[CTRL] When Conspiracy Theories Induce Paralysis
-Caveat Lector- When Conspiracy Theories Induce Paralysis by Gary North The Christian Right has a problem that afflicts every activist movement: a proliferation of conspiracy theories and theorists. Some of them have better footnotes or videos than others. But they all risk self-destruction. My father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, warned me over 40 years ago about conspiracy theorists not actual conspiracy theories, some of which he accepted, but theorists. They see the affairs of mankind as one long story of one successful conspiracy. They attribute to the conspiracy what the Bible attributes to God: omniscience and omnipotence. The result is a form of emotional paralysis, a retreat into one's shell. People think they are up against near-supernatural power. He called these people gravediggers. He avoided them. Conspiracies are not a new phenomenon. The prophet Isaiah issued a warning regarding the interpreting the history of man as the work of conspirators. For Jehovah spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A conspiracy, concerning all whereof this people shall say, A conspiracy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be in dread thereof. Jehovah of hosts, him shall ye sanctify; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread (Isaiah 8:1113, ASV). Rushdoony took this warning seriously. It was not that he believed that impersonal forces of history or impersonal anything else govern history. He was a cosmic personalist who saw the world in terms of rival beings: God vs. Satan. He would quote Psalm 2 in defense of this view. But he was careful always to present the issues of the past and the present in terms of multiple special-interest groups that operate in a world that is the product of competing religious worldviews. He wrote a 1965 essay on this issue, The Conspiracy View of History. He warned that it is a mistake to see any group as the group that operates behind the scenes. He said that the conspiracies at any given moment of history are many, and, the more crucial the issues, the more extensive the conspiracies. ( The Nature of the American System, 1965, p. 141.) There is another factor to consider. The commonly admitted conspiracies are those of the opposition (p. 143). This blinds historians and contemporary commentators to the fact of similar activities, with similar tactics, inside the camp of the saints. He saw the issue of conspiracies in terms of an illegitimate quest for power. The more a conspiracy is concerned with power in priority to a faith, the more unscrupulous will its activities and alliances become. It will join forces with anyone and sacrifice both friend and foe without any moral restraint in order to attain its goals (p. 147). This was an application of Chapter 10 of Hayek's Road to Serfdom, Why the Worst Get on Top. Rushdoony understood that central banking and fractional reserve banking are essentially conspiracies against the public (pp. 15052). Yet he warned against too great a concern with such matters. The fundamental issues of life are not the non-conspiratorial good guys vs. the conspiratorial bad guys. The fundamental issues are theological and moral. How shall we evaluate these things? It is possible, and many have done it, to begin naming the international money-lenders, some known and the others unknown, who are involved at the heart of these things, but this is an exercise in futility. Knowledge is important, but it is not knowledge which saves men, and the public announcement of all the relevant names would in no wise alter the situation in any basic respect. The issue is theological (p. 153). Rushdoony held to a revisionist view of the United States' entry into World War I and World War II. He understood the influence of central banking in political affairs. But he left to professional historians the detailed study of these events. As far as I can recall, he never in 35 years devoted an issue of his newsletter, Chalcedon Report, to a discussion of some alleged contemporary conspiracy and its machinations. He believed that such publishing efforts are essentially rabbit trails. They lead good people down dead end roads . . . or over steep cliffs. In the April 2, 1969, issue of the Chalcedon Report, Rushdoony framed the question of the importance of conspiracies as well as anyone ever has. The fundamental issue is not the political power of conspiracies; rather, it is the underlying faith of a society. The important question to ask is this: What makes a conspiracy work? Let us suppose that a number of us conspired together to turn the United States into a monarchy, and ourselves into its nobility; let us further suppose that we could command millions from our own to achieve this goal. Or, let us suppose that, with equal numbers and money we conspired to enforce Hindu vegetarianism on the country. In either case, we would have then, not a conspiracy, but a joke. A successful
[CTRL] The Most Successful Fraud in American History
-Caveat Lector- The Most Successful Fraud in American History by Gary North 27 March 2006 Before I identify what has to be the most successful fraud in the history of the United States, I should first define my terms. Fraud: A deliberate attempt to deceive a targeted victim, so as to obtain something of value from him that would have been difficult to obtain, had the victim known the truth. Success: Securing an advantage for yourself and your heirs that is almost impossible to lose, even under competitive conditions. I offer the following criteria as characteristics of a successful fraud. First, the perpetrator who designs the fraud and then executes it is subsequently hailed by the victims as a hero, a genius, and indispensable to their own well-being. Second, the perpetrators must be bound by an oath of non-disclosure, which all of them keep until they die, yet which leaves no trail of paper for historians to discuss. Third, the nature of the fraud is well known by critics, who tell their story in full public view at the time the fraud is committed, but a majority of the victims reject this story. Fourth, the critics' negative assessment is forgotten over time, leaving the victims' heirs convinced that the original fraud was a great idea and well worth defending. Fifth, anyone who discovers the true nature of the fraud cannot gain a hearing because the heirs of the victims dismiss him as a crackpot, either in general or else regarding this specific issue. Sixth, the heirs of the perpetrators extract a growing percentage of the wealth of the heirs of the victims. Seventh, the fraud must have a slogan, preferably very short, easily memorized, universally accepted, and devoid of content, just in case someone should try to sue the perpetrator or his heirs for the commission of the crime. Eighth, the heirs of the victims then consent to the plans of the heirs of the perpetrators to extend the original fraud, whether by additional fraud or else force, to new groups of victims, who whose ancestors were not parties to the original fraudulent transaction. Ninth, the heirs of the original victims pay all of the costs of this extension of the original fraud to a new generation of victims. Tenth, the new generation of victims is then persuaded to bear a growing percentage of the costs of extending the fraud to still more victims. Eleventh, the bulk of the net return on the extension of the fraud continues to flow to the heirs of the original perpetrators. Twelfth, the process must go on for more than a century; two centuries are better. There may be additional features of a successful fraud, but I think the presence of this dozen constitutes a highly successful fraud. Can you think of a fraud in American history that has these twelve, or even more? If so, you should draw up your case in writing and submit it for consideration to this site's editor, who loves a good fraud story better than silver. Tie it to a conspiracy, and he loves it more than gold. Get the government involved, and he cannot resist. But you cannot match mine, for mine tops them all. AND THE WINNER IS. . . . James Madison and his unindicted co-conspirators. First, the perpetrator who designs the fraud and then executes it is subsequently hailed by the victims as a hero, a genius, and indispensable to their own well-being. Madison is universally heralded as the father of the Constitution. This is an accurate assessment of his role. From the Annapolis Convention of 1786, which called for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which (1) closed its doors to the public and the press, (2) did not amend but instead replaced the Articles, in specific violation of the instructions officially given by several state legislatures to their attendees; (3) unconstitutionally (Articles of Confederation) ratified the illegal document in 178788, Madison was there, running the show. Everyone knew it at the time. Second, the perpetrators must be bound by an oath of non-disclosure, which all of them keep until they die, yet which leaves no trail of paper for historians to discuss. No member of the Convention ever revealed what went on behind those closed doors. This included the opponents of the Constitution. Luther Martin of Maryland, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, opposed the Convention's plan within days of his participation. He kept notes of the debates, but his notes were not published until 1838, two years after Madison's death the last member of the Convention to die. Martin's notes were published along with Robert Yates' notes, who also attended and opposed what had been done there: Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1787. Today, this book is unread by most graduate students of the era, let alone by the general public. I cannot find it on-line in text form just offers to sell copies of the book. When a document of this level of historical importance is not
[CTRL] The ignorant American voter
-Caveat Lector- The ignorant American voter Jeff Jacoby October 25, 2004 Not long after Dr. Johnson's landmark Dictionary of the English Language appeared in 1755, a woman demanded to know why he had defined pastern as the knee of a horse. Johnson's reply was refreshingly candid: Ignorance, madam, pure ignorance. We should all be so ignorant. Johnson may not have known a pastern from a fetlock, but he knew enough to write an entire dictionary -- all 2,300 pages and 43,000 entries of it -- single-handedly. Alas, our own ignorance is of an entirely different order. Consider, as Ilya Somin has been considering this election season, what Americans don't know about politics and public policy. Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, observes in a new study for the Cato Institute that voters tend to be abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information. This may not be news to scholars, who have documented it in depressing detail, but the sheer depth of most individual voters' ignorance is shocking to observers not familiar with the research. He offers some recent illustrations. According to polls taken this year, nearly 65 percent of the public doesn't know that Congress has banned partial-birth abortion. Seventy percent is unaware that a massive drug benefit has been added to Medicare. At least 58 percent say they have heard nothing or not much about the Patriot Act, notwithstanding the enormous amount of coverage the controversial law has drawn. This is not a new problem. As Cold War tensions bristled in 1964, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. In 1970, only 24 percent could identify the secretary of state. In 1996, The Washington Post reported that 67 percent of Americans couldn't name their congressman and 94 percent had no idea that William Rehnquist was the chief justice of the United States. Only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms and 73 percent didn't know that Medicare costs more than foreign aid. Gallup found in January 2000 that while 66 percent of the public could name the host of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? only 6 percent knew the name of the speaker of the House. Last year, a Polling Company survey found that 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department. The ignorant can be found in the highest reaches of academe. Of more than 3,100 Ivy Leagues students polled for a University of Pennsylvania study in 1993, 11 percent couldn't identify the author of the Declaration of Independence, half didn't know the names of their US senators, and 75 percent were unaware that the classic description of democracy -- government of the people, by the people, and for the people -- comes from the Gettysburg Address. With so many Americans so clueless when it comes to government and public affairs, is it any wonder that political campaigns are so shrill and shallow? Or that candidates speak to voters primarily through TV spots intended to malign the other candidate's reputation? Or that presidential debates limit answers to 90 seconds and bar the contenders from engaging in actual discussion? When voters are unwilling to put any effort into learning about the issues of the day, it should come as no surprise that campaign discussions rarely move beyond vacuous soundbites -- tax breaks for the rich, freedom is on the march, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Somin suggests that widespread political ignorance may be, in one sense, rational: Since no individual's vote is ever likely to be decisive, no voter has an incentive to work hard at acquiring enough knowledge to make an informed choice. But by that argument, voters shouldn't bother showing up on Election Day, either. Many don't, of course, and we hear endlessly about the need to increase voter turnout. But more alarming than the tens of millions of non-voting adults are the tens of millions of adults who *do* vote despite knowing next to nothing about the candidates and the issues. It was not ever thus. A century and a half ago, ordinary Americans grappled with public controversies at a level of sophistication that would be unthinkable today. In 1858, tens of thousands of Illinois voters, many unschooled, crowded fairgrounds and public squares to watch Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas debate his Republican challenger, former Congressman Abraham Lincoln. The topics they wrestled with were among the weightiest in US history -- the expansion of slavery, the authority of the Supreme Court, the limits of popular sovereignty. The candidates spoke not for 90 seconds at a time, but for 90 *minutes* at a time. There were no spin doctors, no instant polls, no TV talking heads -- only thoughtful candidates and serious voters and the clash of ideas in the public arena. The dumbing-down of our politics is no small thing. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816,
