only be told they are going into a matrix. In reality who the hell knows what hell they will be going to.... How lovely. In my limited study of the occult neofuedal darklords, I have learned 2 key points. One, they always openly state their plans. Two, the public must willingly accept whatever form of enslavement the dark lords offer. The Matrix reality fits right into that.

Al Gore: Doesn't Know, or Doesn't Care?

2008-07-17T19:33:00.001-07:00

Al Gore recently did an interview with Catie Couric.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/17/eveningnews/main4270123_page2.shtml

In it, he says:

One of the reasons why our country's had such a hard time dealing with this, is it does involve national security, energy, the economy and the environment. But there's a common thread that runs through all of them. The key is ending our dependence on carbon-based fuel. And if we grab hold of that thread and pull it, the other problems begin to unravel, and we got the answer right in our hands. It's the switch over from carbon-based fuel to renewable energy.

Umm, no, if we grab hold of that thread and pull it, the fabric of society will begin to unravel. Fossil fuels and our dreaded carbon emissions are the only thing that holds that fabric together. Is Al Gore really so dumb as to think that we can just poop out all these alternative energy technologies without paying anything for them? He talks about them being "expensive" but he doesn't seem to grasp the concept that it is the fossil fuel energy itself that is the currency of the world.

The only way to build out the alternative energy infrastructure is to consume even more fossil fuels. Everyone who said those additional supplies will be readily available has been more wrong than a broken clock. EVERYONE. The government can print more dollars, but it cannot print more energy. Al Gore, a Nobel Prize winner, surely must understand this. Either he doesn't know, or he really doesn't care. Which is it?

Is Al Gore like that innocent roadrunner who just happens to be helping run Wile E Humanity off of a cliff?

Iranian War-Games

2008-07-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

I read in the news today that Iran apparently faked a missile launch using doctored photos.

Iran: doctored missile image?

Dept. Of Photoshop: When 3 Becomes 4

Did Iran doctor image of its missile test launch?

Iranian missile test photo 'digitally altered'

Picture: Iran 'fakes' missile launch after misfire

The absurdity of this is what piqued my curiosity. So I took a look at the photo. It does indeed appear they faked a missile launch. I have highlighted a number of patterns that both images share. No two smoke trails should share this many patterns. The odds of it naturally occuring are infinitesimal.

The only question is... why? They would have to be really stupid to think they could cover up a failed missile launch with such a lousy attempt at photo editing. They must have taken lessons from NIST, whose doctored images of the damage to WTC 7 are as bad as this. It's funny how no one in the mainstream media cares to report on that story, but they're all over this story.

Central Banking Tyranny: The Next Phase

2008-06-26T06:04:00.000-07:00

You know the first phase. The central bankers took control over the gold supply.

And you know the 2nd phase. They severed all ties to a gold standard. This unleashed the ravages of inflation.

In the 3rd phase, they used slave labor, outsourcing, and technological advances to justify the inflation to the dumbed down public. They convinced everyone into believing something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is not a duck. And at the same time, they convinced the dumbed down public that anyone who talks about this duck is a quack.

For years there were arguments over whether or not there was any inflation as prices on most things have doubled over the course of 10-15 years. The real rate of inflation was somewhere between 4.5 and 6.5 percent. (Note that an inflation rate of just 4.6% leads to a price doubling every 15 years.)

One of their favorite lines of bull is the concept of "relative price changes". They say that if the cost of some goods or commodities goes up, and this increased cost is offset by decreasing costs elsewhere, then there is no inflation.

Sounds good doesn't it? Perhaps, until you actually think about it. You should, because that one single line of bull has been used to scam the middle class out of trillions of dollars in wealth.

The key phrase is "decreasing costs elsewhere". For this to make sense, you have to envision the central bankers out on the golf course trying to come up with ways in which to disguise the inflation. Relative price change was one of the scams they came up with. How is it a scam? To answer that we need to look at the mechanisms for price decreases:

1. Technology and innovation boosted productivity to the point where manufacturing costs could be lowered and we could all benefit from that. In theory anyway. But instead of us all benefitting, the central bankers said "hey, we can use this to disguise the inflation". ("Randolph, that's a great idea....", "Why thank you, Mortimer.") So they got richer and everyone else got poorer, despite all the innovation and creativity and technological advance. Great deal eh?

2. Outsourcing, offshoring, slave labor, prison labor, etc. This has been a huge cost reducer. But this has enough drawbacks and downsides as it is. Namely the longterm health of the nation. Michigan is becoming a model example of what outsourcing can do to an economy over the long term. But in addition to all the drawbacks and downsides, the central bankers had to go and add one of their own: Every time America sent jobs overseas, it reduced the price of some item. The central bankers then used that price decrease to say that there was no inflation! What a scam....

3. Destruction of organized labor. This ties into outsourcing a bit, but there is an additional point to make. The central bankers like to claim that wages aren't increasing, so there is no inflation. They say this over and over again. One of the reasons wages can't increase is because workers have little bargaining power. Both because of weak unions and because of outsourcing. So when the costs of food and energy go up, people just have to bend over and take it. They don't have the ability or organization required to demand higher wages. And that's fine with the bankers because they've got everyone believing inflation is at 2%.

Ok, so that in a nutshell is how they have been able to get away with Phase 3 for so long. The more research you do, the more you realize how the central bankers actually created the conditions I outlined above. They created the conditions which are having such a deleterious effect on this country, and they actually then turn around and use those same conditions as a means to try and cover up the inflation they create. Isn't it sadistic? It's occultic. But for whatever reason, few seemed to care as this Phase 3 was implemented over the last 35 years. The people have pretty much accepted 5-6% inflation as a fact of life. How they can accept this when it will completely destroy the entire economy eventually? That, I do not know. (Black magic? Science-fiction type mind control perhaps?) But anyway that isn't the real problem.

The real problem is that the central bankers are no longer content to stay in Phase 3. They are moving to Phase 4. For whatever reason, they apparently believe the cattle, err sheeple, are ready to be more than just sheared.

The money supply, the debt, the propaganda, the media compliance, it is all moving into overdrive. Real inflation rates are pushing 10%. In case you haven't figured it out yet, yes, the real estate bubble was the final key. This was what they needed to create the facade of normalcy and cover up the true rate of inflation. They are going to use the falling value of real estate to try and claim that will somehow offset the inflation, and then use that as an excuse to say that all the money they are printing is not causing "excessive" inflation. How they are going to explain it exactly, I have no idea. Because it's complete gobbledegook. But gobbledegook is what they've been feeding the public all along. This is merely the next logical step. At any rate it does not matter how absurd their actions are, because the media will do their best to convince everyone that the central bankers are heros. At this point we're pretty much living the real life version of Idiocracy anyway, so I doubt they will have a difficult time convincing the general public to go along with this, and to laugh at anyone who tells them how badly they are getting ripped off. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if by this time next year, they got half the population believing Osama bin Laden has 500 million barrels of oil packed into his caves, and that is why the price keeps rising.

That Dark, Oily Cloud Over Texas

2008-06-24T07:53:00.000-07:00

Call me propagandized, but I am one of the few who is willing to pay 2, 3, or even 10 times as much for gasoline than what I'm currently paying now. I dont have a problem with it, because I know that civilization itself is threatened by artificially low fuel prices. There isnt enough for everybody right now, and just imagine what is going to be left for anyone who is growing up right now. I wish so much of it wasn't going to waste, because it is going to be missed it when it becomes out of reach for most people. Hell, it's already out of reach for most of the world's population. It is only a matter of time before most of America becomes like most of the world.

People in this country are being stripped of their humanity to the point where they dont even care about their own children's futures. For what? To go to a ball game or a concert? To drive to a fast food joint? Really, how much of what we do actually contributes to any meaningful economic growth? That's why Europe raised their fuel taxes a long time ago. They knew this was coming. (As any person with even a high school level education should have known.) A higher fuel price increases efficiencies - not just in our vehicles but in our culture too. Efficiencies in all systems are increased. And that is precisely what needs to happen. Somehow, America allowed itself to be dominated by the culture and presumed eternal affluence of "Texas Oil", as if that oil was going to be around forever. As texas oil started to fade, this cloud of denial just sort of rolled in to take its place.

That denial is a big part of what is stripping people of their humanity. We had the oil, and we wasted it. Just like we'd do with any winning lottery ticket. We'd make grand plans about how we're not going to waste it, and then we'd waste it. That's just how it goes I guess. You know how bad it can be for one person who knows they made a horrible mistake with their finances, and then tries to deny it until it destroys them to the point where they are many times worse off than being broke. Possibly even dead. Now imagine an entire culture with that ailment. Yes, cultures suffer and die too, and they dont die alone.

The most important thing to do now is to move on. To go on pretending we still have what we had could prove to be worse than never having had it at all.

Jobs for Oil

2008-06-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

Today I just read about how container shipping costs have gone from $2000 to $8000. That is how much it costs to ship one of those giant 40 foot steel containers from China to New Jersey.

I've been talking about this for years... it didnt take a prophet to see this coming. I am not too happy about the hole America has dug for itself.

Lets say you can squeeze 1000 toaster ovens onto one of those giant shipping crates. If it costs $2000 to ship it to america, that is $2 per toaster. Not too shabby, eh? This is, in a nutshell, the business model of the 90's. Yes, thousands of people sat in thousands of boardrooms, crunching the numbers and seeing $$$$$$ and $$$$$$$$$.

Let me see if I got this straight...

A thousand CEOs got rich because it made financial sense to close down factories here and open factories in China. Because it is SOOO BLEEPIN SMART to trade American jobs for Chinese slave labor PLUS the foreign oil required to import the fruits of that labor. And all these really smart CEOs just assumed that the price of oil was going to stay low, even though their own country had little control over the price of oil. So unbelievably brilliant!

But with the shipping cost at $8 a pop, does it still make sense to import? Can we not build a toaster oven here in America for less? If not now, then when? When it costs $20 a pop to import?

By the way, this isnt just capitalism gone mad. This was all done by design, to destroy America and deplete the world's fossil fuels so that the global elites could have more control. (You know I just had to throw this comment in.)

Most of the people responsible for sending jobs overseas probably couldnt give a damn about the longterm survival of this country. But I seriously doubt they would destroy our production base if they knew the profits were only going to be short to medium term (less than ten years). But that is exactly what they did. And they did it because the military industrial complex controlled media censors the petroleum industry data and analyses required to make informed decisions. This is yet another example of the cancerous nature of the military industrial complex. Their attempts to control information resulted in many poor financial decisions across the board. This is why I say they are sucking the wealth right out of this country, and the world at large. Because they are. Through taxation, currency devaluation, and control of information.

Taxation. (Socializes the costs so that no one takes a personal stake in removing the waste in government systems.)

Currency devaluation. (Cost overruns result in deficits which in turn result in the creation of new money, which inflates the money supply and makes each dollar worth less.)

Control of information. (The public is kept completely ignorant of the mechanisms used to control them. What isnt talked about in the media, basically isnt talked about. People have been conditioned to literally not see a giant elephant crapping in their living room.)

At this point it is tough to decide which of those three weapons has been the most deadly. And it is really tough to even guess at which of those weapons might be disarmed first.

I Got Your Peak Oil Myth Right Here

2008-06-05T11:09:00.000-07:00

This was written in response to the many cornucopians who think that a fall in oil prices means that peak oil is a hoax and it is time to dust off the Hummers.

Many in the peak oil community understand that one of the key symptoms of peak oil is high volatility.... in other words price spikes. And with spikes come dips. I would not be surprised if oil fell to $70. That doesnt mean it is going to stay there. And it definately doesnt make peak oil into a myth.

In order to prevent a peak, new production has to be brought online to replace the current 3~4 percent rate of depletion PLUS another 1.5% to allow for continued economic growth. That is over 4.5 million barrels a day that needs to be brought online to break us out of this plateau. That is one Saudi Arabia every 2 years. There is not one petroleum expert in the world who can tell you where all that oil is going to come from. Even IF the oil was found, there simply is not enough infrastructure (drilling rigs, qualified personnel, etc) to bring it online fast enough to ramp up production in time to offset current depletion rates. The current megaprojects have everything tied up. New rigs have to be built, new people have to be trained, and all of that takes too much time. And worst of all, the price premium on any rush order can be exorbitant. That rush to build more equipment and train more people... not to mention the energy and commodity costs to do so... THAT is what will drive oil to $300 and beyond.

Oil may drop in half to make Oblama look good for the cameras. Oil may drop to keep the focus of this election on watered-down issues. But it will not stay there until demand is destroyed. Obamanomics will ensure that this whole process accelerates.

Corn cobs, bean stalks, and bin ladens

2008-05-23T07:18:00.000-07:00

Drill more oil! Drill more oil! Gots to gots to drill more oil!

Even if the whole continent was open for drilling, we'd still have to import at least $1.5 billion a day worth of oil. So obviously you're looking in the wrong place if you want to find the source of the problem. The problem is that almost every vehicle on the road weighs probably 30% more than it needs to. (If not 60%) I see no reason for so many people to be driving such huge vehicles. If people want to keep driving around battle tanks, then they better get ready to pay a lot to fuel them. The biggest problem is that people who dont consume a lot of gas still have to pay so much for it because all the insecure dupes out there who feel the need to drive a battle tank.

I find it ironic that we say we dont want higher taxes, but what do you call it when the price of gas rises 200% while at the same time the government refuses to tax gas guzzlers? Can you add 2 + 2?

That's how most real taxation works. Like Bush's tax cuts. Paid for with borrowed money. Debt that devalues the currency and causes the price of everything to rise. In other words, Bush's tax cuts were paid for with ... higher taxes. (They just dont call it a tax. How convenient. Of course it isn't a tax, it's more like a racket.) But the real crime is that the tax cuts went to the rich, yet everyone in the country paid for them through inflation. How Just is that?

That injustice is the same type of injustice as the subsidizing of gas guzzlers. If you drive a Honda Civic, YOU are subsidizing that SUV down the street. Because YOU are paying 4 bucks a gallon even though the price wouldnt be that high if everyone drove a Honda Civic. Do you understand how that works? Again, can you add 2 + 2? YOU are being taxed, because somebody somewhere said they didnt want to pay higher gas taxes. Are you seeing the pattern here?

That guy down the street who likes hauling around 6000 pounds of steel everywhere he goes... he should be paying 5 bucks a gallon. And if you drive a Civic, you should only be paying 3. Even if you drive more miles. Because it is logical to assume that those extra miles you drive are for some productive purpose. While those extra pounds he hauls around serve no real useful purpose.

The federal government has no business subsidizing the purchase of insanely large vehicles. Yet that is exactly what the government has done for so many years. And we wonder where the real problem is? LOL. Is it even possible to calculate how much money this corrupt government has costed the people with all the bad legislation that's been passed over the last 20 years? I'm talking about just the legislation directly pertaining to motor vehicles. I'll bet those bloodsuckers have costed us more money than all the oil we've imported. When Jack brought home those magic beans, his momma should have taken them to congress. They would have ordered 5000 truckloads of them. In reality, unlike in the parable, those beans would have truly been worthless.

Look at where europe is vs where the US is now. They are much smarter about their energy consumption. It may be not be possible for the US to recover from the mistakes made over the last 20 years. Which is what people like me have been saying for the last 20 years. I never liked SUVs. On a very primal, instinctual level, I saw them as a threat. Because that is what they are. SUVs are a bigger threat to our way of life than a thousand bin ladens. But for so many people, that SUV became the symbol of their way of life. History may remember the SUV as the ultimate symbol of human stupidity. (Rivaled only by the suburban McMansion.) How many billion tons of steel wasted? How many million tons of coal wasted to produce that steel? How many million barrels of oil wasted to lug around all that dead weight? It isnt just Americans that have an obesity problem, it is their vehicles too.

Like I said 10 years ago, there should be a tax on every SUV... a gas tax of 100%

If we had done that 10 years ago, we'd be producing hella-efficient cars right now. Cars that would rival europe. Our cars would be so damn good, we'd be exporting them to europe. The economy would actually be growing, instead of only growing for the top 1%. By the way, that is the group of people who control the media which tells you that you don't want higher taxes. What a joke that is...

You want to conserve? That is the way to do it. Dinking around with ethanol is just colossally stupid in comparison. There is little real benefit to ethanol. Costs are transferred rather than eliminated. But a 100% gas tax based on vehicle weight would save this country billions of dollars. You'd see the vehicle fleet changeover in no time flat. Like it was world war II or something.

But we dont have anyone lobbying for that, do we? Why? Because people dont want higher taxes? That cannot be true, because we are paying higher taxes right now. We just dont call them taxes. But that is what they are. A tax to those who conserve, and a subsidy to those who waste. That is the most deadly type of tax you can imagine.

We keep getting scammed over and over again but we never make any sound decisions. There can be only one end result of this type of behavior: tyranny, despotism, and poverty.

The Black Hole Leechocracy

2008-05-22T14:25:00.000-07:00

Looking back over the last 30 years, it is clear that most of the prosperity wasnt really created, it was simply paid for with the national credit card.

All of the creative juices... that which brought us the tech boom, the telecom boom, the internet boom... all the wealth from those creative juices was sucked out by a bunch of yuppies who wanted big houses and SUVs. They wanted that crap because the controlled media told them that is what they wanted. Why didnt the controlled media tell them they wanted to bring peace to the world? Why didnt that box in the living room tell them that they would be happy with a better education? Why didnt they talk on the radio about exciting new research? Why was it all just a steady drumbeat of consumption?

What on earth could convince an entire population to act so horribly stupid?

It's like some kind of mind control beam was 'shined' on all of us. I dont think it is hyperbole to say that. That is exactly what has happened, and history will remember it as such.

I'm not even sure what to call this system that we're under. But it is not capitalism, nor is it socialism.

It's like some kind of technocratic robber-baron black hole leechocracy.

