-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A> ----- Today's Lesson From An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) by T. R. Malthus The poor laws of England tend to depress the general condition of the poor in these two ways. Their first obvious tendency is to increase the population without increasing the food for its support. A poor man may marry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family in independence. They may be said therefore in some measure to create the poor which they maintain; and as the provisions of the country must, in consequence of the increased population, be distributed to every man in smaller proportions, it is evident that the labour of those who are not supported by parish assistance will purchase a smaller quantity of provisions than before, and consequently, more of them must be driven to ask for support. . . . It is a general complaint among master manufacturers that high wages ruin all their workmen; but it is difficult to conceive that these men would not save a part of their higher wages for the future support of their families, instead of spending it in drunkenness and dissipation, if they did not rely on parish assistance for support in case of accidents. And that the poor employed in manufactures consider this assistance as a reason why they may spend all the wages they earn, and enjoy themselves while they can, appears to be evident from the number of families that, upon the failure of any great manufactory, immediately fell upon the parish; when perhaps the wages earned in this manufactory, while it flourished, were sufficiently above the price of common country labour to have allowed them to save enough for their support, till they could find some other channel for their industry. ===== Don't gimme no Lippo Two Men, Walking by William Safire Two men who admitted corrupting our politics during the Clinton years have copped their guilty pleas and are cheerfully walking free -- without having to implicate any higher-ups. In Webster Hubbell's case, the crony and serial felon the Clintons appointed to run their Justice Department in 1993 triumphed over the Independent Counsel because Ken Starr was sure he could not get a jury to convict Hubbell, and he wants to close up shop as fast as he can. So we will never know if the $100,000 that the Riady family paid Hubbell was, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, "hush money" -- to keep him from telling prosecutors about the part played by his Rose Law Firm "billing partner," Hillary Clinton, in his sham deal. Ironically, Starr threw in the towel just as Jane Sherburne, former Deputy White House Counsel in charge of delaying investigations, apparently unburdened herself about her Hubbell worries to Bob Woodward in his new book, "Shadow." "If Clinton had . . . said something to encourage paying Hubbell," writes Woodward, "he could be personally involved in some kind of obstruction of justice. . . . Sherburne called [the President's personal attorney, David] Kendall. Could he ask the President whether he knew about any payment to Hubbell from Riady's Lippo Group? Did Clinton instruct anybody to help Hubbell? "Kendall said he would ask. . . . He got back in touch with Sherburne later. 'I've checked it out,' he said convincingly. 'It's not a problem.' " But then Clinton told a news conference, "I didn't personally know anything about it until I read about it in the press." "She called Kendall to remind him," writes Woodward, ". . . she had asked Kendall to check it out. Kendall said he recalled." She asks: " 'but how could that be true given the conversation we had?' Kendall reacted angrily, suggesting that there was some disconnect. . . . Sherburne thought that Kendall was one more person who didn't tell her the full story." And so, with no White House tapes and with Hubbell's zipped lip, Starr was unable to unearth the full story. But what could John Huang, the Riady employee placed in the Commerce Department and later as D.N.C. fund-raiser, tell us about the Clinton-Hubbell-Riady hush-money connection? That's where the second walk comes in. Despite the strong protests of F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh and prosecutor Charles La Bella, Attorney General Janet Reno has kept tight political control over the carefully botched Chinagate investigation. This month, Reno Justice announced that John Huang, who raised millions in Asian money for Clinton that had to be returned, will plead guilty to raising just $7,500 illegally. His recommended sentence: a year's probation and a small fine. In return for this slap on the wrist, will he reveal what he knows about the Hubbell money; or what transpired in the Sept. 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting with Clinton and Riady, or why he got regular C.I.A. briefings and called former Lippo associates? Don't hold your breath. Justice's walk-don't-talk prosecutors have interviewed him extensively, they tell the court, but we will never see those transcripts. But what about Congress? Up to now, Mr. Huang has taken the Fifth to avoid testifying, but surely now that he has admitted guilt of a campaign finance crime, he can be called to testify. His sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 2 in Los Angeles before Federal Judge Richard Paez; could not his sentence depend on his willingness to tell the whole truth to Congress? Not so fast. Reno, working with Democrats, has a way to prevent that. Huang insists on immunity from further prosecution, which Chairman Dan Burton of House Government Reform is prepared to give. But Justice, which has already said there is no espionage element to Huang's case, now says it prefers he not get immunity to testify. Excuse: the old, contemptuous "ongoing investigations" dodge. And Democrats on the committee can use that to block a grant to Huang, thereby keeping the lid on him and protecting Clinton and Al Gore from embarrassment. The Riadys' Hubbell and Huang, together again. Both walk; neither talks; and a five-year cover-up succeeds. The New York Times, July 1, 1999 Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds Wall Street Surges on Fed Rate Hike NEW YORK - U.S. central bankers raised interest rates on Wednesday but surprised and delighted investors by indicating they were not inclined to do so again in the near future. Stock and bond prices immediately jumped when the Federal Open Market Committee said it adopted a neutral