[CTRL] Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt and Bush: The Banality of Betrayal
-Caveat Lector- Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt and Bush: The Banality of Betrayal by Morgan Reynolds Poke holes in the governments ludicrous account of what happened on 9/11 and mention the possibility (likelihood) of it being an inside job, and the first reply is likely to be, No, thats impossible because there would be too many people involved. Many people simply refuse to believe that Misters Bush-Cheney-Powell-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith would risk the mass murder of 3,000 innocent Americans just to rev up Americas juices for some good old-fashioned violence abroad. No, too many loose lips would sink the U.S.S. Conspiracy, goes the argument. But an excursion back in time reveals evidence for small, mid-size and large conspiracies at the top. U.S. entry into the misnamed Great War, for example, was aided by black ops. While President Woodrow Wilson called for neutrality in his political speeches in 1914 and 1915, akin to Mr. Bushs 2000 declaration against nation-building and support for a more humble foreign policy, Wilson wrote a secret letter to the leaders of the British government, reinforced by frequent visits from Wilsons primary adviser, Colonel House, pledging to bring America into the European war on the Allied side to guarantee a decisive win (the history recounted here is based on the thorough research of John V. Densons magnificent, Roosevelt and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception, here. Afterward, the fool in the White House planned to impose his wonderful, worldwide permanent peace (such megalomania about remaking the world in our image sounds familiar today, doesnt it?). Before sending our boys over there, over there, into enemy machine gun fire, however, a public change of heart was needed. Fortunately, the resourceful Winston Churchill, then first lord of the Admiralty (Franklin D. Roosevelt was Woodrow Wilsons assistant secretary of the Navy, learning treachery on the job) was standing by to provide some oomph for U.S. entry into the war. Just prior to war, the Cunard steamship company in England received a government subsidy to build the Lusitania, the worlds fastest ocean liner. The subsidy allowed government to take it over during war and the government had designed a secret compartment for weapons and ammunition aboard ship. On the fateful voyage, the British admiralty under Churchills leadership, changed captains, substituting Captain William Turner for the usual captain. As the Lusitania neared its destination, the Admiralty ordered the military escort ship, the Juno, to abandon its usual mission, thereby leaving the ocean liner without protection from submarines. The Lusitania was not told that it was then alone, nor that a German sub was directly in its path, facts known to the Admiralty. The Admiralty ordered Captain Turner to reduce his speed, thereby making the Lusitania an easy torpedo target. When the Lusitania sank, over 100 Americans lost their lives. At a hearing in England following the disaster, Captain Turner was disgraced and found guilty of negligence, deflecting attention from Churchill and the Admiralty, just as the American commanders at Pearl Harbor would later become scapegoats for the disaster of December 7, 1941. OK, put the Lusitania aside as so much small change to hasten U.S. entry into WWI. FDR set a whole new standard. First, consider the espionage operation in the U.S. by our erstwhile ally, Great Britain, steering the U.S. into war and paralleling the espionage of todays neocon cabal. A Canadian citizen by the name of William Stephenson later became known by his code name, Intrepid. He was a personal friend of Winston Churchill who set up a secret organization rent-free in Rockefeller Center in New York. The purpose was to help those likable rascals Roosevelt and Churchill bring America into the war through false propaganda, creation of false documents, and whatever means were necessary, allegedly including murder. One of the organizations secret agents was Ian Fleming, subsequent creator of 007, James Bond. Two false documents proved noteworthy. First, Intrepid cooked up a false map that Roosevelt knowingly used in a national radio speech on October 27, 1941. This document allegedly was obtained from a German spy and purported to show Hitlers secret plans to invade South America, thereby posing an imminent danger to America. Detect the similarity with Bushs tale in his State of the Union message about the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger? Second, Intrepid managed to plant a false document in Hitlers hands on December 3, 1941, purporting to show Roosevelts secret plan to preemptively strike Germany without a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. When Hitler suddenly declared war against America on December 11, 1941, almost everyone except Churchill, Roosevelt, and Intrepid was surprised. It boggles the mind, I know, to find out what Roosevelt and Churchill did to get America into a war with
[CTRL] Government Spending A Tax on the Middle Class
-Caveat Lector- Government Spending A Tax on the Middle Class by Rep. Ron Paul, MD All government spending represents a tax. The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most. The never-ending political squabble in Congress over taxing the rich, helping the poor, Pay-Go, deficits, and special interests, ignores the most insidious of all taxes the inflation tax. Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a tax. Unfortunately no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the middle class, cares about this subject. Instead, all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country. Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits, and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich. This is the real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make conditions worse. This neglect of monetary policy may be out of ignorance, but it may well be deliberate. Fully recognizing the harm caused by printing money to cover budget deficits might create public pressure to restrain spending something the two parties don't want. Expanding entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties. Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as foreign policy by both parties. The Left hardly deserves credit when complaining about Republican deficits. Likewise, we've been told by the Vice President that Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter a tenet of supply-side economics. With this the prevailing wisdom in Washington, no one should be surprised that spending and deficits are skyrocketing. The vocal concerns expressed about huge deficits coming from big spenders on both sides are nothing more than political grandstanding. If Members feel so strongly about spending, Congress simply could do what it ought to do cut spending. That, however, is never seriously considered by either side. If those who say they want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit got their way, who would benefit? No one! There's no historic evidence to show that taxing productive Americans to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries helps the middle class, produces jobs, or stimulates the economy. Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes. It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government eventually must be paid. Federal borrowing means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different group than those who benefited and possibly even to another generation. Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation. All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided. The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up. Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don't really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money. Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries. No need to soak the rich. A good deal, it seems, for everyone. But is it? Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing or borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone. In fact it is the most sinister seductive tax of them all. Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end. It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes. The tax is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar. Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy. Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating. The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government as is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept it at face value later on. This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to
Re: [CTRL] The 'Conservative' Index
-Caveat Lector- Those feigning a difference between Republicans (Rs) and Democrats (Ds) might find the grading efforts of the New American (12 July 2004) entitled Conservative Index http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/07-12-2004/108-3.pdf It is well past time to consider ACTION instead of empty rhetoric when considering the Parties of Democrat and Republican. According to The New American: The Conservative Index rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, to fiscal responsibility, to national sovereignty, and to a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. Preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moral bedrock on which it is based is what the word 'conservatism' once meant -- and how it is being applied here. To learn how any representative or senator voted on the key measures described herein, look him up in the tables on pages 26-31. The scores are derived by dividing a congressman's conservative votes (pluses) by the total number he cast (pluses and minuses) and multiplying by 100. (A ? indicates that a congressman did not vote, and a P indicates that he voted 'Present'. If a congressman cast fewer than five votes in this index, a score is not assigned. The average House score for this index is 46%; the average Senate score is 41 percent. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) had the top score for the House at 100 percent. Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.) had the highest score in the Senate at 80 percent. We encourage readers to examine how their own congressman voted on each of the 10 key measures in this index as well as overall. Our first index for the 108th Congress (votes 1-10) appeared in our July 14, 2003 issue, and our second index (votes 11-20) appeared in our December 29, 2003 issue. We also encourage readers to commend legislators for their conservative votes and to urge improvement where needed. For congressional contact information go to www.thenewamerican.com/congress/. [I lumped those 'calling' themselves 'Independent' as Democrats ... splitting the Survey into Ds and Rs] 108th Congress HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Republicans 40.6123% 'Conservative' ... OR ... 59.3877% 'Liberal' Grades A -- 1, B -- 3, C -- 3, D -- 8, F -- 212 F of less than 50% ... 184 (or 81%) Democrats 40.4175% 'Conservative' ... OR ... 59.5825% 'Liberal' Grades A -- 0, B -- 0, C -- 0, D -- 3, F -- 203 F of less than 50% ... 180 (or 87%) Democrats plus Republicans 40.5196% Conservative ... OR ... 59.4804% 'Liberal' A -- 1, B -- 3, C -- 3, D -- 11, F -- 415 F of less than 50% ... 364 (or 84%) US SENATE Republicans 46.0196% 'Conservative' ... OR ... 53.9804% 'Liberal' Grades A -- 0, B -- 0, C -- 0, D -- 2, F -- 49 F of less than 50% ... 32 (or 63%) Democrats 33.8163% 'Conservative' ... OR ... 66.1837% 'Liberal' Grades A -- 0, B -- 0, C -- 0, D -- 0, F -- 49 F of less than 50% ... 48 (or 98%) Democrats plus Republicans 40.04% Conservative ... OR ... 59.96% 'Liberal' A -- 0, B -- 0, C -- 0, D -- 2, F -- 98 F of less than 50% ... 80 (or 80%) In the House, Republicans are voting 60% in FAVOR of 'Liberal' policies ... right along with their Democrat opposition. Where's the difference? 84% of Rs and Ds in the House had a Failure Grade of LESS than 50%. Where's the difference? The Senate is not much different ... with Republicans voting 54% in FAVOR of 'Liberal' policies. Where's the difference? 80% of Rs and Ds in the Senate had a Failure Grade of LESS than 50%. Where's the difference? One can only GUESS what rating the Republican President might attain -- not having vetoed a single legislative effort. What a sad state of affairs. Regard$, --MJ For the Third Party System, which had existed in America from 1856 to 1896, was comprised of political parties, each of which was highly ideological and in intense conflict with the opposing party. While each political party, in this case the Democratic, the Republican and various minor parties, consisted of a coalition of interests and forces, each was dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed. As a result, citizens often felt lifelong party loyalties, were socialized into a party when growing up, were educated in party principles, and then rode herd on any party candidates who waffled or betrayed the cause. ... For various reasons, the Democratic and Republican parties after 1900 were largely non-ideological, differed very little from each other, and as a result commanded little party loyalty. In particular, the Democratic Party no longer existed, after the Bryan takeover of 1896, as a committed laissez-faire, hard-money party. From then on, both parties rapidly became Progressive and moderately statist. -- Murray Rothbard www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed.