Regardless of what you want to call it, this 'system' was designed to destroy this country in a way that would ensure that it never rises again. This is no accident. It is an elite master plan, being followed to the letter. They've been waiting not years, but decades to do this. They are only doing it now because technology is at the point where it can now be used to control the population. They made that determination many years in advance. They figured that by the time they finish sucking out all the wealth from america, the technological control grid would be in place to control the pissed off peasantry that finally realized (too late) that it had been captured and enslaved.

Bush feels your pain at the pump!

2008-04-29T11:30:00.000-07:00

Oh Bush feels our pain? What a joke. It's his fault for using deficit spending to pay for wars and tax cuts. Govt debt only results in new money being created by the Federal Reserve, resulting in bubbles, such as the housing bubble. When the bubble pops, the Federal Reserve comes in and bails out the banks for their portion of the loss, leaving the average citizen holding the bag. In a truly just world, all the bagholders will be Limbaugh-loving yuppie SUV driving Bush voters. In a free market economy, all the Bush voters would be in bread lines right now. But it dont work like that. Those who save are being punished the most, through the Fed's policy of currency devaluation. Meanwhile, the yuppies go right on consuming like locusts, while listening to Limbaugh talk about how it's the liberals who did all this. Meanwhile, the idiot liberals are already so drunk with the power they havent even gotten yet. So all they can talk about is the slight differences between the empty rhetoric of Clinton and Obama. No doubt it will take them 7.99 years to realize that their favorite CFR candidate isnt going to actually do anything good for them or the country.

The Brute Force Method of Media Censorship

2008-04-16T09:11:00.000-07:00

Most media censorship is done by simply ignoring stories of significance. But sometimes news does get out, and that is where the brute force method comes into play. Here's an example:

I'm not a geologist, but this does seem pretty significant. Seismic activity like this is often a harbinger of larger quake soon to come. Shortly after hearing about this, I noticed something peculiar happened. There has been all sorts of media coverage about an impending earthquake in California.

Look at the number of news articles about the impending earthquake in California. There is over 20 times the buzz being generated about a topic Californians have known about for years, compared to the coverage of what is going on off the coast of Oregon, right now! Of course California is going to be hit in the next 30 years. How is that news now? Why right now? Why right after this Oregon story hit the web? I doubt it will lead to much, but I'm just using this as a clear example of what the media does, time and time again.

Update:

Less than 2 weeks after posting this, Reno Nevada was hit with a series of quakes that followed a very strange grid pattern. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=033159

That was May 2.

10 days later, China was rocked by a gigantic earthquake that killed tens of thousands. Are these events connected? Who knows. The point I'm trying to make is that our knowledge of such connections is completely dependent on our knowledge of the events themselves. And it is awfully hard to even hear about the events in Reno and off the coast of Oregon when the media, out of the blue, for no conceivable reason at all, starts flooding the channels with news stories about a California earthquake in the next 30 years.

The Neofeudalist Master Plan

2008-04-15T12:05:00.000-07:00

They took over the treasury in 1913. Caused a depression in 1929. Bought up all the gold in 1933 (for a mere pittance). They killed Kennedy when he got in their way. They staged the Gulf of Tonkin to drag us into a war whose ONLY purpose was to inflate the currency and get us to consume as much of our resources as quickly as possible. Then they created voodoo economics and used the television mind control devices to sell it to the people. This allowed us to enter a period of ostensible prosperity when in reality only the elites were really getting richer. And of course the orwellian mind control box constantly told us that all the deficit spending was completely normal and acceptable. And now, here we are. Up the creek, blindfolded, without a paddle…. And slowly realizing that the sound we’re hearing is the sound of an approaching waterfall.

I think any geopolitically awake person today would agree with what I just wrote.

Pay no mind to the distant thunder…

But why did they do all of this? Here is my one-sentence answer: To get us to consume the world's resources, so that the elite feudal lords can return the serfs to their proper place.

Oil and coal and natural gas were the poor's ultimate weapons against tyranny. As long as we had some level of control over those resources, tyranny didnt have much of a chance to thrive. But just look at history. Any time resources begin to deplete, tyranny always comes in to fill in the gap. That's why the US spends a trillion a year on "defense". For the sole purpose of bringing to an end "the age of oil" so that they can resume their thrones of power. Democracy stands no chance of survival in an era of declining resources. The US resource base has been in decline for 35 years now. And that is why what we have doesnt resemble democracy anymore. People may think it does, but that doesnt mean anything. Most of those same people also think they're going to be raptured into heaven. Maybe they will, but that is irrelevant here on earth.

Peak Oil vs Global Warming

2008-03-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

Which is the bigger threat? Which will win in the ultimate Godzilla vs King Kong style contest of calamities?

My money is on peak oil "winning". (Not that its much of a victory.) To me, it isnt even a contest. It's not Godzilla vs King Kong, it's Godzilla vs Diddy Kong. Ironically, the average person, even the average college educated person, is totally naive on the issues in this debate. They are just as naive as Diddy Kong.

Carbon emissions will eventually drop off, but not before anything and everything is burnt as the maddened masses scrounge and scrape the land for resources.

There will be attempts to cull and herd the populations, and there will be mass eugenics carried out. But the resources required to run these programs will not be available for long, and they will not be able to control all the supply lines.

Basically, the "terrorists" will win. (Terrorist being anyone who disagrees with the idea of being rounded up and slaughtered nazi-style) Tell me you cant easily envison some hack on Faux News talking about how those bloody terrorists have struck again, and we need to send in 10,000 more troops to secure resources. What resources? Food. Water. Wood. The troops will slaughter those poor people who refuse to go to the concentration camps. And when they fight back, they are terrorists.

A very grim future indeed. But that's what happens when people choose to live in denial. I do believe that all of that can be prevented. But first there has to be an awakening. And that just is not possible with the CFR controlled media. Too many people buy the fraud of global warming. Even if sea levels rise 20 feet in the next 50 years, that will pale in comparison to the number of people who are going to die from peak oil. If there is ample energy supplies, there will be resources to relocate people away from the coasts. With energy shortages, there is nothing but death.

So like I said, there is no doubt about which is worse. And yet millions of people are ready to sign away their freedom to reduce CO2... its so absurd... it would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

Dear Jessica Wakeman

2008-03-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

I remember reading your Cloverfield 9/11 piece a while back. It made me want to see the movie. I hope you will take my advice and stop wasting your time on these dumbed down moronic pop culture gimmics. You're much too good a writer to waste your talent on such garbage.

I doubt you'd agree with me when I say that Gloria Steinem has done more damage to america than all the bimbos on all the computer screens combined. But you need to hear it.

Doesnt it bother you that there are so many single mothers out there trying to raise children? Most feminists think its perfectly ok, because they will get along just fine without men. But they are ignoring the obvious trend that the US is following.... a trend that is clearly leading to 3rd world status. It is only the credit that has kept this country rich enough to where women could get by without men. And as we now know, the credit bubble is collapsing. What that means to all feminists is that they have got to start thinking about how they are going to get by in a country that is significantly less stable than it once was. And how to do it without a man. How to get by while carrying these rediculous ideas that so divide our culture precisely at a time when we need unity. That wont be easy. Feminists who live in denial about this are setting themselves up for a lot of pain and suffering in the coming years. Every feminist is going to realize that they've literally been had. Played like a fiddle by the CFR. Feminism, like many things, was used to destroy this country.

It's sad, and I can assure you that the horror of knowing all this for years, and slowly watching it unfold exactly as predicted, is just as devastating as seeing the twin towers burn from a distance close enough to hear the thumps from the falling bodies. I would rather watch something like that, than see my worst fears about the future of america materialize. But still, even now, people dont want to listen to me, especially feminists. My words are instantly hated because feminists are programmed to respond with blanket denial by the very forces that I'm fighting against. But I think feminists would listen to you.

I think you would be happier fighting against the powers that be. Rather than writing divide-and-conquer style attack pieces on the idiocy of men. We're so far beyond that now it isnt even funny. We all know that men are stupid. But women are stupid too, and highlighting each other's stupidity is not helping the situation. We've all been played. It's easy to laugh at the thought of some guy actually paying money to buy bimbo bucks. I personally think it's hilarious. But he's doing that for a reason. And that reason is because there is no supportive female role model in his life. And that is because the women are too busy working and shopping and... talking about how dumb the men are. If there is to be any hope for this culture at all, then it simply MUST move beyond this. You could play an import role in that process.

Real Estate Crash caused by Denial

2008-03-27T14:11:00.000-07:00

To get us out of a recession, the fed lowers interest rates. This is equivalent to printing massive amounts of money, in the form of credit.

That is standard procedure.

They didnt care where the money went, as long as it went somewhere. Last time around, it went into housing. It could just as easily have gone into cars or solar panels. The point is that it tends to create a bubble somewhere.

The main problem is that the bubbles they create often dont do much for productivity. Yeah, we built a bunch of houses, but what did it do for us? The simple answer is it increased our energy consumption. Just like the "SUV boom" of the 1990's increased our national energy consumption. These booms create jobs, but they also create waste. The boom in SUVs created some waste that we all can see quite clearly now. And the weight of that waste is usually what causes the bubble to pop.

I find it rather ironic that two of the biggest booms we've had have been booms that cause energy use to rise. Big houses, and big vehicles.

Then we hit the plateau of peak oil, and now we have big houses, big vehicles, and big energy bills! Yet peak oil, even to this today, is rarely discussed.

Whatever the reason it is not being discussed, THAT is precisely the reason things will get much much worse. If you dont talk about real problems and real issues, they stand 0% chance of being solved. The problem can be solved, but the denial is what will ensure that it will not be solved.

Peak oil is what caused energy prices to rise so far beyond what was predicted by the so called "experts". This price increase started to eat into the money that was supposed to feed the housing bubble. So the housing bubble popped. People had to spend an extra hundred bucks a month on gasoline. And an extra hundred on heat and electricity for their homes. (Natural gas peaked in 2001). And that, combined with other rises in cost of living, combined with increasing ARM rates is what brought about this totally predictable collapse. The system could withstand normal inflation. All their computer models factored in the inflation that was expected to be caused by the lowered interest rates. But the analysts live in denial of peak oil, and that caused their computer models to also live in denial of peak oil. But in the end, you can only get so far living in denial.

It is important to note that if we had a "solar/wind bubble" instead of a housing bubble, then the consequences would not have been nearly as disastrous. Both bubbles would have created lots of jobs. But instead of increasing total non-renewable energy consumption, we would have decreased it. And that would have enabled further growth. Growth is what brings wealth. We cant have growth if we cant increase energy consumption or energy efficiency.

Now we are stuck in the precarious position of having to increase total energy efficiency by 5% a year in order to have economic growth. That by itself is very tough to do. Especially when there is no interest, thanks to the public being misled by their wolf-in-sheep-skin CFR masters.

But then we have another even larger problem looming over the horizon. And that is the fact that the world's largest oil exporters are also the fastest growing countries in terms of oil consumption. The export-land model shows that oil exporting countries can rapidly deplete their own export capacity once their oil production peaks. The UK and Indonesia are two prime examples. Under the export-land model, Saudi Arabia could be at 0 net exports within 10 years. That is a worst case scenario. (Actually total global chaos is a worst case scenario, but I'm discarding that for sake of optimism.) The point is that these problems just get worse and worse when people deny they exist. The denial will continue as long as people deny that groups like the CFR want to destroy the USA.

How do they do it? How does the CFR control America? How does it decide our fate? Through central planning. If you believe that there are no central planners controlling the market and society, then you're in denial about more than peak oil! They control the media. They control what gets discussed. They control which scientific theories are accepted and rejected. But even if you believe they are acting in some positive manner, they are NOT always right. Expansion tectonics is a slam dunk example of where they go wrong. And that's why central planning is bad. They just deny huge swaths of reality until they basically destroy themselves. That's if they're benign. If they are malignant they destroy entire societies.

Seizures of Society

2008-02-18T08:14:00.000-08:00

I just heard about another school shooting. As usual, after I hear the news the first thing I do is go read and find out what kind of medication the kid(s) were on. In the process of doing that, I found another one of these sad pathetic "All we can do is ask why" types of articles.

All we can do is ask why? God that sounds like such a slavish attitude. We already know why. The country, and indeed the world, is run on lies. Our current president stole the election in 2000. And nothing was done about it! A year later, 19 saudi hijackers magically caused a 47 story skyscraper, which housed the CIA and the SEC and a dozen other agencies, to collapse neatly into its own footprint! (Gosh it sounds like fiction. What does occam's razor say about that?)

It's the fluoride in the drinking water. It's the mercury in the vaccines. Its the refined sugar kids are given, and its the drugs they are prescribed because the doctors willfully misdiagnose a sugar high! Lies lies lies! In a world based on lies, you are going to have people flipping out. Especially when they're on psychotropic medications which wreck their brains... brains which were already ruined by the tv. And by industrial waste chemicals marketed as being healthy.

Oh but its the video games! Yeah. Its ok to zombie out to the tube for 5 hours, but its wrong to play games with friends. Sometimes gaming is social, and sometimes its not. And therein lies a key relevant distinction.

What's wrong is that there is a serious problem in this country with people's critical thinking skills, or lack thereof. That is no surprise, because every single thing even remotely intellectual is under attack. Look at the state of tv and radio. It's all dumbed down escapist crap. All entertainment, all the time. Why? Why do so many people's eyes glaze over when anything even remotely intelligent comes on the tv?

And worst of all, there is a certain kind of cowardice... which makes us say things like "All we can do is ask why". Like John Mayer, singing "waiting on the world to change." We're always waiting for someone else to do the hard work...

The answer is so simple. The country is being destroyed by irrational levels of mindless consumption and our own unwillingness to deal with the depth of the lies. Why should anyone be surprised when people flip out and go postal in any of a thousand ways? It's like a convulsion or a seizure of society. And make no mistake, it is society as a whole that has the sickness, not just the individuals who commit these acts. As we become more and more decadent, more and more detached from reality, expect to see these kinds of events continue to occur and expand. And expect the globalist shills begging and pleading for you to give up your liberties for protection. Who knows, maybe they are right. Perhaps people would be safer locked in a cell. And happier? At least until they turn off your tv and forget to feed you!

Bush's Economic Scamulous Package

2008-02-13T13:59:00.000-08:00

Let's do some basic math.

Americans consume approx 400 million gallons of gasoline every day.

At $3 a gallon that is $1.2 billion a day.

Gas prices are up at least 30% compared to last year. Which means that this $1.2 billion a day we're spending now was only about $900 million per day one year ago. I dont have the exact figures and we dont really need them to see that there's a serious problem here!

We are spending somewhere around a quarter billion more per day, conservatively, on gasoline than we were a year ago.

That's about $100 billion a year!! If/when the price of gasoline hits $3.50 a gallon, it will mean that the rising cost of gasoline will consume ALL of this economic stimulus money in one year. IF gas hits $4 a gallon, it will consume all of the stimulus money within 6 months.

And that says nothing about the increased cost of natural gas, electricity, food, medical care, tuition, and just about everything else that's not made in china.

This is simple math, and it says this stimulus is an insulting joke. It's an election year ploy. If gas goes to $4 it is going to blow up in their faces come november. IF gas stays where it is, or drops, it will mean there is severe demand destruction indicating severe recession. Either way, this stimulus is a joke. They know its not going to work, and once again they think people are too damn stupid to figure it out.

We need energy independence, NOT silly handouts. Especially handouts that are tacked onto the country's national credit card.

Should We Be Excited About Ron Paul?

2008-01-10T10:34:00.000-08:00

I'm not "excited" about Ron Paul. Excited simply isnt the correct state of mind for anyone who is awake these days

I've been following his campaign since the beginning. His 2002 speech on the congress floor played a part in my actually becoming knowledgeable of that dark underbelly of american politics. I guess it was Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn that really got me started on my "road to recovery" (to give credit where credit is due), but Ron Paul has definately played a huge part. I love his speeches and his reasoning is very solid.

For someone like me, Ron Paul doesnt represent much to be excited about. What he is advocating is simply coming back down to reality. I agree with him on that.

But there are two key issues that I disagree with him about. One I wont get into. A simple glance at the other headlines here will clue you in on that. Yes I am a twoofer! But such is not relevant here, because terrorism has always been inflicted upon us by inside and outside forces, and thus it cant be the cause of our recent precipitous decline. Thus I dont fault Ron Paul for dodging this issue.

The other major point of disagreement is the oil issue. And that is extremely relevant.

Ron Paul doesnt talk much about oil, especially about the fact that US oil production peaked right about the time when the Bretton-Woods system collapsed in 1971. I find it quite ironic that Ron Paul talks so much about 1971 (I've heard him mention that year dozens of times) yet he doesnt mention that we peaked that year. That's when the biggest of our big problems really began. Instead of being reasonable and responsible, we just kept right on consuming. Now the situation is clearly untenable. Dire in fact. Global oil production has been in a plateau for the last two years. Just check the charts. It's not a conspiracy theory. lol. And when you factor in the amount of oil we are consuming just in the production of oil, it is clear that NET global oil production is in fact in decline. (It takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to heat shale rock, drill miles down, pump water into wells, etc. all of which we are doing more and more of.) Sadly, such a statement falls on deaf ears even today, which is why we're in the shape that we are in. Couple that with the fact that so many people will blindly state that the economy is doing great! Even though any percentage gains in GDP (or any other measure) are totally erased by the decline of the dollar. The economy is in fact in a state of total collapse, and Ron Paul cant do anything about it. No one person can. At this point the best we can hope for is to mitigate the disaster. Of course Ron Paul has to somehow paint a rosy picture around this, otherwise no one would listen at all. I could care less about putting roses on a turd, but Ron Paul is a politician, thus he must "paint the turds" or else he'd get 0 votes. (Like the zero votes he got in those many districts in NH, even after people in those districts came out and made public statements saying they indeed voted for Ron Paul. wink. wink. But voter fraud is so insignificant compared to what's truly at stake here. Sadly.)