bias in its interest rate policy. The panel, which includes the Federal Reserve Board members and presidents of regional Fed banks, raised its target for the federal funds rate to 5 percent from 4.75 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up 155.45 points, or 1.4 percent, at 10,970.80. Treasury bond prices rose, pushing yield on the benchmark 30-year issue down to 5.97 percent from 6.06 percent. Although the neutral bias is not a guarantee that the Fed policymakers will not raise rates at their next meeting, six weeks from now, or indeed between meetings, ''the chance is much lower than 50 percent,'' said Takanobu Igarashi, senior economist at Sanwa Bank. ''The major reason is that the Fed is worried about inflation through higher wages,'' he said. ''Wage-inflation pressure is diminishing rather than increasing.'' Michael Holland, a private money manager, said the move indicated a triumph for Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed. Mr. Holland said Mr. Greenspan probably had to overcome reservations of other Open Market Committee members, who were not convinced that the rapidly diminishing pool of available workers in the United States would lead to significant pay increases. ''The old methodology is obsolete,'' Mr. Holland said. ''The future is going to be related to what is going on now: productivity and worldwide fungibility of labor.'' For owners of stocks and bonds, the unexpected adoption of a neutral bias was an unmitigated blessing. Unless the Fed sees substantial signs of rising wages or prices, it is unlikely that it will raise rates for the rest of this year. After the August Fed meeting, attention will turn to possible disruptions caused by the Year 2000 computer problem, and the central bank may well have to supply credit to the economy, not restrict it. Central bank officials had prepared financial markets for the rate increase for much of this year. On June 17, Mr. Greenspan told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that there were ''developing imbalances'' in the U.S. economy, notably a dwindling labor pool and a stock market that had risen to possibly ''unsustainable levels.'' ''Modest preemptive actions can obviate the need of more drastic actions at a later date that could destabilize the economy,'' he said at the time. ''It is useful to preempt forces of imbalance before they threaten economic activity.'' So far, however, there have been few traditional signs of inflation as measured by such gauges as the consumer price index, which is rising at about a 2 percent annual rate so far this year. The federal funds rate is what banks charge each other for overnight loans. The central bank does not directly set the rate, but by increasing or decreasing the amount of money in the banking system - which it does by buying and selling Treasury securities - it can influence the fed funds rate, essentially the lowest cost of credit in the United States. The rate stood at 5.5 percent last summer before Russia defaulted on some of its bonds and the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP nearly collapsed, threatening to drag large parts of the global financial system with it. To calm investor fears, the Federal Reserve Board reduced interest rates three times last year, cutting its target on fed funds in quarter-point increments. On Wednesday, the Federal Open Market Committee said: ''Since then, much of the financial strain has eased, foreign economies have firmed and economic activity in the U.S. has moved forward at a brisk pace. Accordingly, the full degree of adjustment is judged no longer necessary.'' Yet, despite tightening labor markets, the committee said, ''strengthening productivity growth has contained inflationary pressures.'' International Herald Tribune, July 1, 1999 Year 2000 Passport Crisis Blamed on Y2K Bug Not to mention additional ridiculous passport laws THE Millennium bug is at the root of the Passport Agency's struggle to issue thousands of passports. Taskforce 2000, an independent Millennium bug watchdog, uncovered the problem, believed to be the first high-profile computer failure caused by the inability of many computers to process dates occurring beyond the end of this year to come to light. Ian Hugo, assistant director of Taskforce 2000, said: "We have been warning that it will be the cumulative effect of several factors rather than a single event that will cause a Millennium bug failure. This is now proof of those predictions." In the case of the Passport Agency, a combination of new requirements for children to carry passports and the seasonal increase in renewal requests were exacerbated by the Agency's attempts to replace its old non-Millennium compliant system. In all but two offices, staff have been forced to continue to use the old system called PIMIS, parts of which do not correctly process dates beyond Dec 31, 1999. Other staff have attempted to use the new PASS, Millennium bug-compliant, system provided by Siemens, which is neither completely operational nor fully tested, according to the most recent Cabinet Office survey. Last night, Siemens said it had been agreed in November last year that the project would be confined to Liverpool and Newport until the end of the holiday season. It said: "It is misleading to suggest that the delays experienced by the public are primarily caused by failures in IT systems. It is clear that the application demand has exceeded Home Office forecasts." A joint report published in April by Taskforce 2000 and the National Computing Centre highlighted the Passport Agency's vulnerability to a Millennium bug failure. It predicted a possible breakdown in public services due to a "process of attrition". In March, the Passport Agency told the Cabinet Office that one of its systems called the Main Index - a central register of all British passports - was affected by the Millennium bug. Last month, the Agency said that it considered the Main Index to be "mission-critical". Mr Hugo said: "They said in March that they had halted introducing the new system but would be ready by June. In June, the situation was no better. Something quite clearly is wrong." Robin Guenier, executive director of Taskforce 2000, said: "This Millennium bug threat will grow through the rest of this year and beyond and could affect all parts of the public sector, including essential services." The London Telegraph, July 1, 1999 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