[CTRL] Socialism, Bush Style
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Socialism, Bush Style by Tibor R. Machan Compassionate conservatism always was a fraud but just how straightforward a fraud it is can be seen from recent statements from Bush Administration officials. Why was it a fraud to start with? Because government cannot yes, literally, cannot be compassionate toward people with other people's money. You, I, our friends and neighbors can be compassionate, in the sense that we can consider some people's misfortune, even bad choices, and reach out to them with our help, be this money or some service we could offer. That's compassion. But when we see such misfortune and go out to rob a neighbor and hand over the loot to those in need, that isn't compassion, conservative, liberal or any other kind! It is criminal maybe we ought to dub it criminal 'compassion'! In recent days the Bush Administration has been making plans to spend other people's hard-earned or what if simply luckily obtained money on, as Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Administration of Children and Families (Department of Health and Human Service), refers to it in a letter to my local newspaper, to support couples in their desire to form and sustain healthy marriages. Some people around the country have criticized this measure as yet another robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul scheme that is plainly immoral. In this instance, however, we have the good fortune of Dr. Horn telling us why the Bush Administration believes in this program. He tells us first that troubled couples, and their children, can very well benefit from receiving professional help from counselors. This is true enough, although he gives no evidence for it. Still, perhaps that is simply common sense if professionals really know their stuff, they can give some helpful advice. Of course, it is still up to those getting the advice to apply it, and there is no guarantee for that. So, despite such help, people may still mess up their lives. But let that go. Dr. Horn adds that people who lack sufficient funds may not be able to obtain the help they need from professionals. True enough another reason that many people should wait with getting hitched and, especially, with producing children. One has the responsibility to prepare for such things, including economically. If you cannot afford to bring in professional help when you need it, you should wait until you can afford it or do without. But then Dr. Horn goes on to line up the Bush Administration with out-and-out socialism. He tells us, Don't low-income couples deserve the same chance to build and sustain healthy marriages as more affluent ones? So, government must provide, no? This is a devious question. Deserve can mean this: Would it not be something valuable to them to have such help? Yes, it would. But it doesn't follow from that that other people may be coerced to provide the help to them. There are zillions of things that would be valuable for people they just cannot afford and in order to get these things they are not justified to rob others. But perhaps deserve means, Should these folks not be receiving help from others? Well, here the answer isn't that easy. Some might if they did everything reasonable to gain the funds themselves and lost it, say, in an earthquake. But say they lost it gambling? Or overspending? Or they never earned enough to start with but decided to get married and have children anyway? Do they deserve the help? Perhaps, in rare case, but generally not. And what about their children? Their lot, first of all, is the fault of the parents, not the taxpayers of the USA. And there are charitable organizations to turn to for help to children. Unless special considerations apply, leave the parents fend for themselves they made their rickety marriage bed, now they must lie in it. Of course, even when they do deserve help, it is not from government they deserve it, but from friends and relatives and voluntary agencies established to provide such help with the support of those who give of their own free will. That is being compassionate, not what the Bush folks and Dr. Horn propose, which is phony compassion and criminal, to boot. More generally, there are inequalities all over the world, as well as at home, that simply may not be erased by force of arms. I am less handsome than Robert Redford but don't I deserve a happy love life, too? Alas, if I am unable to attract the ladies as Robert does, shouldn't the government make sure this imbalance is fixed? No. What about vacations or schools to which our kids go the better off can afford those while the less well off cannot. Is it the role of government to even all this out? No, not any more than it is the role of the referees at athletic contest to make sure everyone comes in at the finish line together, or that no team ever beats another. Law enforcement agencies exist to make sure we do things peacefully, without trampling on each
[CTRL] Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions: Blameless Carnage?
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions: Blameless Carnage? Part 1 by James Bovard, January 2004 (Posted February 9, 2004) President Bushs advisors assured Americans that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with flowers and hugs when the United States invaded Iraq. That promise turned out to be one of the biggest frauds of the Iraqi debacle. One major reason for the animosity to U.S. troops is the lingering impact and bitter memories of the UN sanctions imposed on the Iraqis for 13 years, largely at the behest of the U.S. government. It is impossible to understand the current situation in Iraq without examining the sanctions and their toll. President Bush, in the months before attacking Iraq, portrayed the sufferings and deprivation of the Iraqi people as resulting from the evil of Saddam Hussein. Bushs comments were intended as an antidote to the charge by Osama bin Laden a month after 9/11 that a million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt. Bin Laden listed the economic sanctions against Iraq as one of the three main reasons for his holy war against the United States. Most Western experts believe that bin Laden sharply overstated the death toll. A United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) report in 1999 concluded that half a million Iraqi children had died in the previous eight years because of the sanctions. Columbia University professor Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist and an expert on the effects of sanctions, estimated in 2003 that the sanctions had resulted in infant and young-child fatalities numbering between 343,900 and 529,000. Regardless of the precise number of fatalities (which will never be known), the sanctions were a key factor in inflaming Arab anger against the United States. The sanctions were initially imposed to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait and then were kept in place after the Gulf War supposedly in order to pressure Saddam to disarm. Sanctions wreaked havoc on the Iraqi people, in part because the Pentagon intentionally destroyed Iraqs water-treatment systems during the first U.S.-Iraq war: A January 22, 1991, Defense Intelligence Agency report titled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities noted, Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated in early 1991 that it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the [Iraqi water treatment] system is fully degraded from the bombing during the Gulf War and the UN sanctions. A May 1991 Pentagon analysis entitled Status of Disease at Refugee Camps, noted, Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation. A June 1991 Pentagon analysis noted that infectious disease rates had increased since the Gulf War and warned, The Iraqi regime will continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes. George Washington University professor Thomas Nagy, who marshaled the preceding reports in an analysis in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, concluded, The United States knew it had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis. Pentagon intent A Washington Post analysis published on June 23, 1991, noted that Pentagon officials admitted that, rather than concentrating solely on military targets, the U.S. bombing campaign sought to achieve some of their military objectives in the Persian Gulf War by disabling Iraqi society at large and deliberately did great harm to Iraqs ability to support itself as an industrial society. The bombing campaign targeted Iraqs electrical power system, thereby destroying the countrys ability to operate its water-treatment plants. One Pentagon official who helped plan the bombing campaign observed, People say, You didnt recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage. Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions. Col. John Warden III, deputy director of strategy for the Air Force, observed,
[CTRL] Dadacracy Now, Totalitarianism Next
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Dadacracy Now, Totalitarianism Next by Eric Englund Our founding fathers gave us a republic, if we could keep it. The United States Constitution was crafted to strictly limit government so as not to deprive citizens of their natural rights to life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of happiness. Ever since the Civil War (which it really wasnt), the founding of the Federal Reserve, two world wars, FDRs New Deal, and LBJs Great Society, American government has transformed into a democracy. So now we must worship, and abide by, the will of the majority at the expense of our liberty. This is a particularly frightening thought considering that what passes for wisdom today is based upon feelings and emotions while logical and rational thinking have been eviscerated. In turn, it is quite common to encounter terms such as Demopublican and Republocrat to describe the emotional and illogical citizenry of the United States (with the most mentally imbalanced seeking elective office of course). Add in environmentalism, moral relativism, multiculturalism, political correctness, and a public education system that pushes this tripe, a truly confused citizenry emerges from this messy hodgepodge. When combining democracy with a dazed and confused citizenry, the United States has devolved into a dadacracy. From where does the term dadacracy come? The Dada movement, which began in 1916 (and, in essence, still survives to this day), embodies what it means to be illogical, self-referential, and emotional. Dadaism was an artistic and literary movement that was nihilistic and anti-Western civilization. Dada was more than an art form or culture; it was a state of mind (Information on Dadaism). For those who shared the Dada state of mind, the following were considered to be positive attributes of Dadaism (A Brief History of Dadaism): o All forms of modern civilization were found to be disgusting. o One of its aims pertained to the relativization of all values. o It sought a complete break with tradition (Dadaists didnt want to be reminded that anybody existed before them). o It sought the systematic destruction of culture and of civilization. In Dadaism, Freedom from everything was the watchword. Revolutionary spirit, relativity, spontaneity, and primitivity ranked as positive values. Moreover, Dadaists were typically supportive of communism. When examining moral relativism, multiculturalism, political correctness, and environmentalism (which is socialisms Trojan horse aimed at destroying private property rights), it is quite apparent that those who are part of todays alleged intellectual vanguard are simply modern-day Dadaists. In turn, these college professors, public school teachers, newspaper editors, television anchors, and countless others, undermine Western civilization every time they open their mouths or put pen to paper. With enough repetition in the classroom, on the TV, in the newspaper, and elsewhere, Dada indeed does become a state of mind. Emotion and feelings are celebrated as the pinnacle of intellect whilst logic and true scholarship are eschewed as worthless relics. The mind dies as it becomes infected by illogic. Thus, we become engulfed by the culture of the moron (to use Bill Bonners phrase). Consequently, when such people enter the voting booth, typically registered as Republicans or Democrats, be assured that they are really Dadacrats. Hence, America has become a dadacracy. Examples of Dadacrats abound. The gymnasium at which I exercise has a member that wears T-shirts from Earth First! and from Greenpeace. When he has completed his workout, he drives home in his luxurious Mercedes E 400. I doubt either aforementioned organization would approve of his vehicle. Ah, but as long as he feels good about himself. Speaking of vehicles, I frequently see a Hummer H2 with an Oregon DMV custom license plate with the state-mandated phrase of Cultural Trust. A car owner must pay additional fees for such a license plate with the excess fees going to the states Litter Patrol Fund and to the states Trust for Cultural Development. It is rather ironic to see such an enlightened multiculturalist/environmentalist driving a Hummer. No room for logic in that enormous SUV. What really gets to me is that the Democrats I know cant stand President Bush even though his administration is working hard to bring about the second incarnation of the Great Society. Conversely, Republicans I know love President Bush even though he is trying to bring about the second incarnation of the Great Society. When Dada becomes a state of mind, logic dies and we see it all around us. Just as a quick sidebar, it is obvious to paleolibertarians that President Bush is immoral and is a coward. To propose any budget that will result in a $500,000,000,000+ deficit is tantamount to fiscal child abuse. Perhaps we will get to buy a lot
Re: [CTRL] Dadacracy Now, Totalitarianism Next
-Caveat Lector- Joy the anti-environmentalism comments approaches soapboxing, because that's screed, not substance.. MJ There were no 'anti-environmentalism' comments. Regard$, --MJ Our doctrine is based on private property. Communism is based on systematic plunder, since it consists in handing over to one man, without compenstion, the labour of another. If it distributed to each one according to his labour, it would, in fact, recognize private property and would no longer be communism. -- Frederic Bastiat www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] White Hats Waiting