At this point in time, all I want from my government is for it to stand back and get the heck out of the way and let free hearts and free minds at least try to solve the problem. If that isnt done then the slide towards tyranny will only accelerate. So many people have been comparing the US to 1930's Germany lately. Luckily for the US, enough people around the world still believe in our good name. But we're drifting further and further away from everything this country stood for that made it great. The question that needs to be asked is how can we have any innovation or any technological breakthrough when the nation is consumed by Britney, the Super Bowl, and Desperate Housewives? The simple answer is... it cant. So there can only be two mid-term solutions to our problems. (But of course I cant rule out that unlikely third solution.)

1. Total peace in Iraq. Followed by massive increases in oil production. 6 mbpd in 2010 to 8 mbpd in 2012 to 12 mbpd in 2014. Iraq is the only place left in the world that can provide the kind of oil supplies we need to keep this ponzi scheme going for another decade. (This may seem like a lot more oil, but it is required just to cover all the many countries currently declining in production.) Hopefully some technological breakthroughs will occur in that time.

2. The US economy collapses entirely thus dragging down oil imports and allowing the rest of the world to once again have $20 oil. In this scenario, obviously the US will be seen as the bad guy getting what it deserves just as the Soviet Union got what it deserved roughly 20 years ago. Further, such a collapse would most likely free Iraq and promote scenario 1. I dont particularly like this scenario, but in terms of "karmic justice" this does seem like the most logical solution. What worries me is that with someone like Hillary overseeing such a scenario, you can be certain that millions will die and the holocaust will make the Nazis look like boyscouts. And the propaganda machine will convince everyone that all who died were with Al-Qaeda. We would cease to be a free country, and as such all advances both social and technological will cease.

3. A serious technological breakthrough is revealed. Something on the order of anti-gravity. Dont think Jetsons (I cant stand that analogy.) Think mass scale inexpensive electricity generation.

What convinces me that scenario #2 is most likely to occur is the fact that the media covers up every single piece of relevant information Americans need to make informed decisions. Take the Sibel Edmonds story that was buried this week. Since it's a small piece of the AQ Khan story, they obviously had no choice but to cover it up since they covered it up every step of the way. You cant spin the maliciousness implied by the media's actions just on this one longrunning story. And there are hundreds of examples of such obvious maliciousness. I dont care how collosal a conspiracy is required for this to be true.... all I know is that it's bad. Bad as anyone ever said it was. And that's pretty bad! Despite the wealth of information and alternative media sources available today... despite the fact that there's so much out there even for people who dont read (I have over 50 gigs of audio and hundreds of gigs of video, all alternative stuff that would never be covered in the mainstream media). Despite all this, the average citizen is more clueless than ever. This cannot end well...

At this point I just want it to end as gracefully as possible. (Ron Paul says this as well) I dont want another world war. Because if there is one, we will not be on the winning side. Despite all our military might... People like Cheney already know this, that's why they are transferring all their assets to Dubai and other relatively safe havens. The writing is all there, on the wall, clear as day, for those that wish to see it. The funny thing is that when terrorism flares up... (and I'm talking about real terrorism not government sponsored terrorism...) When the real stuff happens, do people like Cheney really believe they are going to strike here? That's the one silver lining in all of this... the real terrorists that people like Cheney are trying so hard to provoke... they are going to hit places like Dubai.

Just look at the incredible bias in the media against a real founding father type like Ron Paul. They are one step shy of calling him Al-Qaeda! For saying the same things Jefferson was saying. Isnt that amazing? Does anyone really believe that they'd allow him to accomplish one little thing if he got elected? I seriously, seriously doubt he'd even be able to pull out of Iraq! Like I said, that oil is the only thing that I can see that can keep this economy afloat. Even Ron Paul doesnt have a solution to that conundrum. No one does. That's why they led us in there. The only solution I see is war crimes tribunals and multiple public executions of Bush Administration officials...and a hope that such actions will lead to total peace in Iraq. Obviously that's as unlikely to happen as anything else.

So that in a nutshell is why I'm not excited about Ron Paul. But evenso, he is still the best candidate for the job. The other candidates are just a joke that will see this system run into the ground as brutally as possible. They show no signs of even having a grasp on the issues that drive politics. They only speak to the lowest common denominator... to those kinds of people who make decisions based on headlines and what their favorite pop stars say. Ron Paul is a statesman, the others are all just politicians. As the country further slides downhill, the words of the founding fathers may begin to ring more true. But the real question is why would anyone want to elect a statesman now? 20 years ago, maybe, but now, all he would be is a scapegoat. If you like Ron Paul, why would you wish that upon him? I guess it just goes to show how high the stakes are...

When Bush was (s)elected I said this country would not suvive 8 years of this guy. Given the current rate of contraction and devaluation of the dollar, it appears that I was right. There might still be a country come 2009, but it is not going to be very pretty. The best we can hope for is that the federal reserve keeps pumping money into the banking system, and the economy can somehow remain solvent for long enough for a technological breakthrough to occur. It's true that the middle class will be priced out of existence by stagflation, but isnt that better than a total collapse ushered in by Ron Paul? Isnt that what is just? Shouldnt the dumbed down apathetic public be the ones to pay? Because after all they are the ones who dont pay attention.

You see, those of us that have been paying attention have been rewarded. Look at that silly overpriced consumer gimmick -- the iPod. I would never own one but I know that people are dumb enough to go into debt to have them! Hey more power to em! Thanks for teh cash! (btw I'm still using and loving that $30 usb flash mp3 player/plugin cigarette lighter/fm transmitter that I bought ages ago and blogged about on here. Now THAT is truly a great product! Not a gimmick!). And it pays in other ways to know what's going on. Take an alternative energy company like FSLR. Up almost 1000% in 2007. Yes, We Who are Watching may survive this. (btw I wouldnt buy solar now. I'm predicting oil will drop to $75 within 2 months. Come May, the flood gates for solar should open back up, if we dont crash by then.)

But the average moron who doesnt know and doesnt care to know... they will lose everything. And isnt that the best we can ever hope for? To survive and fight another day? When the rest of the country sees how successful you can be just by being informed, they will want to emulate you, instead of Britney. And in such ways hope is kept alive. The vision set forth by the founding fathers can be renewed. But first, all the flotsam has to be cleared out. And those moron yuppies who dont know anything and laugh at you when you throw fact after fact in their faces... hey... I tried my best to warn as many as I could. Kudos to anyone else who tried. But 2008 should be the year where you start looking out for yourself. In this day and age there is simply no excuse for anyone to not know how controlled their worldview has been. This is the age of the free mind, for those that truly wish to be free.

It's so funny that this is actually the BEST argument I've ever heard against Ron Paul. Why hang him out to dry? It's just that simple. Yet the other candidates cant use that slogan because they'd have to level with the American people in order for the argument to make any sense! But such is the absurdity of American politics...

24 hours after the day that will be known to history

2007-11-13T09:19:00.000-08:00

Loose Change Final Cut was just released. No doubt millions will be watching it (for free I might add) over the coming weeks. The video is far more damning than I had originally anticipated. I am impressed to say the least. Yet you wouldnt know there was any significance to this event if you were only tuned into the mainstream media. big surprise eh?

Check out this screen capture of google news taken 24 hours after loose change final cut was unleashed

Note the video was released at midnight on Nov 12. Not one news story about it!

The question will be asked... why did it take so long for 9/11 truth to finally make a powerful case? Screenshots like this provide the answer.

Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous

2007-11-11T13:20:00.000-08:00

This is a response to Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous
By JB Williams (11/11/07)

I am fast becoming the most unpopular man in America, among Ron Paul supporters that is. Truth is seldom popular among those at odds with that truth.

Truth? ha, well let's see what your version of the "truth" is?

Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters that their candidate is the “real deal” constitutionalist conservative in the ’08 presidential race and that he has a real chance of winning. But the facts simply don’t support either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.

Your selection of the facts might not support those claims. In order to know who is right, and who is full of it, all depends on how many logical fallacies are rooted within your interpretation of the facts. I can already see one glaring logical fallacy, and that is this: You cant lump all of Ron Paul's supporters into a group and say they all are angry and having "fits of unbridled rage." That's fallacy #1.

Besides, why would anyone want to waste their hate on you personally? Most Ron Paul supporters are focusing their anger on the forces at work destroying the value of the dollar. Or the forces at work constantly lying us into war after war after war while sweeping the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the rug. You have to be narcissistic to think that anyone would really be angry over a peon like you. But no doubt you are a part of those forces, so that is the reason you get lots of angry emails. Not because you're anything special.

The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very dangerous for America and the conservative movement in particular.

You mean the neo-conservative establishment. That's fallacy #2. Bush and Giuliani and most of the others you support are not conservatives. And THAT is a fact. Just because somebody calls themself a conservative does not make it so. Their actions are what determine that.

Although he is highly unlikely to win anything, his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble for the legitimate Republican nomination process.

Because he is growing the party? Hey if it weren't for Ron Paul, the party would be shrinking even more this year. And THAT is a fact. But you dont care about that, because obviously, A: you want Hillary to win, and B: because you have no respect for the democratic process. The Republican party is open to almost anyone who wishes to register. Yet you're against that? Fallacy #3. And it's a big one!

Recent headlines have been focused on the record fund raising day in the Paul campaign. It was a very effective campaign stunt.

Fallacy #4. It's not a campaign stunt. It was a grassroots effort that sprung up independently of the campaign. Like RonPaul2008 would have chosen Guy Fawkes day to have a huge fundraiser? Come on.... I'm surprised you didnt mention Guy Fawkes actually. That's always good for a lowbrow cheapshot, which should be right up your alley.

Although he still trails most other candidates in overall fund raising by a pretty wide margin,

This is not just fallacy #5, but it is also a blatant lie. Fact is, most other candidates trail him. Why dont you try subtracting all the money that Romney has personally contributed to his own campaign? Then you'll see that Romney hasnt raised all that much.

his campaign grabbed headlines by setting up an internet campaign stunt designed to raise as much as possible in a single day.

Again, this is a blatant lie. The campaign did NOT organize that "stunt". And I would call this fallacy #6 since I know damn well you wouldnt be calling it a stunt if Fred or Rudy had pulled this off. And you know it too.

It worked - they got the desired headlines - but what does it really mean?

It means Ron Paul's campaign got money and headlines, that's all it means. How can you feign ignorance about this? lol

In the end, it won’t change the outcome of the election process.

And if he raises 12 million on Dec 16th, you'd probably say the same thing. If he raised 200 million, you'd surely be saying the same thing, no? Who are you to say what will or will not change the outcome of the election process? The only way you can know the outcome is if you think the system is controlled. That's fallacy #7. And it's an insulting one at that. There may be some establishment controls, namely such as yourself, but they are weak and fleeting.

But the recent surge in campaign contributions did raise a more important question.

Where’s all that money coming from?

From people who are sick of being lied to? That's just a guess. From people who are sick of watching their dollar be devalued by massive amounts, and then seeing that the other candidates wont even address the issue.

At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul’s financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.

Oh, Dondero eh? Many RP supporters have known for a long time that Dondero has some sort of personal vendetta against Ron Paul. Fact is, Ron Paul's views are more inline with Dondero's than those of Hillary. By attacking Ron Paul, he is in fact shilling for Hillary, who will most likely win in the absence of a true conservative opponent. Do some research on Dondero, and you will see this clearly. There has to be something personal motivating him. I have a pretty good idea what that is, but I dont care to discuss such trivialities.

In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; “Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.”

Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”

Nutcase and nutball in the same sentence, eh? Quasi-anti-semitic? What in blazes does that mean? lol. Why not add ufo nut and holocaust denier to the list just to round it out? Fallacy #8, you are using quotes of someone's ad hominem attacks to build your case or make your point.

These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money

Where is all that money coming from?.

Fallacy #9. You said you did some investigating, but then you immediately switched to following the money on the campaign trail. Why dont you follow the money with regard to this personal vendetta Dondero has with Ron Paul? Ron Paul isnt a sellout, and IF Dondero is (like most of em are) then that surely could have something to do with his hate of Ron Paul. Again, did you even investigate this angle at all?

Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.

Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans, as every national Republican poll confirms. But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either. As Dondero pointed out, “Ron Paul is only attracting support from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum, virtually none of whom are Republicans.”

There are two fallacies here. Fallacy #10, just because Dondero hates Ron Paul does not indicate that Ron Paul does not have strong support from libertarians. You have to provide more evidence than that. Show me a candidate that has received more donations from Libertarians at this point in the cycle?

Fallacy #11. Your vaunted "national Republican polls" are deeply flawed and rooted in so many fallacies I will not even get into it here. If you were sincere in your journalistic pursuits, you would have at least acknowledged the fact that Ron Paul isnt going to poll well amongst people who voted for Bush in the last primary. Duh. What exactly is a poll like that supposed to tell us? Absolutely NOTHING. I really couldnt care less what that very small group of people thinks. They've had 7 years to show us all that they dont know much about what really goes on in the world of politics. You can pretend that very small group of republicans speaks for the entire party. But they DO NOT. And I got some news for you. After this primary, that small group of mindnumbed morons is going to be balanced by all the new recruits to the republican party. And future polls of republican primary voters are going to reflect the growing support for true conservatism.

What we have here is a candidate trying to win the Republican nomination by raising money from liberals across the political aisle.

Is this illegal? No. So why dont you focus on things which ARE illegal? Like the iraq war? That's fallacy #12. And here's a thought... have you ever considered that all these democrats and liberals are supporting Ron Paul because they realize Hillary is a fake? Just like Bush, with his "humble foreign policy, no nation building" rhetoric was also a fake?

This is why his fund-raising is not translating to improved poll positions

No, that is fallacy #13. His poll positions ARE improving. Sorry but that is just a FACT. Not only is he rising in the polls, he is rising faster than any other candidate. You see, going from 1% to 2% is a 100% increase. lol. Hey it's a sad fact but its still a fact. And going from 2% to 4% is also a 100% increase. And he'll get to 8 soon enough. Much sooner than you think. But you also have to accept the fact that if that narrow sect of people being polled were actually openminded, then this country wouldnt be in the shape it is in. Most of them think the economy is going great, even though most of them are also losing massive amounts of their own personal savings through currency devaluation. Even though most of them are upper middle class or upper class. It dont matter, they're still losing massive amounts of money. They dont even admit either. But sooner or later, they will have to. And when they do they just might become some of Ron Paul's biggest supporters.

Yet his supporters still claim he is much more popular than the national polls indicate and that he will be the come from behind shocker at the Republican convention. How?

By growing the party. By registering more republican voters. By offsetting those who voted for Bush in the 2004 primaries. THAT is how it works. THAT is how change happens within a party. NOT by people sticking their heads in the sand.

Here’s where the Ron Paul campaign becomes dangerous

Because Paul supporters know that support coming from non-Republicans is not reflected in the Republican polls, they have started a campaign to promote party-jumping so that their anti-war supporter’s from the left can vote in the Republican primary.

Twenty four states have “open” primaries, which means, one need not be Republican to vote in those Republican primaries. Ron Paul supporters are promoting both strategies – one in which Democrats, Independents, and members of other third parties can vote for him in “open” primaries where possible, and switch parties to vote for him where the primaries are “closed.”

The mere notion that a Republican presidential candidate should be nominated by this strategy is insane and very dangerous to the entire election process. At a minimum, it is a demonstration of just what kind of people are behind the Ron Paul campaign, obviously, not constitutionally conscious people. I do not know if the Paul campaign itself is behind this effort. But I am sure that the campaign is aware of this effort, as well as the fact that much of their funding is coming from people other than Republicans.

Fallacy #14. The republican party HAS lost its way. It HAS adopted the liberal ideology. Big spending, sacrificing of civil liberties, nation building, etc. What is happening in response to that IS HEALTHY for democracy. I cant stand two party rule, but right now it's even worse because we're really in a one party system right now. We have to choose between big government and unjust war, or .... big government and unjust war. That is a FACT. That is the choice we have, without Ron Paul in the race. How can you not see that? I will not sit idly by and watch as the current political establisment tries to select candidates that are totally gung-ho when the majority of the public is against the war.

The only Republicans we find in his campaign are those myopic small government conservatives angry with Bush for his Democrat-like spending habits.

Myopic? How dare you. Fallacy #15. I am not myopic. You have no business even claiming that I'm myopic. I look at the millions of wrecked and ruined Iraqis and I see that some of them, not many, but some, will turn to Al Qaeda-esque groups for answers. This is how terrorism is born. And we're breeding it enmass over there, and its spreading into Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt... and this is a FACT, and you are myopic for ignoring it. You dont fight terrorism by exacerbating the conditions conducive to terrorism.

Those so angry with Bush, that they are willing to overlook all of this just to vote for a candidate who promises less spending.

Fallacy #16. How can you seriously believe there is anyone who is angry at Bush only because he is s big spender? He's also more anti-2nd amendment than Clinton. That's a fact, and I challenge you to challenge me on that fact. He sat back and let Enron rape the living daylights out of california. (Even Ron Paul with his limited govt stance could have done more to help california. That's pretty sad actually.) Bush sat there in a classroom on 9/11 and disgraced this entire nation with his cowardliness and insecurity. And then later he postured and pretended at photo-op after photo-op trying to make himself out to be anything but the coward that he is. That's not someone I could ever vote for. How dare you sit there and claim that I or anyone else would only have a problem with his spending habits.

Of course, we can’t entirely overlook the handful of moderate Republicans who oppose the war in Iraq either, few as they are.

Fallacy #17. They are not so few as you might think. And even if they were, each one of them is worth a whole gaggle of pro-quagmire zealots.

Why is the Ron Paul campaign dangerous?

Despite his very real popularity across the political aisle, he is not likely to get enough people to switch parties in order to win the RNC nomination.