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] White Hats Waiting by Paul Hein The problem with being the good guys is that you're always on edge, waiting for the next assault. Nice folks, in other words, are content to go about their affairs minding their own business. The bad guys, on the other hand, can attack at any time. The advantage of surprise is always theirs; hence the requirement that the good guys remain alert, to minimize the damage. This vigilance can easily lead to the perception of goblins under every bed, and conspirators behind every bush. Of course, there may BE conspirators behind every bush! (I don't know about goblins.) It's best to keep conspiracy theories to yourself, if you don't wish to be ridiculed as a conspiracy nut. Still, certain things happen which entitle you, in my opinion, to wonder. For example: I recently read a report that the Post Office wants to require ID on mail. It would be the sender who would have to provide the ID; apparently a return address just won't cut it. The Post Office's recommendation, published in the Federal Register October 21, would require some sort of unique, traceable identifiers on all mail, including first class, periodicals, standard mail, or package mailing eligible for dis counted postage rates whatever that might be. I suppose that includes everything that you could mail, or it would be pointless. The stated purpose of this proposal is to reduce the danger of terrorism via the mails. Who could argue with that? The President's Commission on the U.S. Postal Service also advised the use of sender identification for every piece of mail, saying requiring sender-identification for discount-rate mail is an initial step on the road to intelligent mail. Hm. If the ID is to be on every piece of mail wouldn't that include discount-rate mail? Am I confused, or is it the Commission? Is obfuscation and confusion absolutely essential to all government projects? And what is intelligent mail? Maybe junk mail that throws itself into the wastebasket! So where is the conspiracy? Well, maybe there isn't any. On the other hand, we know that there have been discussions of ID's for Americans for a few years now, with the idea being pretty overwhelmingly rejected. I am ancient enough to remember those movies during and after WWII, where innocent folks on the streets of Nazi-occupied towns would be stopped by gruff jack-booted SS men, who demanded Papieren, bitte! I always wondered, if some Nazi were to accost me as I left the theater, what papers I would show him. Would my brand-new drivers license do? The idea of carrying around some documents to satisfy the curiosity of officious strangers was, and is, repellent. But some sort of ID on each piece of mail I posted isn't so bad, is it? Whatever form this ID takes, it must obviously be unique to each individual. And since you never know when you might want to mail a letter, you would be advised to keep this unique identifier upon you at all times. Do you get the direction here? Once a citizen becomes accustomed to carrying his unique mail identifier with them, what's the harm in producing it, in the name of national security, truth, justice, and the American Way!! It's not really a national ID at all, you see, but a mail-security device. That's OK! The immediate stimulus to this mail ID thing is said to be the anthrax threat of a few years ago. Remember that? People dead and dying all over the place, right? A few pinches of white powder in a letter to a Congressman, and the whole government shuts down! Good grief, we can't have that, can we? (Can't we?) If you've a real gift for conspiracies, you can detect one here, too. The anthrax scare was a hoax, you see, designed to create a demand for ID's on every piece of mail, lest we face a similar disaster (!?) in the future. And the mail ID, in turn, is the back door approach to a national ID, which, if presented in a straightforward manner, would be again rejected. Well, I've got my white hat on, sitting in my rocker, minding my own business, and wondering how much longer before some new threat presents itself, and how. Well, maybe it's coming by mail! And, Lo!! A few weeks after the above words were written, there is news of a Congressional office building being closed down because of mail received containing a white power, presumably ricin, a deadly poison. Now we REALLY need that ID! If at first you don't succeed-. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be
[CTRL] Congress AWOL
-Caveat Lector- Congress AWOL by Rep. Ron Paul, MD Before the US House of Representatives, February 4, 2004 There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government. Our intelligence agencies failed for whatever reason this time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether or not secretly spending forty billion taxpayer dollars annually gathering bad information is a good investment. The administration certainly failed us by making the decision to sacrifice so much in life and limb, by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that surely will last for years to come. But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself. A proper investigation and debate by this Congress as we're now scrambling t o accomplish clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened and the whole war could have been avoided. Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty. There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country the decision to go to war was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people. If we followed this charge I'm certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency. This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades. The president reluctantly has agreed to support an independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures, and that is good. Cynics said nothing much would be achieved by studying pre-9/11 intelligence failures, but it looks like some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry. We can hope for the best from this newly appointed commission. But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence agencies themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere. If the commission avoids the central controversy whether or not there was selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration the commission will appear a sham. Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war. The current mess was predictable from the beginning. Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002. The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then. We should have debated a declaration of war resolution. Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country. This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence. The blame game has emerged only now that we are in the political season. Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process. It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to
[CTRL] An Honest Mistake
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] AN HONEST MISTAKE February 3, 2004 by Joe Sobran In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. I've always loved that ancient saying, whose author seems to be unknown. But in the age of democracy, it needs to be adapted: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man loses every election. Not quite as snappy, maybe, but it meets the facts. By now every blind American has heard that arms inspector David Kay has exploded the Bush administration's justification for preemptive war on, and regime change in, Iraq: the dogmatic accusation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One-eyed Americans doubted it all along. Of course the U.S. Government and its chief allies have those weapons, which is why they aren't called by their right name: weapons of mass murder. And it's a bit odd for the one government that has actually dropped nuclear weapons on cities to claim exclusive moral authority to decide who else is worthy to possess them. But never mind all that. The Bush administration and its supportive cadres of neoconservative war nerds insisted that there was no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had such weapons and was prepared to use them; Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair said they could be deployed within 45 minutes. It was urgent to act. The risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action, said Vice President Dick Cheney, action meaning war. Well, there appeared to be virtually no risk for the administration; a quick U.S. military victory was a foregone conclusion. Who knew that after the war, a U.S. arms inspector would find that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, while George W. Bush was lying? Lying? Well, Bush's apologists are now trying to pass it off as an innocent error. He was misled by the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence services, and he made the only decision he could have made in the circumstances. Bush himself still insists that the war was justified. Pardon me, but when you pretend to have a certainty you don't have about so serious a matter as war, you are lying. Bush left no room for doubt. He didn't say, According to our best intelligence, Iraq has weapons of mass murder and is prepared to use them on us. Of course we can't be absolutely sure, but we can't afford to take chances. He made the unqualified assertion that there was no alternative to war. Millions of people around the world, without privileged knowledge of that best intelligence, disputed this. They didn't believe that Saddam Hussein had those weapons or would be lunatic enough to use them. And they mistrusted Bush and Blair. So are these great war leaders apologizing for an unnecessary and aggressive war, the kind that once sent German and Japanese dignitaries to the gallows? At this point we must make a fine distinction: the Nuremberg principles were never meant to be applied to the victors. No. Hey, honest mistake! Bush has now agreed to an official investigation to help him find out who was pulling his leg about those alleged weapons. It wasn't his idea. He only works here. He was just following his advisors. Anyway, we've brought democracy to Iraq. Isn't that the important thing? But Bush can't afford to blame, and ax, CIA chief George Tenet, the Man Who Knows Too Much. Maybe we'll soon hear that Tenet too was only following his underlings. Now even the most skeptical opponent of the Iraq war must deal with the fact that Bush, Blair, and their cabal were lying even more brazenly than anyone, except maybe Noam Chomsky, dared suggest. We assumed that they must know something we didn't, or why would they risk a raw deception that would blow up in their faces if those weapons weren't found? Now we know there were no weapons to find. Saddam Hussein didn't have enough materiel to deter, or even impede, an American invasion. The sad sack dictator may be shocked to learn how harmless he actually was. But that's why he's the one who will be tried for crimes against humanity. And what about little Ali Abbas, the boy who lost his entire family and both arms when an American missile hit his Baghdad home [see the column of May 29, 2003]? Well, he'll have the consolation of living in a democracy. When he's a little older, he'll be able to vote, if he can hold a pencil in his teeth. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to
[CTRL] Fake Crimes
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Fake Crimes by Paul Craig Roberts Studies show Americans close to being the worst educated and least aware population among first-world countries. Americans easily stumble into war and give up their rights because of exaggerated fears of terrorists and criminals. Americans have been losing accountable government, liberty and justice for a long time. At some point these values become irretrievable. Consider justice. The US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world and imprisons 6 to 10 times as many people as any other industrialized country. Between 1990 and 2000 the US population increased 13%. The US prison population more than tripled. There are hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans in prison. They are there because the criminal justice system no longer works to discover the truth of a crime, but to convict at all cost whoever happens to be charged with a crime. And they are there because the US criminalizes more acts than any other country in the world, including tyrannical police states. In the US there are three categories of prisoners: the guilty, the innocent, and those convicted as a result of prosecutors' interpretations of vague and broad statutes that deem conduct to be criminal that reasonable people and every other country do not recognize to be criminal. For example, in the Martha Stewart case, the prosecutor criminalized her exercise of her constitutional right to declare her innocence. He said it constituted fraud for her to declare her innocence and tacked on the charge. Remember that if you ever stand before a judge. Almost everyone in prison is wrongfully convicted, even the guilty. According to the US Dept. of Justice (sic), 95% of criminal convictions result from plea-bargains. What is a plea bargain but self-incrimination, conviction without a trial by jury and without a test of the evidence against the defendant. An uninformed public believes plea bargains to be sweet deals for criminals. Sometimes they are, but more often pleas result from prosecutors piling on charges until the defendant, innocent or guilty, cries uncle and gives up. Prosecutors not only coerce defendants, they coerce witnesses to give false testimony. Sometimes coercion takes place behind closed doors. Other times it takes place in full public view. Consider husband and wife defendants Andrew and Lea Fastow in the Enron case. The Fastows have two young children. In order to coerce cooperation and testimony against Enron executives, the federal prosecutors threatened to put both father and mother in prison, effectively rendering the two young children orphans. In Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz's immortal words, Andrew Fastow is being taught not only to sing but also to compose. To keep his wife out of prison, he will give the prosecutors whatever testimony they want against his bosses. The American public watches all this in plain view and then believes the testimony! You may think that Enron officials deserve what they get. But do you approve of the illegal and unethical methods used to produce the convictions? In effect are the prosecutors as guilty of criminal behavior as those they pursue? Junk bond king Michael Milken was put into a similar situation. Unless he agreed to a plea, the prosecutors threatened to indict his younger brother. If prosecutors can so easily frame the wealthy and politically connected, what do you think happens daily to the inner city poor? Prosecutor Rudy Giuliani was a master at using the media to destroy the reputations of his victims, thus pre-empting a trial where evidence of a crime could be tested. Giuliani climbed over the bodies of his high-profile victims to become mayor of New York and a 911 hero. Now it is Martha Stewart and mutual funds who have been targeted as a prosecutor's path to a political career. Martha Stewart is falsely charged with insider trading, an offense of which she cannot be guilty as she is not an insider and had no information from an insider. Legal scholar and law school dean Henry Manne has shown (Wall St. Journal, 1-8-04) that prosecutor Eliot Spitzer's charges against mutual funds are largely trumped-up. The offenses are partly the unintended result of a Security and Exchange Commission reform, which capped redemption fees that mutual funds used to discourage market timers. Prosecutor Spitzer's claims about mutual funds are based, not on law, but on an academic paper written at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. In other words, the prosecutor has a theory. Professor Manne has shown the academic paper to be incorrect. What we are witnessing is a mutual fund witch-hunt based on an incorrect academic theory. And Americans think they live under a rule of law! No doubt some mutual fund managers exercised bad judgment and some may have broken some rules. But Spitzer's ambition has blown the cases out of proportion. We certainly do
[CTRL] Is War Necessary?
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Is War Necessary? by Harry Browne January 16, 2004 I have managed to live on this planet for 70 years without ever striking another human being. There have been a dozen or so times when someone wanted to fight me. I managed to talk my way out of a fight in most of those cases. In the few times I didn't succeed in avoiding a fight altogether, I managed to end the scuffle without hitting the other person and without suffering any noticeable damage to myself. Granted, I've been fortunate. I grew up in a peaceful suburban area. Had I had the bad fortune to have been born in the inner city in a gang neighborhood, I might not have avoided violence so easily. But that's an important point. Being fortunate in the circumstances of my birth and my growing-up, I didn't squander that good fortune by looking for trouble. The U.S. by Birth America was also fortunate in the circumstances of its birth. After one apparently necessary fight to extricate itself from British rule, it found itself in the best neighborhood possible. It is bounded by two friendly countries and two enormous oceans. No need here to look for trouble. And yet, ruled by American instead of British politicians, the United States has found itself embroiled in one street fight after another. In fact, in the 20th century there were less than 20 years in which America was at peace with the world. What with World Wars, the Cold War, police actions, gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, overthrowing governments in Iran and other places, suppressing the Philippine rebellion, interfering with the Mexican revolution, firing missiles at Afghanistan and the Sudan, invading Panama and Grenada, bombing Libya, and on and on and on, Americans have lived with the tension of conflict and violence almost their entire lives. And we live in a good neighborhood! The Swiss by Birth Contrast our circumstances with those of Switzerland. The poor Swiss have the misfortune of living in the middle of one of the worst neighborhoods in the world. Centuries of imperial rivalries, ethnic hatreds, governments armed to the teeth and ready to go to war at the drop of the hat, and populations nursing grudges against each other all these elements have kept Europe in turmoil for centuries. Switzerland is like the inner-city family that hears gunfire outside its windows every night. And yet Switzerland hasn't been involved in a single war for two centuries. The Swiss managed to avoid being sucked into the World Wars, the Cold War, or any of the other conflicts that have beset Europe. The Swiss haven't been fortunate in their geographical circumstances. But they've dealt with those circumstances intelligently. It wasn't by the grace of dictators that they've avoided war; it has been a national policy to do so. The Swiss have always made sure it was in the self-interest of warring nations to leave Switzerland out of their quarrels. They've devised ingenious defenses to demonstrate that, while Switzerland is not unconquerable, the cost of conquest would be intolerable to the conqueror. And they've made themselves an indispensable trading partner to any country that otherwise might see some profit in invading Switzerland. It may seem that war is inevitable for many countries such as the warring factions in the Balkans or some countries in Asia or Africa. But Switzerland has proven that it isn't inevitable for anyone not even for a country as poorly situated as Switzerland is. Why then is America continually at war over one thing or another? The Last Resort Whenever the U.S. goes to war somewhere, the politicians tell us that diplomacy was tried and failed and that war was the very, very, very last resort. But the truth is that the politicians didn't try much at all to avoid war. And the diplomacy was bound to fail, because it involved our politicians making insensitive demands on a foreign country demands we had no authority to make and were known in advance to be unacceptable to the foreigners. In the few cases that America has been attacked, it's been because our politicians were trying to dictate to other countries countries that represented no threat to us at all. The foreigners attacked either to try to gain an advantage against the stronger U.S. when our government had made war seem inevitable (as at Pearl Harbor), or because attacking seemed the only way to strike back at a country that was throwing its weight around in other people's business (as in 9/11). Our Neighborhood How easy it would have been for Americans to have lived the past two centuries in peace. We have never been attacked by a country that hadn't first been subject to interference by our politicians. Maybe others aren't so fortunately situated, but we are. No one can seriously believe that terrorists have struck America because they hate our freedom, our democracy, or our prosperity. If that were true, they would have
[CTRL] Lying for a Living
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Lying for a Living by Harry Browne December 31, 2003 The Bush administration lied to the American people about many things in order to drag America into a war against a country that posed no threat whatsoever to it. The biggest lie, of course, was the idea that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) that could kill millions of Americans. Now that it's evident that there were no such weapons, the war hawks claim that George Bush never really said the Iraqi threat was imminent. In fact, he supposedly said precisely the opposite that we must stop Saddam Hussein before he can pose a threat to the United States. In fact, on October 7, 2002, George Bush said to a cheering crowd in Cincinnati: Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. [1] See! He didn't say Hussein was an imminent threat only that we must stop him before he becomes a threat. Unfortunately, for the war hawks, that isn't what Bush meant as is evident when that statement is placed in its original context: Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world, he said, where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. [1] Bush said that we can't wait for the actual firing of weapons before responding. He didn't say we have to respond before the weapons are developed. If that doesn't convince you that George Bush said Hussein already had weapons that posed a threat, try looking at just some of the statements made by various members of the Bush administration,to wit: Statements by George Bush If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today and we do does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? [2] -- Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002 And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. [3] -- Radio address, February 8, 2003 Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. [4] -- Press conference, March 6, 2003 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. [5] -- TV Address, March 17, 2003 Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. [6] -- Press conference at Texas ranch, May 3, 2003 We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories . . . and we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, we found them. [7] -- Polish TV interview, May 30, 2003 For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world. And in the regime's final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned. Yet all who know the dictator's history agree that he possessed chemical and biological weapons and that he used chemical weapons in the past. [8] -- Radio address, June 21, 2003 I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program. [9] -- Press conference, South Africa, July 9, 2003 Statements by Richard Cheney Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. [10] -- Speech at VFW convention, August 26, 2002 Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. [11] -- Speech to Veterans of Korean War, August 29, 2002 We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. [12] -- Meet the Press, March 16,
[CTRL] To Vote, Or Not To Vote That Is The Question
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] To Vote, Or Not To Vote That Is The Question by Linda Schrock Taylor My apologies to Shakespeare, but the phrasing so clearly expresses the dilemma that I have faced since the mid-sixties, when my friends and I discussed our objections to boys too young to vote on matters of war, being drafted and sent to Vietnam. By the time voting rights for 18 year olds had been passed, I was so disillusioned with the government that I, personally, took the stance of refusing to vote. As a young child, living just twelve miles from where I currently reside, many of my earliest memories are of voting and party choices. A favorite family story told of how my great-grandfather and his brother, one a Democrat and one a Republican, would constantly argue about politics, then ride together to the polls. Their commitment to voting, even though they knew that one's vote would cancel that of the other, never wavered. If it was time to vote, one was honor bound to do it. In my home, the whole family rode to the township hall so that my parents could vote. I am often reminded of those excursions, for that township hall is where we have our family Christmas and special occasion parties. The same voting booths are there, varni shed and gleaming. For many, many years I did not vote; my decision stemming from my gut level distrust of the State. In silence I accepted the stern reprimands from my father, as he attempted to drive home the point that I had no right to criticize anything that the government did since I refused to make my preferences known by voting. Since the schools had only provided me with rewritten history, I lacked the facts and insights with which I might have defended my decision and myself. Still I refused to vote for Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum. Recently, while reading Murray Rothbard's, The Case Against the Fed, I was reminded of my father's blind loyalty to his Party For the Third Party System, which had existed in America from 1856 to 1896, was comprised of political parties, each of which was highly ideological and in intense conflict with the opposing party. While each political party, in this case the Democratic, the Republican and various minor parties, consisted of a coalition of interests and forces, each was dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed. As a result, citizens often felt lifelong party loyalties, were socialized into a party when growing up, were educated in party principles, and then rode herd on any party candidates who waffled or betrayed the cause. (Pg. 9091) Rothbard continues, For various reasons, the Democratic and Republican parties after 1900 were largely non-ideological, differed very little from each other, and as a result commanded little party loyalty. In particular, the Democratic Party no longer existed, after the Bryan takeover of 1896, as a committed laissez-faire, hard-money party. From then on, both parties rapidly became Progressive and moderately statist. (Pg. 91) Even had I been able to put evidence such as this before my father, it would not have modified his thinking. It is almost as if such individuals are caught in some kind of a time warp. They have been socialized to party loyalty without being taught the facts and the intellectual reasoning behind the original stances held prior to 1896. Any belief that they should hold a party to a 'firm ideology' has been bred out of them, or simply lost along the way. I did, finally, become a voter, although never for my father's party. Still I never felt comfortable about voting, but neither did I feel comfortable about not voting. Possibly I dreaded old messages from childhood returning to haunt me. During the last election I did go to the polls, but I cast only one (1) vote against a candidate I despised. I have continued to fret to vote, or not to vote. Recently I received a brochure from the Sons Of Liberty in Central Florida, entitled, VOTING STRATEGY 2004 WHEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS IS NO LONGER AN OPTION. The title caught my eye, and their rationale for voting makes a great deal of sense. They begin with this: The most effective argument to convince patriotic Americans to support the Republican Party has been that The Republicans will do less damage to the Constitution than the Democrats will and besides, what other choice is there? The conservative vote is taken for granted by the Republican leadership because they believe that we have nowhere else to turn; from a purely pragmatic short-range view, perhaps they are correct. The result has been a Republican Party that ignores conservative values because it has no incentive to do otherwise. The time has come to provide that incentive. I had to agree with this summation, and I continued reading, The
[CTRL] Unheeded Advice on Saddam
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Unheeded Advice on Saddam by Ralph R. Reiland How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer I would give is not very damn many. That was the answer from Dick Cheney during a May 1992 briefing, explaining why the first President Bush was right when he decided not to push forward to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam after American forces had trounced the Iraqi army in Kuwait in March 1991. At the time of that briefing, Cheney was secretary of defense, fresh from his task of directing Operation Desert Storm. In his 1998 memoir, A World Transformed co-authored with Brent Scowcroft, his former national security adviser, the senior Bush explained why he didn't send American troops to march into Baghdad to bring down Saddam at the end of the Gulf War: To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to re-establish. On top of being unwinnable, Bush warned that the costs of an occupation of Iraq would be incalculable, with meager benefits: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger, and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. That was 1998, and not everyone agreed. A group of Washington heavyweights, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney, formed The Project for the New American Century in spring 1997, with an early focus on ousting Saddam Hussein by force, if necessary. On Jan. 26, 1998, the group wrote to President Bill Clinton, urging him to adopt a strategy that would aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. Arguing that we didn't have the ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, they asked Clinton to adopt a willingness to undertake military action, as diplomacy is clearly failing. Writing to Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott in May 1998, the group argued that the United States should be prepared to use military force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power. All that war hype, of course, was years before Sept. 11, years before Dick Cheney claimed that Iraq was the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, long before Condoleezza Rice was seeing mushroom clouds over Chicago. On Sept. 11, according to a report from National Security correspondent David Martin at CBS, it took barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to tell his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam to the attack. Notes taken by the Pentagon aides, at 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H, meaning Saddam Hussein. Go massive, the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. Sweep it all up. Things related and not. And so, as they say, the rest is history, produced and directed by the guys in the White House from the Project for the New American Century, with no reports of the son getting any briefings about what his father had warned against. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and
[CTRL] Bush's Budget Betrayal