Fallacy #18. He doesnt rely on just people switching parties. He is also relying on the apathetic MAJORITY of american citizens who dont participate because there is no candidate who speaks for them. And he is also relying on the fact that Bush's foreign policy is in no one's best interest, even rank and file republican primary voters. They are beginning to see just how big an issue is currency devaluation. People like Rush Limbaugh may be able to hide most simple truths from republicans, but he cant hide currency devaluation. He can spin it, but that's at least a step up from hiding it.

But he is doing a great job of validating the perspective of all the negative propaganda uttered by leftists against Bush, Republicans, the War on Terror and national security. That’s not good.

Fallacy #19. It is merely your opinion that "negative propaganda" against Bush is really truly negative. According to my math, two negatives cancel each other out! Also, facts are not propaganda. It is a fact that Bush foreign policy is wrecking this country. This is reflected in the value of the dollar. That is a huge threat to national security. When currencies collapse, it becomes the ultimate threat to national security.

He is also doing a great job of helping the left undermine the war on terror and that’s why he’s so popular among anti-war leftists, including in the press. This is bad.

Undermine the war on terror? What gives with you? Why do you guys always paint yourself into a corner on this issue? How does speaking out against policies that lead to 5 million displaced Iraqi refugees undermine the war on terror? It doesnt. Fallacy #20. Same goes with speaking out against Blackwater. It is no surprise to me that the violence in Iraq has diminished after the scolding that Blackwater took. How is it undermining the war on terror to speak out against policies that lead to hundreds of thousands of US weapons in the hands of insurgents? This is mainstream news, you will not hide from it! And how the hell do you conduct a war against a tactic anyway? War on drugs, war on terror, how many of these stupid wars will it take before you realize that its all a bunch of nonsense?

But even worse, he threatens the integrity of the Republican nomination process itself by relying upon non-Republicans to win the Republican nomination.

Fallacy #21. You have no credibility to tell me or anyone else what a true republican is. Go down the list of what republicans stand for, historically speaking. That's not Bush, and it's not Giuliani.

Last, at a time in American history when the Republican Party must be more united and engaged than ever before, when every available conservative vote is needed in next years general election, Paul and his supporters are busy carving up the party for their own anti-Republican agenda.

Again, more of your "anti-republican" garbage. You dont know what you're talking about. And no, now is not the time for republicans to be united. Fallacy #22. Now is the time for republicans to be asking some serious questions. Now is the time for hardcore debate. Now is the time to realign the party to its roots. Now is the time for republicans to challenge themselves and exercise their critical thinking skills.

I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal.

If "allowed" to continue? What exactly are you saying? You authoritarians are really despicable when you show your true colors. And no, Ron Paul is not going to "take away" conservative votes. If a liberal decides to vote for Ron Paul, he is in FACT taking votes away FROM a liberal. Fallacy #23. You are completely 180 degrees off in your logic.

This is bad for the party and the country.

No, it is good for both the party and the country. Incongruent logic is what is bad for the party and the country. Your positions are simply indefensible. You require a colosally huge media wing and an echo chamber in order to make your views sound defensible. But even all that is humbled by a humble 72 year old man whom none of you can properly debate.

There’s really no need to write another word about Ron Paul. If you can know all of these facts,

What facts? Google giving him money? Oh my god a quarter-trillion dollar company gives a candidate some money. You've just shattered my political paradigm! Are you claiming that he's gotten more money than Hillary from big corporations? How about more than Giuliani? How dumb do you think we are?

Real Republicans need to be aware and unite to block this effort to hijack the party nomination.

Real republicans? Ha. Real Republicans do not need to be told what to do by the likes of you. They can make up their own minds. The lack of respect you show to even those you consider Real Republicans is astounding!

National elections are decided by a couple points one way or another today. Republicans can’t afford to let any candidate play games with their nomination process.

Games? Did someone say games? I got a game for you. It's really fun. You'll love it. Just imagine if the country held the presidential election right now. The republicrat frontrunner Giuliani, vs Hillary. It would be a landslide. lol. What fun! You really think that dynamic is going to change over the next year? Are you predicting a major terrorist attack or something? Because that is about the only thing that is going to stampede the masses into voting for someone like Giuliani. You know, I bet you guys do sit around hoping for planes to fly into buildings. It wont matter how many PDB's are sitting on Bush's desk while he's out on vacation. You'll still rally behind your fearless leader as he sits in another classroom reading "my pet goat".

Ron Paul Stock Soars! Dailykos sinks

2007-11-08T18:00:00.000-08:00

I may not be rich. I may not be a savvy investor. I thought of buying PetroChina stock when it was sitting at $140 a couple months ago. (It's at $250 right now heh.) But I try not to buy Chinese stocks.

But if Ron Paul was a stock, I'd be a millionaire! Because I "bought" into his stock a year ago, when it was at bargain basement prices.

Oh just imagine if that was a real stock chart! Well, as far as I'm concerned, it is!

When I first started this blog, I had just left DailyKos because I disagreed with their silly shortsighted censorship of 9/11 debate, among other reasons which I have explained in detail. That happened around May of 2006. Check out this chart:

Apparently a lot of other people left as well. I told you so, Moulitsas, you tool. Aside from a few blips (death throes heh), they've been trending downwards ever since.

Hey Markos, you think you know what it is that makes Ron Paul's grassroot support grow, while your fake wannabe "netroots" wallow in the mud? It's because he stands for simple truths. You stand for an establishment that sucks off the marrow of american society. It might sell you a few books, but people see through it in the long run. You can try to comprehend or replicate Ron Paul's success all you want, but you never will. People like Ron Paul, as well as myself, do not sell themselves out just to make a cushy living and hopefully become part of the corrupt establishment. Yeah i could be sitting pretty on my 1000% annualized PTR profits, but I'm not a sellout. I wouldn't expect you to understand. (Even though you've written a book on the subject! lol what a joke.) So please, go on making wild guesses as to what drives Ron Paul's nutty supporters. Good luck trying to replicate it!

Is There a Problem With Overpopulation?

2007-11-01T09:16:00.000-07:00

I've heard many arguments stating how the earth is overpopulated. It seems to be a popular view among many who consider themselves "educated", "realistic", etc.

I'm going to answer as many of those arguments as I can.

There are not "far too many people on this planet, ecologically speaking." The earth is not Easter Island, and we have more than trees to use as fuel.

Nature is irrelevant. We crossed the boundary of living in harmony with nature a long long time ago. There are 60 billion farm animals. What we have is utterly unsustainable without continuous technological advance. The only way to get back in "harmony with nature" is to kill off at least 6 billion people. If that is what you believe then you should be the first to volunteer. If you're not prepared to do that then you must admit you're faced with a serious ideological conundrum! That is your issue to deal with, but it is not mine.

No I do not think there will be a "magical" technological solution.

I dont think electricity is magical.
I dont think magnetism is magical.
I dont think gravitational forces are magical.
I dont think tidal forces are magical.
I dont think solar radiation is magical.
I dont think fission is magical.
I dont think fusion is magical.
I dont think (the concept of) antigravity is magical.
I DO think the spirit of ingenuity that makes a lowly lifeform able to understand and use all of those things is magical.

You say let's get with reality, but do you realize that just a few miles below your feet the ground there is hot enough to boil water? Is that reality enough for you? All the energy we need is right there, and we would be up to 100 billion before we had to worry about sucking so much heat energy from the earth that it becomes a problem. By then we'll be generating energy in other ways. ALL ecological problems can be solved with enough energy. Food for 100 billion people can easily be grown without any impact on the environment, given the proper amounts of energy. This energy would not even scratch the surface of how much energy is stored just in the crust of the earth. Without even going into the mantle...

No, agent smith, humanity is not a virus or a cancer on the planet. The planet is not a mammal or a fish. So you really have no idea what a cancer of the planet could possibly be, and definately have no idea what this planet was meant to do in its lifetime. Perhaps all the earth's creatures, including humans, were meant to serve a specific evolutionary purpose. And perhaps all of those species, including us, will be extinct before all is said and done. Perhaps we were meant to give birth to AI and usher in a totally new paradigm not just on this planet but in this entire galaxy. The point is, we dont know. So you cant pretend like you know what's best for mother earth, and then use that as a justification for any type of genocide. And make no mistake genocide is exactly what you're talking about. You should feel comfortable with that term if you're going to support it.

The problem isnt overpopulation, it is simply one of stupidity. We already have most of the technology we need to "save the planet". We just don't use it. Just like we have these great communication tools, cell phones, the internet, etc yet we barely use them to even 1% of their potential. What has always kept this species alive is that 1% who does make the full use of what was given to them. And as the earth's population grows, so too does that critical 1%. The only question is... do you want to be a part of that one percent? If people spent even half the time thinking of real solutions as they do thinking of "final solutions", there would never be a problem.

If you really want to understand why overpopulation is not the problem, then go to google and type in "iarga". Read one man's story. Dont focus on whether it's true or not. Dont focus on the whole ufo veneer. Just look at the ideas presented within. Explore the limitless possibilities. And don't waste your time criticising it unless you actually read it.

Let Your Hypocritical Stars Shine

2007-11-01T09:15:00.000-07:00

I don't understand why political parties have to be divided on this issue at all. It's deeply ironic. Because the congress has no business being involved in the abortion debate at all. And the supreme court has no business either, except in deciding the issue of a mother's personal privacy. But that's a conservative point! Conservatives should be for a woman's personal privacy! Liberals should be the ones placing a higher value on the unborn baby! Why is it reversed? Same goes with terri schiavo. The parties were reversed on that too. Liberals should be pro-life (or anti-choice if you prefer). Because it really is the "liberal" position.

There are some legitimate reasons for having an abortion. For that reason Roe V Wade shouldnt be overturned, at least until those specific instances are addressed.

But it is just a plain and simple fact that most abortions are more the fault of britney spears than of some rapist or incestuous family member. If you dont agree with that then sorry you're deluding yourself.

And when I say britney spears you ought to know what I mean. Look back to when she was 17. That's when things really started accelerating down this spiral. The girls noticed how much the guys talked about britney, and so they emulated her. It's not just her either. All the tv shows started oversexualizing adolescents. Much more than they used to. I'm sure part of it was preparation for the Iraq war... how nice it must be that all these defense contractors have their own huge media and entertainment wings. Hell just look at Disney. Goebbels would be jealous....

Yes abstinance from intercourse really is the one true key to reaching common ground on the abortion issue. Not only is it the most logical solution, but it's also the most realistic. Notice I did not say abstinance from sex, merely from intercourse. I think that's where conservatives really mess up their message. The whole "sex can wait" campaign was just a colossal waste of energy. Sex cannot wait. People need to come to grips with the fact that humans are animals and that we dont "become" a human (or an animal) when we turn 18. Sorry it dont work like that.

When a teen sees one of those ads on tv saying "sex can wait", what they're really seeing is "We're just a bunch of fakes and liars, tune us out. Listen to Britney, she knows what it's all about." It is like a big lie. Almost as if done intentionally...

Our culture needs to obliterate the taboo around sex and strengthen the taboo around intercourse. Because intercourse is complicated, serious, and actually quite dangerous on many levels. A hand job and a pearl necklace never killed anyone, born or unborn.

Japan Autism Link Revisited

2007-10-30T19:25:00.000-07:00

It's been over two years now since the Yokohama study was released. This is the study that supposedly dispelled the possible link between vaccines and autism.

But did it really?

The problem I have with the study is that they do not mention how much mercury was actually in the vaccines, both before and after. And yes the kids were still vaccinated. All they did was give one shot instead of three separate shots. But how much mercury was in the damn vaccines? Hello? And did they really go from 3 shots to one shot, or did they go from 3 shots on three separate visits to 3 shots in one visit? This study really does leave me with a sick stomach. Why so much obfuscation?

Here is the Guardian article claiming the link was dispelled.

Now check this out:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/558-a#99989

There is way too much rebuttal on this page, and it contains many links to yet even more rebuttal. I'll just post some of the commentary.

John Stone:

Perhaps the most striking single emerging point is that when MMR was abandoned in Japan it was largely replaced not by three staggered injections, but three separate injections administered in the same visit. The study therefore sheds no light on Andrew Wakefield's original proposition that it was advisable to space the shots a year apart, but this point is not acknowledged and would seem to invalidate its main claim. I think the authors, and other MMR proponents, should be prepared to discuss this point.

John P. Heptonstall:

Takahashi et al 2003 (1), although a small study that requires larger follow-up, makes two very important observations. The team found a “statistically significant association of ASD with monovalent measles immunisation, non-mumps and non-rubella immunisation” and that “results suggest a decreased risk of developing ASD with MMR compared to monovalent antigens”.

Taking Honda et al together with Takahashi et al, one might suspect that

1. Replacing MMR vaccine with monovalent measles vaccine may be expected to cause a rise in the incidence of ASD and

2. If monovalent measles vaccine poses a significant risk of ASD then MMR, which contains the equivalent of a monovalent measles component, might also be expected to pose a risk of ASD.

The rate of increase in ASD throughout the period of Honda et al, 1988-96, might not result solely from any increase attributable to monovalent vaccines but also to other as yet unspecified agents and any alterations to the criteria for diagnosis under review through that period and beyond.

Thimerosal, and therefore ethyl mercury, is suspected of causing ASD. If this is the case, the study period being for children born between 1988 and 1996 includes children born between 1988 and 1992 who may have received MMR vaccine, and up to 150ug mercury in scheduled DTP (3 doses of 25ug in first year of life) and Japanese Encephalitis (JE) vaccines (3 doses of 25ug between 3 and 4 years of age), whereas those born between 1993 and 1996 would be likely to have received monovalent vaccines and no MMR (banned in April 1993) vaccine plus a potential for up to 75 ug mercury as they would not have attained the age for JE vaccination (3 to 4 years of age) before study end 1996.

Also statistics show there was considerable parental concern over MMR vaccines prior to withdrawal as uptake dropped from almost 70% in 1988 to 1.8% in 1992 – and some parents may have become suspicious of other vaccines during the study period confusing the study outcome.

In addition to ethyl mercury there are other potential agents of cause of ASDs and other adverse effects within the MMR and M, M and R vaccines. They range from the attenuated viruses themselves (measles virus was found in autists and not controls by Singh et al and Wakefield et al; MMR vaccine virus was found in the brains of autists and not controls by Singh et al; rubella virus has long been associated as congenital rubella with autism) and adjuvants such as neomycin (2) which is a highly toxic antibiotic and gelatine (3) which has caused anaphylaxis after MMR vaccination. If MMR and monovalent vaccines cause ASDs the constituents must be investigated and adjuvants might feature more highly if, as Takahashi et al suggests, monovalent vaccines carry greater risk of causing ASD; each child may have received several monovalent jabs instead of a single MMR jab.

To complicate analysis further, the Japanese MMR vaccines used at the time of these studies were of different types and might present separate risks for causing ASDs. Kimura et al 1996 (4) shows that Standard MMR was associated with 16.6 cases of aseptic meningitis/10,000 recipients compared to Biken MMR which had 0 cases/10,000, Takeda MMR with 11.6/10,000 and Kitasato MMR with 3.2 cases/10,000 recipients of the vaccine. One might reasonably expect any risk of ASD to vary with vaccine type.

Rather than an uninterrupted increase in incidence of ASD from 1988 to 1996 as the conclusion suggests, the incidence varied considerably during the 8 years covered. The 47.6 (per 10,000) 1992-3 incidence almost returned when it dropped from 85.9/10,000 in 1990 back to 55.8 and 63.3 respectively in 1991 and 1992. In 1993 it jumps to 96.7, then to 161.3 in 1994, then falls back to settle at 115.3 and 117.2 in 1995 and 1996. I see no scientific merit in ignoring those considerations and concluding that a rise in incidence from 47.6 to 117.2 over 8 years when MMR was withdrawn in 1993 proves that MMR had no part to play in that increase. Important statistical variations may have been ignored.

Children born between 1988 and 1992 might have lesser risk of ASD from MMR compared with monovalent vaccines but a greater risk from a potential 150ug mercury intake which contrasts with the 1993-96 cohort who may have realised a greater risk of ASD from the monovalent vaccines but a lesser risk of mercury-induced ASD from a lesser potential intake of 75ug mercury. Other vaccines carrying additional toxic burdens might add to the risk such as the 6 or more doses of neomycin injected via varicella, rubella, OPV, mumps and measles vaccines and 4 doses of gelatine injected with mumps, measles, rubella and varicella vaccines. These variables might eventually explain why Honda et al’s incidence rate is not of constant increase.

Contrary to Cole’s and Evan Harris’s rather overenthusiastic acceptance of Honda et al 2005, when one considers both the Honda and Takahashi studies one must surely suspect that both MMR and monovalent/single antigen vaccines are probable causes of ASDs. If that is the case all haste is required from Members of Parliament and the Health Protection Agency to direct that identification of the risk posed by MMR and monovalent vaccines to our children is a national priority.

Regards

John H.

References

1. "An epidemiological Study on Japanese Autism concerning Routine Childhood Immunisation History" by Takahashi H et al, Jpn. J. Infect. Dis 2003; 56: 114-117

2. Kwittken PL et al “MMR vaccine and neomycin allergy”, American Journal of diseases of children 1993; 147(2): 128-9

3. Kelso JM et al “Anaphylaxis to measles mumps and rubella vaccine mediated by IgE to gelatine”, Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 1993; 91(4): 867-72

4. Kimura M et al “Adverse events associated with measles mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines in Japan”, Acta Paediatrica Japonica 1996; 38(3): 205-11

Clifford G. Miller:

The problems with the Honda/Rutter MMR/autism paper from Japan are only just the start of this. The fact of a dip in autism followed by a large rise when vaccinations increased over 150% in 1993 in Japan (according to official Japanese government figures) is actually evidence of at least two things. It is strong evidence of a causal association between the combination of vaccines and autism-like and related disorders.

It is also evidence of the existence of a dechallenge/rechallenge case series at a population level. Now that is beyond any doubt powerful. The dechallenge occurred by taking MMR away with a positive dip in autism on a population level. This was followed by a rechallenge with a positive rise in autism by reintroducing the single vaccines in place of the MMR. The single vaccines were meant to be administered at 4 week intervals, but according to an NHS publication, Japanese children received them on the same day.