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Bush's Budget Betrayal by Christopher Westley [Posted November 19, 2003] The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman recently scored a front page story about President Bush that would have galvanized D.C. conservatives three years earlier if the same words had been written about President Clinton. Writes Weisman: Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels. The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968 . . . Much of the increase was driven by war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as homeland security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. One recalls the story about the first President Bush around the time that he was breaking his No New Taxes pledge a profile in cowardice that would cost him reelection. While being pestered by reporters about his decision, he told them not to place as much importance in what he said as in what he did. Read my hips, he told them, paraphrasing one of his signature lines. This is a lesson that should be applied to George W. as well. While his political rhetoric is on target with an electorate that demands smaller government, his actions bring forth benighted memories of that other activist president from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Did anyone who voted for Bush think that he would far surpass Clinton in expanding the Leviathan state? In 1999, Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein ominously warned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that unless President Clinton's budget plans were defeated by congressional Republicans, government spending would increase by $850 billion over the next decade, on top of the $2.5 trillion increase already called for in current law (much of which was off-budget spending). Little did Feldstein realize that as he wrote, an even more aggressive spender was preparing a bid for the White House under the banner of fiscal restraint and a more humble foreign policy but who, once elected, would make the reckless Clinton look like the model of probity with respect to domestic and foreign policies. Under the Bush Administration, the national debt will increase by more than $850 billion in two years. Perhaps Feldstein should have checked with his colleague in the Harvard economics department, Jeffrey Frankel, who would not have been surprised by an even bigger government under a Republican president. In an important paper published last year, Frankel noted the discrepancy between the lips and hips of Republican presidents, resulting from Republican rhetoric creating an impression of fiscal responsibility (the lips), and the actual big government policies pursued by Republicans once they reach office (the hips). In a Financial Times article summarizing the results of his research, Frankel wrote: Since the 1960s, the Republican and Democrat administrations have switched places on economic policy. The pattern is so well established that the generalization can no longer be denied: the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government and bad microeconomics. Surprisingly, Democrat presidents have, relatively speaking, become the proponents of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets and neoclassical microeconomics. This characterization sounds implausible. Certainly, it would not be recognizable from the two parties' rhetoric. But compare the records of Presidents Carter and Clinton with those of Presidents Reagan, Bush senior and Bush junior. A simple look at the federal budget statistics shows an uncanny tendency for the deficit to rise during Republican presidencies. Although Frankel seems ignorant of the role that off-budget revenues had in skewing the budget deficit figures in the late 1990s, and although he seems to buy into the Keynesian consensus that tax cuts are the primary cause of deficits, his point that the budget performances of Republican vs. Democratic administrations are uncanny remains valid. What's going on here? Historically, the Republican Party has never been the party of fiscal restraint (a point made in response to Frankel by Thornton and Ekelund). It was defined by a neo-mercantile philosophy from its
[CTRL] Land of the Free, Home of the Slave
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Land of the Free, Home of the Slave by Steven Greenhut America is such a wonderfully free country that I thoroughly understand why the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, is so eager to take our freedoms and spread them across the globe. Without the U.S. government, backwards peoples will have to labor on in their own delusions, never understanding what true liberty is all about. I am so free. If I want to paint my house, or build a deck out back, or install a new air-conditioning system, I am free to call the building inspector and get his approval first. If I want to put a new toilet in the bathroom, I am free to buy only the low-flow toilets the government approves. I am free to buy a property near the beach, provided the government Coastal Commission approves whatever I want to do wit h that property. That approval might take decades, and the final thing that I build will be what the commissioners want there, not what I want, but I am free nonetheless. I know I am free because this is America. And America is a free country the best one in the whole darned world. If you dont like our freedoms, you should move somewhere else. Any other questions? Unlike those pathetic souls in other less-free and non-free countries, I am free to open my own business, provided I pay my employees the minimum salary demanded by the government, and give them overtime in the exact proportion stated by the government, and offer them breaks that conform exactly to the standards set by government. I can operate my business in complete freedom, provided that I meet every one of the hundreds of pages of air-quality standards promulgated by the state and federal governments. I am free to offer my employees any benefits I choose, provided they are ones approved by the government. I am free to operate my building in compliance with all the building codes and standards defined by the government. I am free to place a sign on that business provided it conforms to the citys sign ordinance. I am free to hire a lawyer to defend against the governments charges that I discriminate because I have fewer minority employees than the government says I should have. I am free to pay a $100,000 fine if I complain that a male employee suddenly is showing up in dresses. I am free to have exactly the same number of parking spaces the government says I should have, and to follow the specific standards the government established when it gave me a conditional-use permit. True freedom always has conditions. I am free to vote in elections, provided that the ethnic balance of those elected conforms to the dictates of the Justice Department. I am free to invest money in the stock market provided I dont take advice from anyone who knows any real information about the stock. If I do, I am free to spend several years behind bars. I am free to pay half my earnings in taxes. You know what they say, taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. Civilized and free. What more could a person ask for? I am free to get to work on government-built and managed roads, in a car that meets government safety and pollution standards. I am free to pay hundreds of dollars a year in car taxes and gas taxes. I am free to borrow money from a bank to pay these taxes provided that the lender meets every government code and offers special terms to those people the government says should get special terms. I am free to send my children to the government-run schools, where they are taught whatever the government wants them to learn. I am free to raise them exactly as the government demands, or watch child protective services take them from me and give them to a foster parent. I am free to get on an airplane and fly anywhere I want in this free country, provided that I let a government employee search my stuff and even my person. I am free to tell the federal government exactly how much I earn and let agents audit me and take me off to jail if I fail to tell them every source of income. I am free to take any drug I need or please provided it is sold by a pharmacist or a drug store. I am free to work in any sort of profession, provided that I gain the proper government-granted licenses. If I work in manufacturing, I am free to give a union a lot of money or am free to find another job. I am free to hand over my property and take a pittance in return for it when the government uses eminent domain on behalf of a politically well-connected developer. I am free to have a dog provided I buy him a government-issued license. I am not free to own a ferret, although in truth I hate those nasty little critters and dont really want one. I am free to let a police officer search my car for any reason. I am free to let federal agents search my property, tap my phone lines, look at my library records. I am free to live my life in total freedom provided that all my choices are approved by
[CTRL] Lifting the Wool: Governments Are Mafias, War Is Their Racket
-Caveat Lector- Lifting the Wool: Governments Are Mafias, War Is Their Racket by Alan Bock It is unlikely that the veil will be parted long enough for the great casserole of prejudice, misinformation, partial information and (occasionally) accurate perception that pollsters and political scientists are pleased to call public opinion to process and absorb the perception completely. But the vaguely worded Israeli Cabinet decision that the time might have come to remove Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from the region, or perhaps from the earth followed Sunday by an unofficial trial-balloon-type statement from Israeli Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Expulsion is certainly one of the options; killing is also one of the options offered an important insight into the essential character of government. Palestinian legislator Saeb Erekat got it only partially right in criticizing Ehud Olmert's statement, calling it the behavior and actions of a mafia and not a government. Not quite right, Mr. Erekat. It was definitely a mafia-like comment. But it was also a quintessentially government-like sentiment although government leaders are seldom so open and frank about it, which is one of the reasons most people don't catch on. FOUNDED IN FORCE Perhaps I should make the same distinction between government and the state that the distinguished American author and essayist Albert J. Nock did. Government he viewed as a rough agreement, rooted in tradition and custom, about how people in a given geographical region will get along together what rules they will obey (most of the time) and how they will treat their fellows. Nock defined the State as the organization of the political means, as distinguished from the economic means, of dividing up the fruits of the productive capacity of the people. Nock argued that there are basically two ways people interact through voluntary agreement or through the use of force. What he called the economic means were voluntary and consensual trade, mutual agreements (some explicit and some implicit) and the sum of the agreements, transactions and decisions to tolerate others made up what Nock called society and what some have called civil society. The political means involve the use of force or threats of force. For those who are willing and able to use them, the political means are usually a much more efficient method of acquiring wealth or control over the means of production than honest labor, pleasing customers and confining oneself to mutually voluntary transactions. So they have been used by sophisticated thugs and bandits throughout what we know of human history. By Nock's definition, of course, almost every institution we call a government in the modern world is actually a state an institution built around the use of force to ensure compliance. And his definition is hardly as off-the-wall as it might seem. Most political theory classes or political science texts will define government as the institution in a given geographic region with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Government, in other words, is the institution that gets to define its own use of force as legitimate and everybody else's use of force as illegitimate. Standard-issue political scientists almost all agree that some use of force in society is unavoidable, and that the least harmful way to deal with its inevitability is for one institution to be able to use force legitimately, so it can protect decent folks from the freelance perpetrators of force and violence. The belief (highly dubious in my view) is that this arrangement is the best way to limit the amount of force and violence people are subjected to, and with any luck to tame the use of force with a web of rules and regulations. PROTECTION RACKETS What it comes down to, then, is that the essence of government is force. Without the capacity to coerce citizens into paying taxes and obeying edicts, government is impossible. It is hardly a stretch, however, to note that such an institution is morally virtually indistinguishable from a criminal gang. Indeed, a criminal gang generally finds it more efficient to limit the use of force to those who resist too actively or to teach a lesson. The profits are greater when the merchants simply give in at once to the guys in bulky suits who come around saying, Nice store you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it. We can provide protection. But the racket works best, of course, if the merchants know the thugs will follow through on the implied threat, so once in a while an example has to be made. A decent argument can be made, then, that a government is a mafia that's a little more sophisticated and successful than most outright criminal gangs are or, as my Sicilian wife once put it, government is just another gang. But the essence of what defines both is the willingness to use force when persuasion fails. The mafia, if the lore is accurate, even copies government by calling its enforcers
[CTRL] Eminent Remains: The Buried Legacy of the Original Ground Zero
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Eminent Remains: The Buried Legacy of the Original Ground Zero by Gary North Which looks proper to you: twin towers or Twin Towers? For most people, Twin Towers looks proper. We rarely see twin towers in uncapitalized mode. That was what was wrong with the Twin Towers from day one. We read of Ground Zero. That phrase, too, is capitalized. The empty space where the Twin Towers once stood has become a symbol of lawless destruction, as indeed it is. Some people speak of Ground Zero as sacred space or holy ground. I am not one of them. What I have never seen written is what should be obvious to anyone who defends the free market as an outworking of the idea of private property: the Twin Towers were conceived in sin and leased in iniquity. The Twin Towers stood as of emblem of what has long been a great weakness of British common law: the law of eminent domain. That law is an outworking of what I, as follower of John Calvin, identify as the modified eighth commandment: Thou sha lt not steal, except by majority vote. Catholics and Lutherans would identify it as the modified seventh commandment. However men number that commandment, it is the modification which condemns them. The Twin Towers began with acts of legalized theft. A ROCKEFELLER PROJECT The Twin Towers were the product of many factors, but the sine qua non were the Rockefeller brothers, David and Nelson. The Rockefeller family had long become interested in real estate development in New York City. There is even a book based on a 1986 middle-of-the-night bicycle tour of Rockefeller-related properties, Rockefeller New York. John D., Jr. in 1946 donated $8.5 million to the United Nations to buy property for its headquarters. The land was then turned over to the member nations as sovereign property. This removed the land from the jurisdiction of the United States. It was a symbolic gesture. Symbols have always meant a great deal to the Rockefellers, as they do to everyone else. The key questions are: 1.Symbols for whom? 2.Symbols of what? 3.Symbols managed by whom? The Twin Towers project was a combination of four crucial factors: (1) David Rockefeller's desire to raise property values in lower Manhattan; (2) Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's appointees, who controlled the Board of the Port Authority; (3) taxpayers' credit, which was used to underwrite bonds to build the Twin Towers; (4) exemption from all New York City building codes and taxes. Brian C. Anderson provided a good summary in the November, 2001 issue of City Journal. This story is known to very few Americans, let alone Islamic terrorists. I quote it at some length. It's cruelly ironic that the terrorists who attacked New York on September 11 targeted the World Trade Center as a symbol of American capitalism. For, from the moment it opened its doors in the early 1970s, the center, owned and operated by the publicly funded Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was really a grandiose monument to the ills of state capitalism, where government substitutes its bureaucratic and politically motivated thinking for the wisdom of the free market's invisible hand. Indeed, the WTC offers a case study in why government should not be in the business of developing and managing commercial property. As New York state and city officials move toward setting up a new public entity to oversee the rebuilding of lower Manhattan, the center's history provides a cautionary tale for everyone involved starting with Governor George Pataki. . . . The idea for the World Trade Center first took form in the late 1950s, as a group of well-connected businessmen led by Governor Rockefeller's brother David, CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank sought some governmental means of pumping economic life into a lower Manhattan that had been in steady decline since the Depression. A government-created and government-run state-of-the-art office complex, they felt, would attract tenants from the world of international trade to replace the financial firms that had left lower Manhattan, and thus it would spur additional economic development throughout the neighborhood and give a boost to the area's struggling ports. The complex would also boost downtown development at a time when the Rockefeller family was making a big financial bet on the area with the construction of Chase Plaza. Enlisting Governor Rockefeller's help, the group turned to the Port Authority to own, develop, and manage the property. Three reasons made the bi-state agency attractive: it was bursting with money and had the ability to float bonds; it already owned some of the land in the neighborhood; and the governor controlled half of its board. The authority was enthusiastic from the outset.