Ron Paul and the RedState "Republicans"

2007-10-02T17:14:00.000-07:00

There are not many places where you can find such a heavy concentration of "eccentricity" as on RedState! Here's some examples of their fine reasoning skills:

RedState open letter

by mbecker908:

** Rep Paul is a complete and total moonbat on the war. He has no clue about the face of the enemy, he has no clue about real progress against aQ in Iraq

Let's see, 14000 deformed babies... hundreds of thousands dead. Millions displaced. Keeping in mind the thought of even just 0.1% of these angry and shattered people turning to terrorism as their only solution, I'm sure we're making great progress against aQ! But of course when you just put your hands over your ears and say "la la la la" I guess it becomes much easier to believe whatever you want to believe.

** Nobody who supports a cut-and-run strategy in the Middle East deserves the slightest hearing or consideration from the American people.

So here you have someone from RedState admitting that they do not care about issues of legality, morality, etc. Big surprise! "Winning" is all that matters, even though it has become a well understood fact that there is no military solution for Iraq. So the greatness of the human intellect has been reduced to that base primal instinct to avoid "cutting and running"!! What a sad creature is this mbecker908.

As you note, Rep Paul has served 10 terms in Congress. In 20+ years he has yet to actually accomplish anything. Voting "no" and opposing stuff is not an accomplishment.\

Ha. I dont know what to say. It's like when you're at war, and the enemy is flooding in, and the soldiers on the frontline are holding back the flood, and people like mbecker908 can only say those soldiers have not accomplished anything because they have not advanced their position! Almost every piece of legislation that comes out of congress is bunk. It should be voted against. As long as the lobbyists write the bills and the congress dont read them, hell yeah you vote NO!

by Moe Lane:

We don't tolerate chickenhawkers here, Ironman77.

Scram, militarist.

A fine example of rational discourse. Ironman77 will probably not be around RedState for very long... why? Because he made an intelligent statement or two. I think you get up to three strikes, and then you're out!

by libertaspraesidium :

I do not know that many libertarians that have the potential of actually winning, show me one and i will vote for them.

Would you vote for Adolf hitler if you thought he could win? I bet you would you lil bootlicker. Here's a thought... why not vote for the candidate you think is best, and let your choice be known to the world, instead of feeding this pathetic system where winning is all that matters yet none of us really win anything at all?

by Icarus:

Voting "No" is not a plan. Voting "No" is not a vision for the future.

Again, lobbyists writing bills that the congress dont read is a plan? Abolishing the federal reserve is not a plan for the future? Reducing the size, scope, and debt of government is not a plan for the future? Not only is it a plan, but it is a very conservative plan. You know ...con-serv-a-tive... something most of these people on RedState wouldn't know anything about.

by Icarus:

My point is, in absence of a plan to tell the electorate why any other alternative might be better, the electorate that is dependent on these programs will vote en masse against the candidate that says these programs are unconstitutional, but offers nothing better in return.

Hey, don't blame others for the fact that you're uninformed, pal. Ron Paul has a plan. Just because it hasn't been spoonfed to you by Billy-O doesn't change that fact. My god...

by mbecker908:

Obviously the folks who support this nincompoop have no clue what the word "leadership" means. So let me give you a couple of examples. Please note that I am simply providing examples of what leadership is, I'm not necessarily endorsing the individuals or their positions on the issues.

ok now i dont recall anyone swearing to be a good leader when they take their oath. What I do remember is some vague remark about... oh... protecting and defending the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So why don't we first focus on getting politicians to uphold the oathes they do take, rather than making up some crap that isn't even part of their oath of office? Here's a thought... why not let the people lead? hmmm? You authoritarians are a funny lot.

by streiff:

His view of the Constitution could probably get about 1, or less, other members of Congress to vote for it so his view is simply as irrelevant as it is silly. Have fun supporting this guy and if you feel like you have to make a third party run, go for it.

Oh yeah that's a really intelligent statement. How about you fake conservatives go form your own damn fake third party, and let the real conservatives be where they belong. Dumbass.

by Icarus:

I think you will also find here, however, that there are a lot of us who oppose Rep. Paul who are also not apologists for the Republican status quo.

Yeah right, name one. You are pretty much all a bunch of apologists for a status quo that doesnt even remotely represent traditional republican values. Some of the smarter ones on RedState actually realize that Bush is not a conservative, and they realize that maybe something should be done about it, but obviously have not a freakin clue what that might be! How's that leadership thing workin for ya?

by Vladimir:

It's the ones you don't mention that scare the crap out of me and disqualify Paul from getting Vladimir's vote in any circumstance. The war. Isolationism. Israel. Monetary policy. Energy policy. Trade policy.

Ron Paul is not an Isolationist. The war was a lie. No other candidate has a sensible solution for our monetary policy. For an energy policy, we need to go more liberal, but first we need to stop feeding the big energy companies. If that sounds like a contradiction, well, you've got to keep in mind that it is the little guys who innovate, and it's the big guys who usually profit from such innovations. So the little guys should get subsidies and the big guys should be told to piss off.

As did streiff above, I echo many of the concerns in Mbecker's & Icarus's comments.

Of course you do. That's what you guys do best. Echo. :P

by Vladimir (cont'd)

The nature of the support* raises a red flag for me

*By that I mean: Troofers, Jew-haters, paleocons, tax protesters, etc.

Oh the troofers. lol. Does that make you feel better to call "them" names? Tell me something. How does seeing molten iron pouring out of a building make someone a "troofer"? How does knowing that a yellow-orange liquid must be at least hundreds of degrees hotter than jet fuel or office fires can reach make someone a "troofer"? How does seeing white smoke pouring out of the basement 10 seconds before the collapse make someone a "troofer"? How does seeing the tops of the WTC towers and surrounding buildings shake violently 10 seconds before the collapse make someone a "troofer"? How does listening to dozens of eyewitnesses speak of a countdown at WTC 7 make someone a "troofer"? I think it's more likely it makes you an idiot for not being able to add up 2 plus 2.

As for the jew haters. Well anyone who supports Israel's current leadership to the point where it gets their whole country turned into a police state must be a jew hater as well as just a hater in general.

by docj

Explain to me how Dr. No is going to win an election when, just to quote the penultimate paragraph of the article...

Three-quarters of the population is worried about growing income inequality, Pew found, while two-thirds favor government-funded health care for all. Support for a government safety net for the poor is at its highest level since 1987...

That is precisely why you need to support Ron Paul. Whether he wins or not, he will shift the political waters over to more conservative grounds. Those other candidates aren't going to do that. All they will do is make the entire election about Iraq. And besides, Ron Paul is the only candidate who even attempts to address the issue of income inequality at its root: the federal reserve banking system of ever growing inflation which prices out the poor and middle class. The truth is, Ron Paul could allow taxes to rise and it still would hurt the middle class less than allowing this fiat monetary system to continue on its present course into oblivion. I wonder... what will RedStaters say when the value of the dollar is cut in half once again? Will they finally start seeing that as the tax that it is? Just how far does it have to fall before they decide that there is more to the concept of taxation than just what they take out of your paycheck?!

by Scorpio:

The above poster claims that some Ron Paul supporters are "new" to politics. This is not that much of an excuse. Whether or not they have been in politics for decades or minutes, they should conduct themselves with respect and dignity.

One does not show respect for tyranny.

BTW, I want Paul to say that terrorism is a threat and disavow the Truthers in his campaign before I regard his supporters as anything but kooks and Democrats.

Of course terrorism is a threat. Especially now that we've bombed and killed thousands of Iraqis then gave them hundreds of thousands of guns to... meditate and reflect with! So yeah, of course terrorism is a threat. But so is stepping off your front porch every day. (More people fall and kill themselves than die to terrorists.) But that doesn't mean I need 6 policemen to hold my hand every time I go out the door. Goodness... grow some backbone will ya?

Well, it just goes on and on... there's like 250 comments so far, and most of them are pretty absurd. I do gotta hand it to all the Ron Paul supporters who chimed in. Their usernames will get deleted in a few days, but it's a noble effort anyway!

Analyzing Globalist Propaganda

2007-09-27T08:01:00.000-07:00

This is a truly fine example of a very dangerous type of propaganda. It tries to present a balanced view of consumerism and the globalism that drives it, but doesnt even attempt to address the real hidden costs of it, nor the gross unsustainability of it.

Take the walmart propaganda for example.

bargain hunters who throng Wal-Mart save at least $100 billion a year. Some studies put the savings closer to $200 billion. That comes to more than $600 per family -- no small change for the typical Wal-Mart shopper with an average family income of $35,000 in 2005.

We do NOT save money at walmart. Walmart is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to transfer wealth from the middle class to whoever owns their stock or happens to be in upper management anywhere in their supply chain. Like many others, Reich says Walmart saves people $100 billion. Baloney. The use of such rediculously rigged numbers is a clear sign of propaganda. It's like when the neocons talk about the iraq war costing only a few hundred billion. Yeah well if you do the math you realize that it has costed us over 30 billion dollars for every single dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil. So take your pick. How much did the iraq war increase the price of a barrel of oil?? 5 dollars? ching. 10 dollars? cha-ching. 20 dollars?? Do you really even want to know? Now the same applies to walmart. How much has their "new paradigm of globalization" caused the price of oil to increase? Even just 3 dollars a barrel wipes out any imagined savings. You're a fool if you think it's any less than that. Nothing is local anymore. Everything is globalized. From a paper plate to a ping pong ball, it seems like everything is wrapped in petro-plastic and shipped around the world. And Walmart is at the center of all of it. It's costing us, bigtime, and those costs are gonna keep going up until they no longer can be ignored by phoney damage-control hacks like Reich who love to ignore the elephants in the room.

And it's not just oil either. Look how many jobs walmart alone has killed. I'm talking about good jobs. Jobs that add value to property. Jobs that create other jobs. Jobs that dont contribute toward this awful homogenization of our culture. (The value of that cannot even be calculated.) Jobs that create export value. Every time a good job is killed and replaced with a "walmart job", it eats into these imagined "savings" people think they're getting at walmart. I refuse to believe that people are so selfish that they'd willfully steal money from their own neighbors. Yet that's what we're doing. That's the whole basis for this twisted form of globalization. It can only end two ways. Either we wise up and stop doing it, or we keep doing it till everyone has nothing and we end up as slaves. We're not saving any money. Those that think they're profiting from this... you're not nearly as much as you think you are. And worst of all it is totally wrecking our culture and creating a spiritual void so large that we might become so soulless as to not even care about being slaves. For what? Just to make the rich richer. That's just wonderful.

Look at Clinton before criticizing republicans

2007-09-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

She will most likely win, and yet do you think she will do anything about the Federal Reserve, which has deliberately devalued our dollar to the point where it is now worth less than the canadian dollar?? Ha. Did she and her huband reform health care the last time they lied their way into office? Hell no. Will she stop the iraq war? Hell no. Will she bomb iran? Probably. Will she do anything to overturn NAFTA? No. Hillary wont do anything good, we have history to teach us that. She wont be able to reap the benefits of cheap oil and a huge tech boom like her husband did. Her presidency will have many democrats longing for the Bush days...

Yet despite the almost prophetic certainty of this outcome, dems will still flock to vote for her! In other words, the democratic party is controlled just like the republican party.

They're both picking their "quarterback" based on his/her chances of winning! Well this isnt football. The goal is not to win. You remember what they used to teach... "its how you play the game" and all that bla bla bla... what happened to that, anyway?

Both parties are heavily financed by groups of people who benefit from having a system where people just want to "feel good" about their candidate's chances of winning. Regardless of what their candidate actually stands for or what they will do when they get in office. The media supports that same paradigm.

The most important thing for any activist to do right now is to put a stop to that paradigm. That's why Ron Paul has to win. He wont have the power or the support to piss off democrats the way Bush has done. The democrats will likely have a veto proof majority in 2009... So he wont be able to make things worse. (Even if that was possible.) Ron Paul will simply try to stop bad bills from becoming law. Both the bad republican bills, and the bad democratics bills. He'll force the congress to write constitutional laws. And by congress writing the laws, I mean congress, NOT the lobbyists! Even if it shuts the damn government down. And I can tell all this just by looking at his record. I dont need a million dollars in advertisements to tell me this. He is Dr No.

Do you have what it takes to be the next Greenspan?

2007-09-20T14:11:00.000-07:00

Ever play monopoly? Ever been the banker? Ever bailed out a player who was about to go bankrupt? Yeah I bet you have. If so, then you have what it takes to be the next Fed chairman! It's good to bail out people right? Yeah but if you keep bailing out player A, then player A is going to win. And that's a fact! Obviously. So that means players B, C, and D lose! Unless you bail them out too. But see, the Fed never bails out the middle class players. Only wall street. This is what it was designed to do.

Where No Gene Has Gone Before

2007-09-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

You think you know what genetic engineering is? Is it about getting rid of that "fat" gene? That alzheimer's gene? That "stupidity" gene? There's plenty of debate about that aspect of genetic engineering. But what about genetic engineering as it relates to eugenics? Population control? Social engineering? Here the waters get considerably muddier.

What is beginning to happen in these modern times is totally different from all of human history. It is no longer about survival of the fittest on the individual level. It is becoming more about survival of the fittest on a group level. Class warfare is going to become tightly integrated into classical darwinian evolutionary processes.

The class that is rapidly gaining financial control over the world will have the ability to decide who reproduces and who does not. For optimal profits, the goal is to engineer a docile slave "sub race", and keep its population at or around 0.2~1.0 billion. There would be about 10 of these slaves for every 1 master. (We wont call the masters "masters" and we wont call the slaves "slaves", but that wont change what they will be.) Aberrant personality traits will be screened and eliminated.

I imagine the first question the social architects will ask is: would you live as a slave if it was your only choice? I'm sure they could find a billion people who would say yes! Those who say "no way" would be the first to go. Then they will eliminate creative thinking, intellect, critical thinking, leadership qualities, bravery, assertiveness, etc until all that's left is pathetic husks of people. The perfect slave. Most of the technology to do this exists right now. It just takes generations. They want to do it in weeks! What is missing is the technology to clean those traits out of the DNA itself, so they will not have to wait. But what they really need is a "catalyzing event", like a collapse of the petro-dollar. Most likely, a severe and prolonged energy crisis. War with Iran and an OPEC embargo would do the trick. Why do you think they want war with Iran so badly? Because they are ready to move forward. The chess pieces are all in place. If there is a breakdown, they will be quick to usher in their new utopia... a utopia where you have no rights except to be a slave. You will be presented with a choice. You can either live in camp or a converted slum and await "processing". Or you can take your chances out in the wilderness with millions of others, fighting over whatever crops people can manage to grow without petro-based fertilizers. Not to mention peace. Crops like peace! They dont like being burned. You might be able to eek out a living. At least until the New and Improved Fox News calls you a traitor for cutting down that tree for firewood. Then you'll be fighting your starving countrymen AND the delusional foreign-born robot-like soldiers they will have hunting you down. And yes, on the news you will most likely be called Al Qaeda! Just for chopping down a freakin tree.

Can you picture Fox viewers feeling all sorts of rage and anger over that poor tree that got chopped down by the evil Al Qaeda? Can you picture Hannity and O'Reilly both devoting a 5 minute segment to that story? Do you have any doubt whatsoever that their viewers wouldn't cheer when the (foreign-born, IQ of 73) "National Guard" troops show up to try to dispatch the Al Qaeda? We are so close to this.... so many people are ready to believe all of it... any damn lie they are told, no matter how unbelievable it may seem. Some will believe it. Enough will believe it.

So, accept that kind of life, as an expatriated champion of the "Old Republic" and face the new tyranny. Or... pass through the refugee camps and get screened to live as a slave in relative luxury... Luxury except for the lack of freedom! (And no I'm not gonna mention what will happen if you dont pass the screening. That's what the CEOs make the big bucks for.. to make those sorts of "tough decisions"!)

People will find a way to rationalize anything in order to survive. Cannibalism, rape, torture, slavery, sacrificial rituals, bootlicking, ANYTHING. I wish it wouldn't come down to it, but when people choose to be naive about how powerful the "dark side of the force" can be, it just becomes inevitable.

I'm not saying it WILL happen, I'm just saying that IF there is a breakdown in civilazation, do you honestly believe that what rises forth will be in any way utopian?? Not a chance. Too few people have too much wealth, and they had to shut off too much of their humanity to attain it. Just imagine what they'd be willing to believe, just to hold onto what they have. Most of them already believe in lie after lie after lie. Do I have to go down the list of lies you have to believe just to be in a position of wealth and power?

DU doesnt exist? check
No more than 32,000 iraqi civilians dead? check
Bush tax cuts narrow the inequality gap? check
We can keep on using more and more oil? check
We can replace oil with ethanol? check
We can replace oil with hydrogen? check
We can do whatever we want around the world and not incite hatred? check
Vaccines contain no mercury? check
Mercury is good for you. check
Media has a liberal bias? check
Hillary will pull the troops out of Iraq? check (Question for the controlled opposition)
Bombing Iran will make us safe? check
Bill is looking out for you? check

There is no reason to trust in their morality, because there is no reason to trust anything they say. They will act according to some principled notion of "the greater good", and they will not ask too many questions about who exactly is excluded from "the greater good". You can count on that. It's happened many times throughout history. Only now has the technology become available to allow the most evil and wicked people to actually alter the course of human evolution. Only now do they have the ability to isolate genes and find correlations with physical and mental traits. Only now do they have the technology to do realtime personality screening and integrate the results into a global database. Only now do they have the technology compare the personality data with the genome data. This is all becoming possible right now! And there is huge profit motive in using it. So it will happen. There is virtually no stopping this from happening, if you rely solely on altruism and the "goodness" of all people to prevent this from happening... Some people are just evil, and they have the strongest lust for power. And worst of all they don't see themselves as evil, only superior. They like to play god. It is just a basic law of nature that says they will eventually achieve their goals if their opposition's lust for freedom ever wanes. Like Howard Zinn says, you cant be neutral on a moving train. Most of us haven't woken up to that fact yet, and the train is moving pretty damn fast.

Walter Molony should be a Fox News anchor

2007-09-05T20:27:00.000-07:00

Record Drop in Pending Home Sales

The National Association of Realtors' pending home sales index, which measures contracts to buy existing homes, fell 12.2 percent to a reading of 89.9.

It is the second lowest reading on record for the 7-year-old index, trailing only the 89.8 reading in September 2001. Economists had been looking for only about a 2 percent decline in the latest reading.

"There are bad reports and then there are truly awful ones. This is clearly the latter," said Mike Larson, real estate analyst for independent research firm Weiss Research. "Even I'm shocked by a 12 percent decline."

Yeah I'd say it's pretty grim. But what does Malony have to say?

But Realtors' spokesman Walter Molony said the large drop isn't a surprise, given that the problems in the mortgage markets seen in July and August were the biggest disruption to the home buying market since Sept. 11, 2001.

Oh my god what masterful use of spin! That's like saying "it's not a surprise you're bleeding" to someone who's just been shot. It's total gobbledegook. I mean, come on. Only when we're hit with a huge terrorist attack do well sell as few homes as we did in July? That's bad, any way you spin it.

The Absurdity of the Carbon Tax Debate

2007-09-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

I took a kneejerk reaction against a carbon tax because I'm about 100% sure that the funds would not be used wisely. The Kyoto accords were grossly unfair to industrialized nations and curiously they gave China a free pass to pollute to their hearts content. That right there was enough to make me believe the goal of Kyoto was to tear down the industrialized nations and further promote outsourcing. Why in blazes someone would want to support that is beyond me. Even if you're a die hard tree hugger, I hate to break it to ya but all the trees are gonna get chopped down and burned as firewood when no one can afford to heat their homes thanks to all this outsourcing. Why liberal ideologues cannot see that I do not know... but because of this limited thinking I place much of the blame for what's happened during these Bush years squarely onto their shoulders. God how I wish people on both sides could think realistically! It's not a perfect world and anyone who sets out on their quest believing they can make it so, is only dooming themselves and those who follow to failure.

So after the precedent set by Kyoto, one could probably understand why I never really gave much serious thought to supporting a carbon tax. Except to say that if the money was used to fund alternative energy it would not be so bad. However, I have been watching our savings rate decline for years... I watched in horror as it dipped into the negative. And watched in further horror as certain people tried to pass that off as a good thing! And those same people questioned my sanity for saying it is not a good thing! It is NOT a good thing! My solution has always been a tax on consumption. A national sales tax would be a good consumption tax because you would not be taxed on the money you saved, thus promoting the saving of money!

Now when I look at a carbon tax, I am beginning to see some merits to it. Because everything we do basically creates carbon emissions. Everything we produce, and, more importantly, everything we consume. Even the manufacturing of a solar panel produces quite a bit of carbon dioxide! So a tax on carbon emissions is in essence a tax on consumption, as much as it is a tax on production. So it makes sense.

But even though it would curb consumption and promote saving and investing, I still cannot support a carbon tax simply for the following reason: global oil production is peaking, and thus "our little problem" of carbon emissions is going to solve itself in the most natural of ways! So I am not at all concerned about carbon emissions. I do not see them increasing any more than 30% above where they are now. And even that will not last long. Whatever damage has been done has, for the most part, already been done.

I do think we need to start setting some money aside for the people in mountain watersheds like the Himalayas, because our tomfoolery has been melting the icecaps and flooding the regions with more water than nature would normally allow, thus resulting in unsunstainable population booms. (This is my biggest agreement with the global warming community, but sadly even they do not really recognize it for the problem that it is. Haven't we learned anything from the green revolution? Did that end world hunger? Are there more or less people starving than there were 50 years ago?)

When those people, mainly in India, figure out what happened, they're likely to be slightly pissed off at Joe in his Hummer, and perhaps rightly so. So it would be wise to start investing in a solution. But again I do not see a carbon tax as the best way to go about doing that. If the hummer is causing most of the global warming then the solution can be had at the gas pump... by encouraging Joe to think about not wasting so much damn gas!

The future lies in efficiency -- making better use of what we've got. If a carbon tax can somehow promote efficiency then it is probably a good idea, or at least an ok idea. But it seems to me that a simple gasoline tax would do the same job much better. Without a doubt Europe is much more efficient with energy than the US. And there is nothing to indicate that Europeans are living less happy lives because of it! So why is there so much political force behind a carbon tax, and not a stiff gasoline tax? If I had to guess I would say it is because the dominant political forces at work in the US are controlled by, to use a biblical term, Satan himself. Through his proxy, the luciferian mainstream media. ha ha ha. It's a polemic, I am aware of that, but have you a better explanation? All you have to do is look at the history of taxation. People hate taxes, and in this day and age they are pretty much political suicide. But if that's what we really need.... if a "realistic" gas tax helps to solve our problem in the long run then that is what must be done. It does not matter if it is political suicide or not. Just get in line at the noose and hopefully by the time it is your turn, the corpses will be stacked so high that they will break your fall and save your neck. That's the philosophy I wish more politicians would hold. They might be hated in the short term, but people can see reason, if given a choice. Right now there is none. There is just irrationality on both sides. And that is why both sides suffer from such horrible approval ratings. Really, what is there to approve? Only the media believes that political butt kissing attracts people in the long run. And despite all their Orwellian and Rovian attempts to manipulate public opinion, they will never make a duck look like anything other than a duck.

I dont get why they even call it a carbon tax. Why not call it a "I am a coward tax?" Call it a "I want to scare you with horror stories about global warming so I can get the support I need to fix a problem that aint got a damn thing to do with our real problems." And if you think it does, then you better wake up. Cause you wont be giving a damn about global warming when you're sitting in line at the gas pump like your daddy was back in 1973 and 1979. You know it, I know it, and they know it. And everyone who has invested even an ounce of curiosity into the subject knows that we've consumed far far more oil than we've discovered since the 70s. So you do the math on that one. Oil production isnt going up. Once you subtract the amount of oil it costs to produce a barrel of oil, global oil production is not rising. It's not falling either, not yet, because of all the tricks they use to maintain production. Such as pumping massive amounts of seawater into the wells. Such as burning massive amounts of natural gas to generate nitrogen to pump into the wells! (Oh the wonders of technology, how it will solve all our problems!) And do you know how much natural gas is being used to convert oil shale and tar sands into something useful? You think the rise in natural gas prices has nothing to do with oil? Ask yourself how many other prices have risen in response to the scarcity of oil. Before the world admits there is a problem, the true cost of oil production will be spread across to every corner of the economy. That's the beauty of the commodities market! Especially a commodity in such rediculously high demand.

It's beautiful from an economist's point of view for sure, but to an average person it should be quite disturbing. Because it masks the problem until it reaches a point where it becomes too late to solve it. When a market functions correctly, the price of a commodity will reflect ALL of the hidden costs of that commodity. Those costs will not be hidden in strange places, such as in our trillion dollar Iraq war! (Oh whaddaya know, look what I found! Few billion here, few trillion there...) And if you keep looking you'll keep finding the hidden costs of a barrel of oil. Just tucked away, swept under the rug. That's not capitalism. I really don't know what the hell it is, to be honest. I wouldn't doubt it if there isn't even a term for it yet. But what should be of greatest concern is the fact that our escapades in Iraq have themselves consumed a Great Deal of oil. And since the war is about oil, in one way or another, then that cost must also be rolled back into the production of oil. Hey, if it costs us 100 barrels of oil to run a pump to pull 1000 barrels out of the ground, then how is it any different when it costs us a few thousand or million barrels of oil to run our machines to protect "our" (potential) oil? This is actually evidence that we passed our true peak a long long time ago, especially if the wars keep escalating and consuming more and more oil! But that is a slippery slope, so I wont rely upon it for anything other than an anecdote. Needless to say, most of the oil we waste is, well, wasted. This is just one small facet of what a real peak oil debate would and should entail.

It's kind of ironic that the only visible non-technological solution lies buried in the sands of Iraq. Only with about 8 million barrels a day of dirt cheap light sweet crude from Iraq, will the current depletion rates be fully compensated. And even that says nothing about our petro-dependent economic growth rate, growth which MUST be sustained to keep the curent economic system from imploding. Even to this day, I still wonder if the Bushies were really smart or really stupid for going in there! What if the looming energy crisis was so severe that they felt they had to go in there even knowing full well it would most likely result in a quagmire? Someone needs to ask that question! As partially logical beings we must accept that people do stupid things most often because they simply have no other choice! But the real point is there are much bigger problems to face than global warming. Face them now, or wait 2 or 3 years and face them with Hillary. God knows she'll still be in Iraq. That is a given, no matter what, if what I say about peak oil is true. She will place that oil above the lives of Iraqis. How will she get away with that? With a carbon tax? lol. No, that's what the terrists are for. That's why we're over there spending hundreds of billions on the biggest terrorist training camp the world has ever seen. Hey that's just a fact. It's just a matter of policy. Hillary, like Bush before her, needs those terrorists to keep us afraid, long enough for peak oil to set in. Then fewer and fewer people will care about what's right and what's wrong. And we'll get our precious oil, our desert blood. And the Iraqis who fight will get mass graves. And somehow, all this will happen without 50 nuclear warheads going off. Yeah, only in a neocon dream. Their dreams have a way of coming true...

But my point is only this: what I'm saying about peak oil production can be backed up by much stronger evidence than carbon emissions and their effect on global climate systems. Much much stronger evidence. It's been predicted for over 40 years now, predicted with amazing accuracy by Hubbert. Despite all the attacks and all the nitpicking, he is being proven correct. That's what they said... they said "prove it". Well it is being proven, you most stubborn of the stubborn! We're fighting wars over oil right now. The scale of it just keeps growing and growing. We used to fight billion dollar wars over oil. Now it's trillion dollar wars. We're seeing the costs of living skyrocketing already, because of oil. And yet there is 100 times more debate about some stupid carbon tax to combat some stupid phantom problem that, at the rate we're going, is going to begin solving itself all by itself. Nature dont need no help from us. We might be able to tear down entire rainforests and replace them with walmarts, but such behavior is totally unsustainable. And thus in the strictest sense, it is not really a problem for the earth. It's a problem for us, yes, but it aint got a damn thing to do with carbon dioxide. War, famine, disease, what does that have to do with carbon dioxide?

Labor Day State of DisUnion Address

2007-09-02T12:09:00.000-07:00

Here's another one of these twilight zone news stories making the rounds this weekend:

Mexico's trucks get OK to roll in U.S. next week

Current rules require freight from Mexico to be transferred to U.S. trucks and drivers in the U.S. Under a one-year U.S. pilot program, Mexican trucking companies could move shipments around the U.S. themselves, saving time and money. The program was supposed to start as soon as Thursday.

Saving time and money? Sure. And as an added bonus, it gives American truckers something to really celebrate over the holiday weekend. Stories like this make me into a true believer, because only God himself could be this ironic.

What is really odd is how even the scared to death, al-queda-is-gonna-get-you types aren't up in arms about this.

The U.S. Transportation Department said in a Thursday court filing that Mexican trucks will be pre-screened and inspected for safety before being allowed to travel in the U.S.

Yeah and if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Minnesota to sell you. Really cheap.

In other news I am surprised to learn that Ron Paul got 17% of the straw poll vote in Texas. It's not much, but it was a very exclusive poll. I think that the boots on the ground had a major impact on convincing some of the delegates to vote for Ron Paul. But with only 1/6 of the vote I'm not sure what to make of it.

As a Texan, you'd think even a chimp could do better than 1/6. (And I think a chimp did do better, 8 years ago, if ya know what I mean!)

But then again, the republican party would not be in the predicament it is in today if it did not have some pretty big self-imposed restrictions on logic and reason! Ron Paul is like "bad medicine" to many people. Like, deep in their gut they know Ron Paul is probably right, but they're still in the denial stage. So his job is made doubly difficult by that. Same goes for all his brave and foolhardy supporters! And all we have to look forward to is that stage that comes after denial, which aint no easier to deal with. But hey, who needs it, right. It's like the truckers... Who needs a job as a trucker? Let's just outsource those jobs too.

On Nationalizing Helath Care...

2007-08-24T06:48:00.000-07:00

So you want nationalized health care? Here is some food for thought:

Why not nationalize the automotive industry?

GM and Ford have been major screwups over the last decade. They failed in countless ways. So does the government come in and bail them out? Or does another company come along and offer a better product for cheaper? Like Toyota perhaps?

What happens to companies like Toyota if the government comes in and starts running GM and Ford?

You have to apply the same logic to the health care industry as well. Because as far as the Constitution is concerned, health care is just like a car. Not everyone is entitled to own one. This aint a utopia we're living in here, and it never will be.

You think Big Pharma is going to just go away once the government comes in and takes over health care? LOL Big Pharma is the reason why the health care system is broken. They are a big part of the reason we really don't have a free market health care system. Blame the lobbyists, and blame the legislators, and blame ourselves for not getting more involved in the process. That would be the smart thing to do, no? Makes a bit more sense than blaming the market itself? (That sounds about as logical as Bush with his war on terra. Or the war on poverty.)

We already have more than enough government meddling in the healthcare system. They are chipping away at the free market every time they pass a law that unduly benefits Big Pharma. That is what needs to change. It is mere delusion to think that more government can somehow counter Big Pharma. There is no problem that can't best be solved by an informed, responsible citizenry and a free market. So if you want to change things then start from that approach. Either that, or shout out for national health care along with all those other naive feel-good ideas. If it feels so good, then shout it out while you are on your way to WalMart... to pick up another lead coated toy made in China. Either way, I'm sure your kids will love you for it.

Choose your candidate

2007-08-21T20:01:00.000-07:00

This is a pretty cool site

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php

You can find out which candidate suits you best based on a variety of issues. And it also lets you choose three levels of priority for each issue: "meh", "important", and "key". It works best when you raise the rating on the issues that are important to you.

Here's my results:

Of course it didnt tell me anything I didn't already know! I knew Paul and Kucinich were my best choices. But I think it shows this site is pretty accurate at picking your candidate.

Ron Paul, will this ever end?

2007-08-14T16:11:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul won the Iowa exit polling

I know it was "just another unscientific poll". Ron Paul wins another 10-candidate poll with 37% of the vote.

45 percent of the people who spent $35 on a ticket did NOT even vote? Say what? That sounds really fishy to me. But since 35% of the tickets sold did not bring a voter to the polls in 1999, I guess that is not so bad. But it still suggests the possibility that up to 10% of the votes may have been lost. (45% - 35% = 10%)

And they do actually admit that 1500 votes were "lost". (That is about 10%.) Curious.

bleh.

Like I said, will it ever end? Will there ever be a clean vote?

But Why Do Babies Learn Less From "Brain Training" videos?

2007-08-14T15:44:00.000-07:00

Over the past week there have been many news reports about Frederick Zimmerman's research. He has shown that babies who watch videos like "Baby Einstein" actual learn less words than babies who don't. I'm not exactly an authoriy on babies, but I can't say I'm surprised by this. What really surprises me is that many parents of young infants don't quite understand why this is so. First of all, in your gut you already know that tv tends to dumb people down. So why would that general rule not hold true for babies? But why though? I think the advertising does the most harm, but how is it that these videos are detrimental even when they are commercial free?

Like I said I am not an expert on babies, but one thing I do know is that they respond much better to direct communication. There is a HUGE difference between a face on the tv, and a face that is there in person, talking directly to the child. We know that body language is 80% of all communication among adults, and it is safe to assume that babies are the same way. Perhaps even moreso. So it naturally follows that they are not going to learn as much from some plastic-like face on tv. There's no interaction.

Remember, most mammals do not respond at all to faces on the tv, no matter how smart they are. Perhaps other mammals are smarter than us, in that respect.

Sony Really is Stupid

2007-08-14T15:27:00.000-07:00

Looking for the final proof of how dumb Sony is? Here it is:

Why did they not include a $20 remote with every system? Hell, you know it couldn't cost them more than $10 to make. Now, behold the results of their stupidity:

60% of PS3 users don't know they've got Blu-ray

Wow. When I saw that headline, I could not believe it. Hmmm, maybe if every PS3 owner had a nice shiny remote laying on the coffee table, they might just be inclined to learn more about this blu-ray stuff, no? They might even go buy some movies! Dont the people over at Sony understand how viral marketing works? After they went through so much trouble (and expense) to push blu-ray, I cannot believe they did this. :O

The Plastic Conspiracy

2007-08-08T19:03:00.000-07:00

I remember this clip from years ago. Plastic! I saw something in the store that reminded me of it.

I'm not even gonna bother posting it. (Partly because this stupid blogger wont even do it!) But you can see it here:

http://www.theimpulsivebuy.com/wordpress/2007/06/24/froot-loops-cereal-straws/

Just a quick look at the name of the link itself should prepare you for the absurdity contained within. This is a sad day for America... Ok so maybe I am over-reacting. Now I am not going to buy these just to find out how much packaging is wasted on a product like this, but you can bet that there's plenty of plastic going to waste in there. So many food products are like that. I've seen some with up to FOUR layers of plastic packaging! (6 or 7 if you count the entire shipping process.) It's as if there is this grand conspiracy where everyone is competing to see how much plastic they can waste on packaging these products. Doesn't it seem like someone somewhere wants us to be wasting all this plastic? How else does one explain it? Thanks alot George, for getting these silly thoughts stuck in my head!