[CTRL] Slavery, Everyone?
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Slavery, Everyone? by Paul Hein Someone in Congress has introduced a particularly silly bit of legislation: the National Slave Memorial Act, which would serve to erect a National Slave Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. It's blackmail, literally. No congressman with more than a handful of black voters in his district would dare vote against it; and once established, it will be taken as some sort of proof that blacks are entitled to slavery reparations. Why, the government itself has recognized the horrors of slavery by building this National Slave Memorial! Pay up! But in a way, the Memorial might be a good idea. Slavery is something which should be kept in mind. Excepting marriage, there is no more enduring, universal, or accepted social institution on earth than slavery. The Memorial could (but won't) remind us of that. The reason it won't is that it will deal solely with American black slavery of the type that became extinct about the time of the so-called Civil War. Black's Law Dictionary defines slave thusly: a person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster has a similar definition, adding the concept of ownership. While the ownership of one person by another is odious, to be sure, it was perhaps not what made black slavery so offensive. Rather, it was that idea of total domination of one person by another, owned or not. Since childhood, we have associated this arrangement with the slavery of the plantation, the cruel overseer, the smug and pitiless owner, the whips and chains, the noble oppressed savage. OK, but awfully parochial! What about a soldier? People actually enlist in the army, you know, and what do they get? Total domination by another. The soldier does what he is told, when he's told. He eats where and when and what he's expected to eat, wears what he's assigned to wear, and does what he's told to do. If he attempts to leave without permission, he'll be shot, and if he escapes, he'll be hunted down and put in prison for the offense. Jail is pretty much the same, lacking only the cachet of patriotism. The prisoners are totally dominated by others. So if we accept the definitions of slavery provided by the dictionary, these people are slaves also, and our country is full of them especially in prisons. But what of the rest of us? Well, let's see. My friend, who is actually unashamed to refer to himself as a liberal, would think me insane if I called him a slave. He drives to his company every morning in a car licensed by the state. He attaches the state's ID plates to the car, even though it runs fine without them, and he gains no perceptible or immediate benefit from attaching them. He pays for these devices yearly, and wouldn't dream of operating his automobile without them. OK, but otherwise, he's free as a bird. Well, a bird that needs another license to fly. Having bought and licensed the car, he then licenses himself, and again pays for the license, or official permission, to drive it. (At or below the speed limit, of course!) OK, OK, but he could avoid this by taking the bus, and being really free! Except that when he gets to his office, he considers job applications, mindful of federal guidelines regarding hiring, which he dare not ignore. He's very careful not to fire any employee in violation of the rules about such things. He periodically checks the plant to be sure it bears the proper notices of federal labor laws, equal employment opportunities, and safety notices required by an agency far away, in Washington. He hands over a large portion of his compensation to Washington as well, without question. The very assumption of servitude is unquestioned. At home, he may be unable to barbecue when he desires, to avoid worsening the deadly menace of pollution. If it's an even-numbered day, he is permitted to water his lawn for two hours. Before retiring he may watch a few hours of TV on state-licensed stations, or do some broadcasting of his own as a ham operator duly licensed, of course, and in accord with all the regulations pertaining thereto. On the weekend, he may cut his own lawn, being careful to transport the gasoline for the mower in an approved container, and maintaining the various safety devices built into his machine pursuant to federal mandates. Or he may hire someone to cut it for him, being careful to obey the laws about withholding and social security. If he ignores his lawn, the city may fine him for allowing the grass to exceed the permitted height. Should I suggest to my friend that he appears to be dominated by strangers, and is, by definition, a slave, he would become impatient with me. Nonsense. The various laws and regulations about which you complain are clearly for the good of society, and serve a useful purpose. Well, perhaps, but not so obviously as black
[CTRL] The Hillary Bogey
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Hillary Bogey by William L. Anderson Washington, D.C. a.k.a. the Belly of the Beast has been a-twitter these past two weeks with the release of Hillary Clinton's new book Living History. Contrary to the hopes of conservatives, the book has sold very well and might even justify the $8 million advance that the former First Lady received. The book apparently written by a gaggle of ghostwriters and not Mrs. Clinton herself has not revealed anything surprising, judging from the accounts I have read. (No, I do not plan to read this book, as I tend to steer away from memoirs penned by the political classes. If I want to read fiction, I will go to the proper outlets.) Yet, the usual suspects either are calling it a triumph or a pack of lies, depending upon how they have historically viewed the Clintons. From the various sources that have reported on this book, Mrs. Clinton claims to have been surprised and angered when her husband confessed to her that, indeed, he and Monica Lewinsky had been doing some nasties in the Oval Office and, no, it was not the work of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. Given that Mrs. Clinton knew from the start that Bill's denials were outright lies, this passage alone should give us pause to think that Hillary Clinton is anything but a spinner of fabricated tales, second only to her husband. Elsewhere, we read that she wanted to do all sorts of wonderful things for the country, but those Bad Republicans who wish to turn back the clock so old people can die in the streets kept her and Bill from giving all of us free healthcare. We read that the tax increases of 1993 created prosperity, and that the modest tax cuts of 2001 created a recession. (In other words, Hillary Clinton proves she is economically illiterate but we already knew that.) As for her social activism, she tells us the same thing she said a decade ago: her support of the welfare state comes from her Old time Methodist upbringing. (Murray Rothbard already has dealt with that explanation, so there is no use in my plowing the same ground that he so ably did before his untimely death.) All that being said, let me say that I believe that the significance of this book is not that Mrs. Clinton gives us the same drivel she poured out of the White House while First Lady, but rather that it proves once again the absolute mediocrity that characterizes the political classes in this country. For her supporters, Living History somehow proves that Hillary is ready to be President of the United States, while her detractors either try to tell us that the book proves that either she is not presidential material or they quake in fear at the prospect of a Hillary presidency. Now that I have said it, let me now say that this whole business has become quite ridiculous. Those who support her say she will make a wonderful president, while those who hate her believe she will be dishonest and vindictive. Perhaps I need to put it another way: if she were to become president, her behavior would mirror nearly everyone else who has held this office in my lifetime. Does this mean I think she should be president? My short answer, not surprisingly, is no. I would hate to see Hillary Clinton become president because I think she would be a disaster. For all of her leftist proclivities, I believe that she is a fascist at heart. First, she is authoritarian and second, she most likely would govern in the manner of her husband, who was constantly manipulating the reins of government to reward those companies that were in his political camp. However, all that being said, I cannot help wonder if President Hillary would have launched a war against Iraq, a conflict that no longer can be spun as a Great Victory over the Evil Saddam. At this writing, the U.S. Armed Forces there are losing about one soldier or more per day as Iraqis engage in guerilla warfare. I doubt that Mrs. Clinton would have pulled us into such a conflict, which I believe still will be the downfall of the presidency of George W. Bush. On the economic front, I doubt she would be worse than what we are seeing from Congress and President Bush. That is not a vote of confidence for Mrs. Clinton. Since, as Lew Rockwell has so aptly put it, John Maynard Keynes rules from the grave, the overall economic policies of the U.S. Government will be Keynesian, be it a Democrat or Republican in the halls of power. Right now, can anyone say with a straight face that the U.S. Government under Republican leadership in all branches of government is engaging in responsible economic policy? But what about environmentalism? some might ask. Is not a Republican presidency better in that area than what we see from Democrats? Again, while I appreciate some of the lip service Republicans give toward changing some environmental policies, let us not forget that it was the Republican administration of George I that gave us the draconian
[CTRL] Fibbing It Up at Fox
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Fibbing It Up at Fox by Dale Steinreich Flat out lies should be confronted ~ Bill O'Reilly; Fox News Channel; May 22, 2003 Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it.One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I've been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began. Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had drones that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents.Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad.Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war.The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s. March 14:On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage. March 19:Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the Mother of All Sunburns. [After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I wasn't a defense analyst (never mind that the article wasn't on the war, and the real defense experts made one wrong prediction after another on this war).It's interesting how these sniveling Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view.I do know enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua's suggestion that a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters outside caves in Tora Bora). Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28 bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That Apparently Failed.] March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped.A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common.His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24).Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides. [Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network.She began one segment with a Hi there! in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York.Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind.Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD').The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism she has none but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.] March 24:Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents.[How could he know this?] March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't blow up Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very bright.] March 28:Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces.A Fox Breaking News flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents. April 7:Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not trace elements. [In the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped down the Memory Hole.The missiles were never mentioned
[CTRL] The Political Economy of World Domination