When I saw the box of cereal straws in the store, I did check one thing though: To see if they were made in the USA. :/

Carnage and Karma in Minneapolis

2007-08-03T08:19:00.000-07:00

So it would cost $180 billion to fix all of the nation's ailing bridges? Gosh it sounds like we have a really conservative government, one that would rather cut spending than invest in infrastructure. If we had a conservative government, that's where the debate would be. Obviously what we have is something else entirely, and we know this is an indesputable fact because we know that $180 billion is just a drop in the bucket compared to what this government spends. Hell, just the money that's gone up in smoke in Iraq has got to be more than $180 billion. I'm talking about money that really did go 'nowhere'. Money that was spent with absolutely nothing to show for it.

This goes to show how far gone this country really is. I'm gonna spell it all out here:

a) We've got people who think that Bush is doing a heckuva job. Cutting taxes, reducing the size of government, winning the 'war on terra', vetoing all the bad legislation. Yes there are millions who actually believe he is doing ALL of that! Yes, even the vetoing. They actually believe that because he vetoes a stem cell bill, it must mean he's doing his job.

b) There is actually a debate about whether we should invest in our own infrastructure. All the while, over in Iraq.... (need I go on? lol) Over there, in the promised land, we are spending hundreds of billions on what is ultimately going to amount to nothing except billions of dollars worth of weapons and supplies in the hands of potential future terrorists. (You wonder where all that stuff goes if/when the war is over? They're still finding mines in Vietnam...)

c) We give billions to companies like Halliburton so they can... relocate to Dubai. Yet we cannot be troubled to fix a few bridges and levees.

d) The fact that millions of people somehow support actions like the above should be very disturbing. Where is the outrage? I believe this is undeniable proof that the country is clandestinely controlled by some highly malevolent power. How else to explain the lack of focus? But again, who cares about that anyway? How many people even know the meaning of the word 'malevolent"?

e) No matter which way you slice it, there is no rational argument for what is going on. Those who say that we need to reduce govt spending, welfare, etc, well they support blowing billions in Iraq and giving trillions in corporate welfare. What is a rational person supposed to think when they hear one of those lame arguments? It's complete doublespeak. I'm not even interested in that, as much as I'm interested in knowing how the hell this faulty reasoning is making its way into people's heads.

f) This country benefitted from investment in infrastructure. It is an investment in the future. It is shameful to hear all these people talk about that as if it were a bad thing, and then at the same time they sit there and try to justify selling out this country piece by piece in the name of cheap labor, outsourcing, and privitization. It doesn't make any sense! And believe me they can't make any sense of it either. They'll sit there and spout all these logical fallacies, but they won't be able to explain why they think the way they do. That's textbook brainwashing at work. When you believe something, yet cannot explain why you believe it, that is bad. Unless it's a matter of faith. Faith based government? I guess that is where we are heading. It seems that is where we already are. Sooner or later, it will be codified into law. I'm sure the democrats will accomplish that much at least!

g) This country would benefit from a huge investment in infrastructure. It creates jobs. Wow imagine that. Doing something that actually creates jobs, instead of sending them over seas. My god no wonder no one wants to invest in infrastructure! (As I've said many times, it's like the twilight zone here... nothing makes sense.) The steel and concrete can be made here, it doesnt need to be imported. There really is only one Rational reason not to do this. And that has to do with the future of the automobile in general. Will we be able to make use of $180 billion worth of new infrastructure? Will there be enough oil? Will there be alternatives? It almost seems like, deep down in our collective subconsciousness, we know that it makes no sense to spend so much money on roads that we wont be able to afford to drive on for much longer. It makes me wonder... It's just like the oil companies with their refineries. They wont invest in new refineries because they know it will be a waste of money.

Personally I think we've made a mistake building a culture and a country around the automobile. But that mistake was made before I was born, and it is too late to change now. Letting our roads and bridges rot is even more foolhardy. It's not like the $180 billion would go nowhere. No sir that's what Iraq is for. When we invest money within our own borders, it creates jobs, it creates real wealth for us. It is what makes us a rich nation. It draws in even more investment. Those jobs produce more jobs. And more tax money. This should all be textbook stuff here, but it seems like we burned our textbooks a long time ago. It's all water under the bridge now. Karma...

Net Neutrality 2007

2007-07-18T09:37:00.000-07:00

There's only about 5% of the country who even understands what the problem really is. Probably the same 5% that understands that television today is used by the big corporations primarily as a control grid to keep the population uninformed and docile. Entertainment comes in at a distant 2nd... Well they want the same thing for the internet. In order to do that they have to cut down on the traffic to alternative sites so that people are forced to get their information from the big money controlled sources. When that happens internet users will be just as uninformed as people who get their news from Fox...

The key thing to understand here is that this is not a result of free market forces, and thus it is impossible to take a libertarian approach on net neutrality. It is not capitalism at work here, it's actually more akin to corporatism. The laws are written by lobbyists paid for by the companies charging us an arm and a leg for internet service. It is ironic in a sadistic sort of way.

I guess they need even more money for lobbyists! The job of these lobbyists is simply to find ways to legislate out the competition. For years they've been successful at preventing municipalities from offering quality internet access as a utility (just like water or sewage). Now that crap is finally coming to an end, the battle lines are being redrawn around net neutrality.

Because the internet is so similar to the airwaves, it makes sense to emulate what was done in the past to protect the public airwaves. Those protections have been all but destroyed, especially over the past 10 years. As a result, only a handful of corporations control our media. That's why we're in Iraq right now, obviously. And if they had that same level of control over the internet, I bet Bush's approval rating would be still over 50%, and we'd be in Iran. Meanwhile, the Saudis would surely be sending insurgents into that country too. And we of course would call them al qaeda but ultimately do nothing about them. Because thanks to a controlled media, not enough people can make the logical connections between oil, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the phrase "eliminating the competition". With totally free and independent sources of information, it is easy to understand the motives of all the countries currently suspected of fueling the insurgency in Iraq. When you do that, you can only reach one logical conclusion: it's saudi arabia. And the evidence supports that logical conclusion, as it often does. But because the Bushes are in bed with the saudi royal family, there MUST be another reason.

There is something most people do not understand about media and politics. We look at Bush's approval rating and think "wow this is the worst president ever." (Statistically he does appear to be!) But that is not why he is polling so pooorly. It's because of the internet, and the proliferation of the alternative media. In the 70's, 80's, and most of the 90's, the media has had pretty much total control over what we think. But nowadays almost everyone is influenced to some degree by alternative sources that would have simply been stamped out in past decades. The truth is that even Ronald Reagan's approval rating would be under 33% if we had access to the same information then as we do now. That is why the "free internet" MUST be controlled, ie eliminated.

In order for that to happen, they cant just come out and say "we have to get rid of the alternative media". They have to come up with something abit more pallatable, some nice juicy piece of propaganda. (That's what makes politics so much fun!) What shall they do? What else... use their successes with television to help get control of the internet! And that's what they're doing. Everyone wants video! (Or so they say.) Youtube is leading the charge. All this bandwidth hogging video is going to force the net onto multiple tiers. Never mind the fact that we already pay outrageous amounts for bandwidth. Never mind the fact that if they took half the money they spend on lobbyists and dumped it into equipment upgrades, the problem would be solved. Never mind all of that, because that is a losing battle. This is why naive democrats and liberals often lose... they fight the battle on their opponents terms. This isn't about bandwidth or 5 million people downloading paris hilton videos or whatnot. If it was about any of that, then they would simply start charging end users by the Gigabyte. (The same way they already charge sites like Youtube!) It's about liberty. It's about stopping that one small independent source from getting his story out.

That's all they care about, and they will even lose money to see it through, because they know they can make so much more money by controlling information. And yes, their motto is "if you dont like it you can kiss our collective asses". They care not one bit if they lose subscribers, as long as they make more money off the subscribers they do keep. Unfortunately they usually do, because we americans are only too happy to take it up the butt, and pay to have it done.

CNN OutFoxes Fox

2007-06-06T20:32:00.001-07:00

You think Fox is biased? Check this out:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/who-won-the-debate/

That is a link to the June 5 post debate comments on CNN.com. But if you click on the link, it redirects you to the June 3 debate comments. Why do this? Because the comments were overwhelmingly pro-Ron Paul. Obviously they don't like him very much!

Read the comments that were deleted

Fox News: It's the Refineries Stupid!

2007-05-25T13:06:00.000-07:00

I just had the unfortunate displeasure of seeing "Your World" on Fox News. Luckily at least I didn't have to watch Neil Cavuto. Some other guy (with a really horrible tie) made the point that oil prices haven't increased dramatically in recent months, so why is it that gasoline prices have gone up so much? The halfwit that was on the show with him of course did not offer a very good explanation. But that's just Fox's schtick.

I will say this, to be fair: Yes refineries are a big part of the problem. But, and this is an important but! The cause is not primarily those daggone librul enviro-mentalists. There are 3 big problems, and of course Fox News is only interested in one of them, so I'll put that down as issue #1:

1. Environmental regulation. We're not building new refineries. But really how big of a problem is that. Look at this chart:

Notice how each year the consumption varies seasonally. So ok we're in a bad part of the season now. It's late spring, time to attack the tree huggaz again. This chart is a few years old but nothing much has changed since then in the way of consumption. And most importantly the environmental regulations have not gotten worse for the refiners over the past few years. So clearly it is not logical to think that the environmentalists have somehow caused gas prices to jump 50% so quickly! Regulation does increase the price of fuel but they also act as price stabilizers. Because typically those costs are constant, like a tax. For example, in Europe, if the price of an imported gallon of gasoline goes up by 20 cents, it isn't felt so harshly at the pump, because the taxes on it are already so high, people are used to it. So really that whole argument shoots itself down in multiple ways. Fox won't look elsewhere because they're not interested in the truth, but truth seekers DO need to dive deeper. That brings me to #2.

2. The peaking of global oil production. Oh boy! Of course Fox News isn't going to talk about that, nor is the "fair and balanced" sap that goes on their shows to represent the other side. The whole point of peak oil is not the issue of whether or not global oil production is in measurable decline right now. It does seem to be but it will take a couple more years to know for sure. The real point is with the quality of crude oil. You have your light sweet stuff and you have your heavy stuff. The light sweet stuff is easy to refine, while the heavy stuff is harder to refine. There may be some argument about peak oil in general, but there can be NO argument that most of the light sweet easily refinable stuff is gone. To refine what's left, we DO need more refining capacity. But not "new" refineries. There are plenty of refineries, they just have a harder time processing the increasingly cruddy crude we are getting. Hence the need for Iraqi oil. (Very light and very sweet Iraqi crude, like Saudi crude.) But that is a whole nother issue!

3. The oil companies have been trying to create artificial scarcity by buying independent refineries. One reason to do this is so that they can better control the maintenance cycles. If you want to maximize profits, you need to shut down more refineries for maintenance at the same time. Enron did the same thing in california.

Now that Exxon is raking in 300+ billion a year in profits, you'd think they'd have plenty of money to retool their refineries to increase throughput of the cruddy crude. But apparently they aren't doing it. And make no mistake, they need to spend some SERIOUS cash on upgrading their refineries to process heavy crude more efficiently. THAT is the issue. But for Fox News, it's about using these price shocks to lift regulations so that refineries can spew more crap into the air while processing heavy crude, so that they can do it without hurting the corporate bottom line. It's just that simple. They're making all this money, and they don't want to invest in their refineries, because they know that in 5 years, those refineries are going to be ramping down production because the world can't produce any more oil. From here it can only go down. In a twisted sort of way, it does make good business sense. It's like your city widening it's roads to 12 lanes just to support the increased traffic from their hosting of the olympic games next summer. Why do it? They'll just go to waste after the olympics are over!

The funny thing is that Fox's own unwillingness to be honest on this issue is actually hurting the oil companies' position. Because we really don't want them to waste ungodly amounts of money building new refineries just to have them sit idle for hours a day 5 years from now. Because they are our companies, and that waste of money hurts our entire economy. If Fox could be more honest, there'd be more of a push for conservation which could allow companies to profit from new technological strides in fuel efficiency. But instead, we have to go through these mad gyrations where we're driving SUVs one day, and Festivas the next. Just one gallon of oil contains enough energy to power even Al Gore's house for days. A thimble full of oil can do the heavy lifting of a dozen men. There is nearly limitless profit potential in harnessing that energy in more intelligent ways than simply burning it up in a combustion chamber that is rarely even 25% efficient.

Worst of all, if nothing is done then we'll just import more gasoline from refineries in countries where the environmental regulations are lax, which will cause even more pollution and cost drivers even more money, while keeping profits for Exxon on track. Of course that is a fine fallback position for the Fox News crowd.

To recap, here's how I would rate the three issues by cost:

1. Regulations 10%
2. Decline of light sweet crude 80%
3. Market consolidation 10%

1 and 3 are relative nonfactors. I would further break down #2 like this:

A. Decline due to peaking light crude 50%
B. Demand outstripping supply 20%
C. Geopolitical instability, particularly in regions that export light sweet crude 30%

In terms of dollars, what I'm saying is that a $3 gallon of gas breaks down like this:

Regulations $0.30
Decline due to peaking light crude $1.20
Demand outstripping supply $0.48
Geopolitical instability $0.72
Market consolidation $0.30

These numbers are definately not exact, and I assume error margins upwards of 50% are possible. This is a rough analysis, meant only to illustrate the obscene levels of dishonesty out there. If there were honest experts, I wouldn't need to chime in with my laymans analysis! But the point is that Fox News is trying to take that 30 cents a gallon caused by environmental regulations, and make it seem like it is really two dollars! Hell, just the cost of a gallon of crude oil alone is over $1.50, so it is not even physically possible that regulations could cost two dollars! But I bet there's Fox News viewers who think that's how the numbers work out! Like that X% of Fox viewers who think Saddam himself flew the planes into the towers. (I bet some significant percentage of Fox viewers think Saddam personally flew more than one of those planes!)

With gas prices now at $3.25, even with pre-70's regulations, we'd still be paying at least $2.80 a gallon easily. Probably still over $3.00... Is that cost savings really worth pumping millions of tons of chemicals into the sky? Hell I haven't even commented on the true cost of oil and gasoline after factoring in hidden costs such as the "hidden cancer tax". If I did that then gasoline would probably be $10 a gallon! (In truth, I really don't even want to know how much the Real costs are. I have to be able to function mentally, emotionally, and spiritaully!)

The Immigration Debate: Yes We're Being Hoodwinked Again

2007-05-21T17:50:00.000-07:00

I wonder, to all those who are criticizing the illegal latin-american immigrants (I count myself among you more often than not btw)... have you ever wondered where we'd be if we actually bought our cheap "chinese" goods from latin american manufacturers, rather than from China? (Erm, remember Red China?) hmm... maybe then latin american economies would grow, and there'd be jobs down there and there'd be less immigration... not to mention it would cost us far less in oil to transport all this junk halfway around the world.

We need to stop with the divide and conquer mindset and start looking at things a little differently. Most of them are hard working people looking for a better life, and we should be a little bit more concerned about how things got this way and what it means for this country if we start rounding people up. I couldn't believe the comments I was reading and hearing today. My god if you're willing to take such extreme actions then you better not be buying anything from China or else that makes you a hypocrite and a fool. Ask yourself why China is growing so fast when it was our corporations that chose to invest over there. Ask why did they do that. How does NAFTA and CAFTA fit into that? What did China offer that latin american countries could not offer? Look back through history. Look at the governments we overthrew. Look at the coups we staged. And look at our economic relations with those countries now. What does it all mean? I can't answer that. No one in the mainstream media can answer that. Noam Chomsky is one of few who can answer these sorts of questions concisely. But who is listening?

It's something to think about before contemplating the use of these:

First they came...

Michelle Malkin Enters the Twilight Zone... Again

2007-05-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

wow what can one say to that? Sieg Heil?

She says "Ron Paul has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of republicans" Eh? Translation: Ron Paul's voting record is consistently conservative, but I think you're too stupid to actually go and look at his voting record and compare it to Giuliani! The truth is that Michelle Malkin has no business claiming to be a "news correspondent!" I mean christ she's almost got me convinced Fox has a liberal bias because she hates a conservative like Ron Paul. Luckily I know that it's not about left/right, it's about which candidate is bought and controlled, and which is not.

Anyway, getting back to the video...

911 Truth Virus? wtf is she talking about? In the debate with Giuliani, all Ron Paul did was point out the principle of blowback which was spelled out by the CIA and even restated in the 911 Commission report!

Wow. So let me see if I got this right. Ron Paul quotes the 9/11 commission report. That makes him a 9/11 truth virus or whatever. Yet at the same time, 9/11 truthers are nearly unanimous in their rejection of the 9/11 commission report! How is that possible? How can he be a truther and yet support conclusions reached by the 9/11 commission report? oops. Such a fine example of superior Malkin logic. She talks about facts and logic and all that wonderful stuff.... stuff she obvious has no clue about.

And check this out:

Look familiar? She of all people ought to know the meaning of the word.

You know whats really scary about her? Listen to this clip of her:

The logical Malkin (oxymoron?)

Frightening! Yes it's true she has no business speaking about reason, obviously, but did you notice the accent on the word "logic"? My god she sounds JUST LIKE Ann Coulter. Ugh. Where does Fox keep digging up these corpse-brains? It really irritates me how these people so diminish and degrade the value of logic and reasoning in debate. If you're going to talk about it, have the common freakin courtesy to actually use it!

I notice that she seems to have all but replaced Ann Coulter as Fox's #1 neocon propaganda whore. The role she plays is about as demeaning for women as the pro baseball players who take steroids. Absolutely nasty and despicable and oh so damaging on so many levels. Let's see how long she lasts in that position. I personally hope she stays there because she discredits Fox in ways that even Oreilley could never dream of.

Here's some real logic and reason:

She's right about one thing though. There is a truth "virus" out there... but only people like her would really think of it as a virus. In an Orwellian world, the truth would be considered a virus, wouldn't it?

Ghouliani vs Paul, Faux News Style

2007-05-15T21:02:00.000-07:00

After the debate, Giuliani sat down with Hannity, and he admitted that he didn't even listen to what Ron Paul was saying. He admitted it straight up. On national tv! Who in their right mind would want to elect someone who doesnt listen, even in a debate?! Oh, I know who: Republicans. But really, after seeing the way Fox News did the post debate coverage, it is obvious that Republicans are really just naive victims of corrupted media power. What amazes me is how blatant the bias is. It's like watching poor seaguls covered in oil. It's slimy, it's nasty, it's abhorrent, on so many levels. Surely even Fox News viewers are starting to notice it.

Later on, at 11:00 pm est Fox News Announced the first results of their poll, Ron Paul was in first place with 30%. lol. And that hack with the microphone says that it's because he got beat up by Ghouliani. Then he said it's because maybe Ron Paul's people are better organized. lol.

After that, one of the other candidates said that Ron Paul was leading because he was entertaining, and "people are looking for entertainment". Wow. Such a cynical view of americans! Whoever that guy was, I'm surprised Fox News isn't promoting him more! Give it time.

Then they actually brought Ron Paul on, and Hannity tried to bully him, but only succeeded in making himself look stupid. Ron Paul knows how to handle people like Hannity. It is good to see.

The high point in the debate, despite whatever Fox News claims, is without a doubt Ron Paul's last statements in the debate. He told Brit Hume exactly what any reasonable person would: stop talking about hypothetical scenarios while there is a real war going on. I like Ron Paul's "hey the emperor's not wearing any clothes, why aren't we talking about that??" style. He recognized that the questions being posed were ludicrous, and then went on to talk about what we should be talking about. I think anyone who saw that had to be affected by it.

Later on, at around midnight, Hannity actually says "It's our fault". I know, I'm taking his words out of context, because he was saying he refuses to accept the idea that "9/11 was our fault". I think he meant "america's" fault. But ironically, it really was his fault. Not just "him" per se, but people with his mindest. His unwillingness to approach any topic with reason and rationality. He's a reactionary, paid to promote the views of the reactionary elite. None of them want to listen to reason. They don't care that if you kill 10,000 Iraqis, 10 of their surviving family members are going to hate this country. And if you kill 100,000 Iraqis, 100 of their surviving family members are going to hate this country. Thousands will direct the hate where it belongs, onto our foreign policy, but there will be that 100 or so who hate us all. And of those 100, there will be a few who decide to do more than just hate. People like Hannity don't care about that because even in his own pathetic little soul-less world, he gains some tiny bit of power every time a terrorist incident occurs. They all do. They have no respect for debate. Giuliani admitted he didn't even listen to Ron Paul's response. If you can't even win a debate with someone in your own party, how can you possibly expect to win a war against any enemy? That's what really bothers me about Giuliani and all those who support his worldview. It cannot withstand debate. And they know it.

Richard Dawkins: Brilliant Naivete

2007-05-15T15:02:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to a recent 2-part Richard Dawkins interview.

I agree with what he says about how atheists and non-atheists alike do NOT get their moral values from religion. That part can be seen about halfway through the first video. It's probably the most convincing argument against religion that I've ever heard. I'm not an atheist per se, since I think it is foolish to discount the possibility of "god" since we reallly don't know our heads from holes in the ground. But for all intents and purposes, atheists and agnostics fall under the same umbrella.

At the end of that video, Dawkins admits to being puzzled over why atheists, as a group, have very little political power, considering how large a group atheists are. And that surprised me. It struck me as naive, for the reason is obvious. Religious groups get their power because they are used as front groups for national and global crime syndicates. As soon as these crime syndicates find a way to hijack atheism and use it to make money, I'm sure we'll see atheists gain more political power. Quite frankly, I am shocked that someone like Dawkins does not understand that politics is all about money and power, and has little to do with god.

Shifting Paradigms: VA Tech and the Media

2007-04-19T17:55:00.000-07:00

Given the excess of coverage on this topic, I'm going to get right to the point. NBC aired the video that the shooter sent them. They aired quite a bit of it right on national tv. Every other network followed suit. Why? Who knows. It doesn't seem very logical, considering the fact that the mainstream media generally does not cover stories highlighting the darkest sides of human nature. I mean, how many stories have you seen about Dyncorp?

What should have NBC and the other networks have done? I think they should have shown perhaps 10 or 15 seconds of footage and left it at that. They should have posted the rest of it onto their site, and told viewers to go there if they wanted to see more. I think this is how many news stories should be covered. It allows people a greater opportunity to be informed. Those of us who wish to see more have that option. And those of us who don't wish to see more are spared the torment. There's no need to cram this crap down the throats of everyone who turns on the news.

It seems like a no-brainer, till one realizes that the mainstream media doesn't really care about promoting an informed citizenry! Did they assume that showing endless clips of this whackjob would bring them better ratings? (I dont know what's worse, the notion that they'd be that cynical in making such an assumption, or the notion that they'd be correct in making such an assumption.)

I just think the mainstream media is totally missing the boat when it comes to harnessing the power of the web and using it to bring forth better news coverage. It is clear to me that they have no interest in actually covering the news in any rational way. This wreaks of a purely fear-based agenda. In the end, their actions may prove to be even more devastating than those of the killers themselves. One has to wonder what effect this media coverage is having on the potentially dozens of others who are contemplating performing their own random acts of mass violence. Is all this coverage going to make them stop, think, and empathize about the devastation they will bring, or will it make them think only about going for "a new record"? To raise the bar, so to speak? A new high score in a sick and twisted game? What will it mean when the next time this happens and the next shooter makes an even more demented video? Will that one get even more airtime? And if it does, what will that mean? What will that accomplish? And so on... We must see the slippery slope here, and act accordingly. It is during times like these that I understand why the utopian visions of the future often describe a world without televisions...

I never thought I'd be writing something like this on the eighth anniversary of Columbine, considering this technically isn't about Columbine...

The Great Global Warming Swindlers

2007-03-22T19:07:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting documentary. What is of particular importance is the content between 19:39 and 21:57. Watch that part before reading on.

Quotes of particular interest:

Ian Clark ("arctic paleoclimatologist"):

"We use isotopes to reconstruct temperature, but the atmosphere that's imprisoned in that ice, we liberate and then we look at the CO2 content."

Martin Durkin (director):

"Professor Clark and others have indeed discovered, as Al Gore says, a link between carbon dioxide and temperature. But what Al gore doesn't say is that the link is the wrong way 'round."

Clark:

"Temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years."

Durkin:

"There have now been several major ice core surveys. Every one of them shows the same thing. The temperature rises or falls, and then, after a few hundred years, carbon dioxide follows."

Professor Tim Ball (retired):

"The most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change, due to humans, is shown to be wrong."

To make the point crystal clear, here is a chart:

Is this really true? Many so-called scientists are jumping on this bandwagon. In fact, this has become the central issue in what's left of the global warming "debate".

If there's one thing I've learned about paid hacks and quack scientists, it is this: their claims are shrouded in a veil of ostensible validity, but once you look past it, they are easy to disprove. They're like magicians, once you figure out their trick, you see them for what they are: people with utter contempt for science. They scour through data like hungry lawyers, looking for little loopholes they can use to bury the public in a cloud of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). FUD is always the name of the game.

So is there a trick here? Have they found a loophole? The answer to both question is... Yes!

I'm going to analyze the data from the Vostok Ice Cores. Take a look at the raw data file.

Here is a snapshot of the beginning of the file:

Do not be afraid of numbers! Only quacks and hacks need to fear the data! It's not that complicated at all, at least not yet. There are 3 columns. The first is the depth of the ice. The second is the age of the ice, calculated by the concentration of various hydrogen isotopes. The 3rd column is the age of the CO2 that is "trapped" inside this ice. Notice that there is NO DATA in the third column! Not until they get about 100 meters down. Eh? Why is that? Apparently the people in that documentary never stopped to think about it.

So why is the age of the CO2 lagging behind the age of the ice that contains the CO2?? Why is the CO2 inside the ice so much "younger" than the ice itself?? It's simple really: Ice is permeable to CO2.

Keep in mind that they say the CO2 data lags behind the temperature data, and this proves that the changes in CO2 concentrations are a result of the changes in temperature. This is very important!

The reason the CO2 data lags behind the temperature data is because the CO2 permeated into the ice, down to a depth of 100 meters or more. This can easily be proven for those that don't believe it is possible. Just make yourself a huge block of ice with a hollow center, fill it up with compressed CO2, seal it off, and see how long the pressure lasts! It wont last a day, let alone a thousand years. Gases bleed right through ice like water through a filter, even under normal atmospheric pressure. Whether it is a tiny ice cube or a 100 meter thick chunk of ice, the same basic rule applies. This is basic science here. No quackery. It is easily proven. But what does it mean for the ice core data?

Back to the ice core data. Lets look at the data from 10000 years ago:

At a depth of 239 meters, you have ice that is measured to be 10027 years old. But the CO2 trapped inside the ice at that depth was measured to be only 6714 years old. It is extremely important to note that none of this data is being disputed. Both sides are taking the same exact data and merely interpreting it differently.

Here is where it gets a bit more complicated.

You have two more sets of data.

1. The CO2 data

2. The temperature data

Ok, so you've got all this data. This is the data that is used to make the charts like the one shown above and also the one in An Inconvenient Truth. Again none of this data is in dispute. The dispute lies in how they line this data up. Here's how they do it.

They take the temperature that was calculated at a given depth, and they take the CO2 concentration that was calculated at that same depth. This has to be done because you cannot plot a multi series graph unless you line both data series up against some common reference point on the X axis. (This is a basic rule in making charts.) It is only logical that depth, and hence age, be the X axis. But that brings us right back to this:

Any chart we plot has to take into account the fact that the air at any given age is going to be buried about 60 meters deeper into the ice. The data clearly shows that at 239 meters, the ice is 10000 years old yet the CO2 at that depth is only 6700 years old. So when you plot a multiseries graph, such as that shown above (temperature and CO2 vs time), you have to be very careful how you align the data. If you take the temperature from ice that is 10027 years old, and align that with the CO2 concentration as measured from air that is 10027 years old, you're naturally going to find that the CO2 levels are lagging behind. Why? Because the 10000 year old CO2 is trapped within ice that is 13000 years old!!! And at 13000 years old, the temperature levels would have been different, leading to misleading data. This is what has happened.

So to compensate for this, you have to slide the CO2 graph approximately 3000 years to the left so that it properly aligns with the temperature graph. Otherwise any conclusions are going to be invalid. And we wouldn't want that! Some quack might end up thinking that CO2 lags behind temperature!

Just remember this:

That is a negative offset. That negative offset has to be added to the CO2 graph, in order for the two graphs to line up properly in the chart. In other words, the guys in that documentary are commiting scientific fraud. They are taking ice that is age X, and comparing it with CO2 that is also age X, but that age X CO2 is trapped within ice that is age X+3000. So really they are taking CO2 data that is 3000+ years older as compared to the temperature data, and then they are using that fraudulent data to claim that CO2 lags behind temperature!

Hoaxes like this only work because they think this stuff goes over people's heads. Don't let that happen.

The Spirit of the Constitution

2007-03-20T16:57:00.000-07:00

The 22nd amendment:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

What gives? Is this a rant against the possibility of another 4 years of King George? lol no. That aint gonna happen. Or is it? See, technically, we're in the 11th year of George Bush. Sure, there's 8 years of Clinton inbetween the two, but does that really matter? And it is very possible that we're looking at another 8 years of a Clinton! To summarize:

Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Clinton (possible/probable)
Clinton (possible/probable)
Bush (Jeb) (possible/probable)

omg just what the HELL is going on here?

Now the 22nd amendment was not designed to prevent this exact scenario, but isn't it true that the 22nd amendment was designed to prevent something very much like this from occuring?

I'm not pushing for a new amendment, but I do think we need to consider interpreting the constitution a wee bit less literally, and start looking more at the spirit of the document. The intention. If you believe that term limits are a good thing, then you should also be against what is going on here with this Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton nonsense.

It's a foregone conclusion that the republicans are gonna pick some yammering sack of jelly (with a hard candy shell) to be their candidate, which means that Hillary would end up being the lesser of two evils if she wins the nomination. So if you really believe in the spirit of term limits, then the real battle is going to be fought in the democratic primaries.

PS3: The Blu-Ray of Hope?

2007-03-19T09:15:00.000-07:00

I've been watching this Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD silliness for over a year now. I'm kind of surprised that I haven't blogged about this until now. Especially considering that many of the predictions I made have come true. I knew the Wii was going to be popular, because for years I've seen the potential of a motion sensitive interface vs the boring old gamepad. That seems like a no brainer. What is surprising me is how poorly the PS3 is doing. It has been selling less than 5000 units a day for the last month. I figured it would do better, but in truth I am glad it is not.

The reason is obvious. It's the outrageous price tag. And what is the cause of that? It's simple really. Sony tried forcing Blu-Ray down everyone's throats. This added way too much to the cost of the console. And it was totally unnecessary. They had no reason to do it. It was just a smack in the face to gamers. I can go down the list of reasons why they claim DVD is not good enough. Rest assured, all the reasoning is completely bunk. The primary reason is the capacity issue. That is reason numero uno, and it is also a big fat lie. 9 GB is plenty of space. It will be at least 3 more years before developers start running into serious problems with such limited capacity. One of the biggest games ever made is Vanguard, for the PC. Once installed it uses up well over 20 gigs of hard drive space! Yet it is shipped on a single DVD. Amazing huh? And remember, the Final Fantasy series on the original playstation always spanned multiple discs, yet that certainly didnt stop the game from selling. Not by a longshot. So don't believe the lies about the need for more capacity. Also, additional content can be streamed via the internet if it comes down to that. Stuff like fmv cutscenes, which games dont really need. I mean, why else would the PS3 have wifi and a hard drive if not to store additional downloaded content? shrug

Remember, the PS3 was originally set to launch at around the same time as the XBox 360. The greed of Sony is what pushed it back. They wanted Blu-Ray, and they wanted it so badly that they even allowed Microsuck to gain a 5 million unit advantage. Talk about stupid! But does Sony care? Hell no. Because they got what they wanted: For Blu-Ray to get its day in the sun.

Here is where it gets complicated. It's actually very simple, it's just that few people have actually bothered to explain what's really going on here. That's where I come in! heh. It's time to talk about the ugly truth. You see, Sony has never really cared about gamers. They view gamers with a sort of cynical contempt. They took 10 years to build up the Playstation brand name. They did a pretty good job too, I must admit. I always preferred them compared to microsoft. Believe me, the last thing I want is to see the ol Vole monopolize the video game market! If that happens you can kiss all innovation goodbye! But as it turns out, Sony is actually being the bigger of the two turds. To understand what's really going on, it helps to know their business plan for the PS3. What they wanted to do with it is use it to leverage their precious Blu-Ray against HD-DVD. They are determined not to repeat the Betamax debacle. They approached all the movie studios and said, look this thing is gonna sell like hotcakes. Look at how many PS2's are out there! Well, in a few years there's gonna be that many PS3's, and they all got Blu-Ray! So it would be foolish to support HD-DVD. And most of the big movie studios bought the bull.

To be clear, both high definition video formats are a joke and a scam. How do I know this? Because right as I type this, there sits a folder on my hard drive, and in that folder contains many beautiful pristine 1080p high definition movie clips. (Mostly just trailers.) They are mainly just 2 or 3 minute clips, but I noticed something about them. And this is a very big thing! These are high quality H.264 encoded video clips. I found that if I take the size of one of these 3 minute clips, and multiply that by 50 (150 minutes) I noticed that it could easily fit on one DVD. Very easily. In fact you could double the quality, or double the content, and it would still all fit on one DVD! So why the need for an expensive blue laser and a whole new format? Uh, duh, there is none. It's a scam. A big money scam. In fact, the amount of money at stake here is so massive that Sony is actually willing to flush the PS3 down the toilet (and give the big middle finger to gamers) just so they could gain the leverage they need to win the format war. They might do just that. But scammers have a way of losing in the end, and I believe that both formats will ultimately fail because of it.

The important thing to note is that if Blu-Ray wins, it is a loss for everyone. Howso? Because it is the most expensive of the two formats. Not just the hardware, but the media too. In fact it is going to prove so costly that it is going to be a boon for all forms of discless media. Download services, as well as the cable and satellite services, are going to be the real winners here. And as for disc based media? Who is going to be the winner? No one really. We've been taught to believe that competition is good for the consumer, but this is not true in all cases. This is the reason I am blogging about this topic now. It is very important to be able to see the different between say, a price war between AMD and Intel, and what is going on between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. I guarantee that if 3 years ago they would have just sucked it up and agreed on ONE format, the cheaper format, then right now as I type this in March of 2007, you'd be able to go to the nearest Best Buy, or Walmart, or wherever, and buy a high definition DVD player for $100. And by the end of this year, High-def DVD sales would be in a position to overtake regular DVD. Now that has been pushed back at least 3 years! Wow. Way to screw up! Even as the price of a 32" LCD is set to fall below $500, the price of the players is still rediculously high, and will remain so for quite some time. (In what kind of insane world does a damn dvd player cost more than a 32 inch HDTV? lol) And not only that, but the Playstation brand name has been tarnished considerably. The future of the Cell processor has been all but destroyed, because it was so late to the mass market. It's sad really. So Blu-Ray fanbois, rejoice. I hope you dumbasses are still rejoicing two years from now when a Hi-def DVD burner costs over $100 and the blank discs still cost over 5 bucks apiece. Idiots.

You know who else loses in this format war? The movie studios! Kind of ironic eh? They could have made billions off of HD sales by now, but no, they had to buy Sony's bs hype. Thanks to gamers. Those gamers who were gonna flock to buy PS3's. A fair amount still did, and god knows how many in europe are gonna shell out the big bucks this week just so they can pay even more money later on!

Hey you PS3 lovers, I got a question for ya. If Sony put a damn cuisinart on the PS3, would you still buy it? Yes, Sony thinks you're that stupid. And quite frankly, ya act like it too.