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Political Economy of World Domination by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Inspired by the strange, Eastern European philosophy of Leo Strauss, the neoconservatives who now control the Republican Party (and hence, the federal g overnment) have repudiated conservatism's limited government philosophy in their quest for world empire (or, in Bill Kristol's words, National Greatness). On their agenda is a twenty-year occupation of Iraq (Kristol's idea), with the same policy to eventually be applied to all the other Arab countries of the Middle East and perhaps North Korea as well. They say they want to democratize and rebuild these countries at the barrel of a gun. In embracing Woodrow Wilson's disastrous, hyper-interventionist foreign policy the conservative movement is no longer conservative in any meaningful sense. Apart from Paul Gottfried, Murray Rothbard, and various other writers on LewRockwell.com, only Don Devine of the American Conservative Union, of all the other conservatives in Washington, has dared to point this out. The neocons hunger for political power for the sake of political power, period. They couldn't care less if government is used to secure rights to life, liberty and property, the original American ideal. There is no better example of this than Bill Kristol himself. When socialism finally collapsed throughout the world in 1990 even the socialist economist Robert Heilbroner admitted in a New Yorker magazine article that the battle between socialism and capitalism was over, and capitalism had won. Any conservatives who were familiar with the work of Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and other anti-socialist economists understood perfectly that socialism never did produce a rational economy in any sense. That's why it was such an outrage that, just three years later, President Bill Clinton's top priority was to attempt to socialize some 14 percent of the U.S. economy with his scheme for government-run, centrally planned health care. One of the fiercest opponents of Clinton's health care socialism was Bill Kristol, who wrote daily memos to conservatives all over America on strategies to defeat the Clinton health plan. He authored numerous articles in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere on the subject and, with the help of many others, the Clinton plan for health care socialism was defeated. But as soon as the Republican Party regained the White House, with an administration crawling with Straussian neocons, all of a sudden there was no principled opposition at all to big government. Indeed, once in power these National Greatness Conservatives began agitating for worldwide central planning, the beginnings of which we are observing today in Iraq. This is far, far worse, and a bigger threat to our liberty and prosperity, than any socialistic ideas that Clinton ever proposed. Worldwide central planning by the American empire will fail for the very same reasons socialism and central planning has failed in all other countries, from tiny Albania to the former Soviet Union. Reason number one is that military intervention and central planning by the occupying military, with the help of the World Bank and IMF bureaucracies, could not possibly rebuild any economy anywhere. For an economy to succeed what is required is private property, free markets, and minimal government, if any. Commerce, not war and bureaucracy, is the lifeblood of civilization. The allocation of resources must be guided by a free-market pricing system. Otherwise, it is all guesswork and economic chaos will be the inevitable result, as we saw in socialist country after socialist country during the twentieth century. But peaceful commerce requires no role for central planning by National Greatness Conservatives and is therefore not a part of the neocon plan for the Middle East or anywhere else. Most conservatives used to be worshipful of the ideas of Nobel laureate Freidrich Hayek, Mises's student. What he was most known for was his analysis of the pretense of knowledge, the title of his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that was published in the American Economic Review in May of 1975. In order for civilization to prosper economically, what is required is to make use of the vast quantity of information of time and place, all the localized or decentralized knowledge that is in the minds of the millions of market participants. Only the free market, guided by the price system, can accommodate the rational use of all this decentralized information. It is inconceivable that any one mind, or group of minds with the biggest computer imaginable, could handle it. Yet, it is this pretense that lies behind all the neocon schemes to rebuild the world (supposedly in the name of democracy) in their (or, perhaps, in Leo Strauss's) image. One of the tenets of Straussianism is to hold politics up as the most noble of occupations, in direct contradiction to the
[CTRL] Crude-o-cons
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Crude-o-cons by Adam Young You have to wonder what's going on with the official conservative movement when one of its leading figures includes homosexual prison rape in a commencement address to a graduating class of a conservative, Christian high school, and when another uses the same metaphor to exalt the results of the US invasion of a third-world country. Lew himself called attention to Jonah Goldberg's commencement address this year at Hillsdale Academy, in which Jonah regaled his captive audience, along with his awkward misunderstanding of the visual metaphor of the slippery slope and aphorisms detailing the importance of justice and individual rights, with these plums of 'conservative' wisdom: I hear that Princeton moral and legal political philosopher Robert P. George spoke at the Hillsdale College graduation. That's great. Dr. George is a brilliant man. He taught me a great deal when we were in prison together. He taught me: How to chill pruno in the toilet bowl. How to make, and conceal, a shiv. He was even the one who taught me that if you let another man steal the apple brown betty off your cafeteria lunch tray it means you're engaged. That's a very important lesson. I mention Dr. George because I thought it might be fun to beat Mr. Philosopher Man at his own game and hence make the college kids green with envy. So, I do hereby solemnly swear to make more off-color prison jokes than he did in his address. As some of you may know, I'm a conservative and proud of it. I spend quite a bit of time encouraging young people like you to become conservative or to be true to their conservative principles. But since you went to school in the shadow of what many liberals consider to be a leading madrassa of the Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, maybe it would be better to put ideology aside. First, don't ever date anybody in your dorm for at least the first semester. It won't work out and it will make your life really complicated. Second, don't buy a mini-fridge until you're sure your roommate hasn't got one. While not someone I regard as a particularly robust thinker, I can't imagine NR's old court thinker Russell Kirk giving advice quite like these humorous examples offered up by Jonah. I stopped reading NR sometime in the mid-nineties, and only years later discovered how much it, and I, had changed since then. Besides his class clown humor, Jonah Goldberg is another example of a trend imported from the totalitarian Left, although thankfully, not present in his address cited above. Jonah, as well as the far more egregious example of David Frum, and others in the neoconservative movement, trot out without apparent hesitation the old smear tactic of the left of impugning the motives and character of critics of their writing by accusing them of anti-Semitism, and of using neoconservative as a euphemism for Jew, though neocon godfather Irving Kristol popularized the word in many books and articles. Conservatives used to complain about the Left's smearing of conservatives and conservative ideas as anti-Semitic, even as fascist. Now, it is the Right that uses this line of attack, for the simple reason that it is expedient, rather than profound, and is designed not to illuminate, but rather in the Orwellian fashion of abusing the language, to intimidate and silence inquiry and criticism. It's a sad day when the American Right acts as the thought police. More evidence of the collapse of American conservatism was highlighted on the LRC blog where Professor Ralph Raico called attention to Ann Coulter's recent little chat. Professor Raico recounted the scene: On June 3, the columnist Ann Coulter addressed a Republican women's club in Jacksonville, Florida (see Anthony Gancarski, An Evening with Ann Coulter). In the course of her diatribe ... Coulter proclaimed that the Middle East is now 'George Bush's bitch.' 'Bitch' in this sense is prison talk for the victim of homosexual rape. There are probably some who get a frisson from hearing a woman speak in this over the top, disgusting way. But, aside from that, wasn't the idea to bring 'democracy' to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East? How? By treating the whole of the region and tens of millions of Arabs as the personal 'bitch' of the White House Half-Wit-in-Chief? And speaking of this particular 'bitch,' ... Republican 'dignitaries' paid up to $75 a piece to listen to her spout this stuff. Welcome to the citadel of freedom and civilization, 'conservative' America in the year 2003. How generous of Ms. Coulter last known for describing Messrs. Goldberg and company as girly boys to let us in on the obvious, which is, the liberation of Iraq is, as Professor Raico pointed out, a semantic fraud, as all Iraqis now, as before, live under an absolute military
[CTRL] Justifying War
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] JUSTIFYING WAR May 29, 2003 by Joe Sobran A few weeks ago, during the Iraq war, I wrote about Ali Abbas, a 12-year-old boy who lost his entire family and both his arms when a U.S. rocket struck his Baghdad home. His case has attracted international attention and sympathy, though the American media have largely ignored it. Now the WASHINGTON TIMES reports that Ali is recovering about as well as could be hoped for. Because of his injuries, including extensive burns, doctors expected him to die. But after surgery and skin grafts, he is now walking and even joking. He has received many offers of help; he will be equipped with prosthetic arms and an Iraqi family in Canada wants to adopt him. Despite his agonizing losses, the boy may learn to cope with what most of us would consider a bleak life. Perhaps the worldwide outpouring of love and concern will be some consolation to him. How many other innocents were killed and maimed by the American invasion? I have seen no figures or even estimates. It doesn't seem to matter to most Americans, for whom military victory seems to be sufficient justification for any collateral damage, as we have learned to call it. Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- the chief pretext for the war -- appear to have been fictions, if not fantasies. The notion that Hussein ever posed a serious threat to the United States, or even Israel, now sounds like a paranoid crackpot theory. The Bush administration was merely groping for excuses to crush him like a bug. Actually doing it turned out to be easier than justifying it to the civilized world. More to the point, how do you justify what happened to people like Ali Abbas? It was quite foreseeable that bombing and shelling Baghdad would have such results. One reader, who usually agrees with me, says that I set a standard for war that is virtually impossible to meet. Don't all wars, he asks, claim innocent victims? Well, yes. At least virtually all military invasions do. That is why they are nearly always immoral. Consider the U.S. war for independence. Were any English children killed? Probably not, because the British troops didn't bring their families over, and the war was fought on American soil. Any collateral damage inflicted by the American forces would have been freakishly exceptional. In the U.S. War between the States, the North caused many civilian deaths in the South, especially during the Shenandoah Valley campaign and Sherman's March to the Sea. This was deliberate policy; it shocked Europe and left bitter memories in the South for generations. How many Northern civilians were killed by Southern troops? Few, if any. It was the North that invaded the South, while accusing the South of aggression. After that war, some of the Northern generals waged a war of extermination -- their word -- against the American Indian. Few distinctions were made between Indian combatants and noncombatants, the guiding principle being that the only good Indian is a dead Indian. During World War II, the Roosevelt administration deliberately targeted civilian populations in Japan and Germany for aerial bombing, killing millions of noncombatants. This too was strategic policy, by no means unintended collateral damage. Principles of just war and civilized warfare were formulated many centuries ago, beginning, as far as I know, with St. Augustine. But the modern state has reverted to barbarism and the logic of total war. The U.S. Government has played a large role in this development, and it's no accident that this has largely occurred under presidents who led the way in expanding the domestic powers of the Federal Government and in destroying constitutional limits on government action. By now war has become an American habit, a sort of tradition. Americans have come to regard war as a more or less normal activity. It's not the hawks but the doves who now have to offer justifications, and criticizing war is widely felt to be nit-picking, if not unpatriotic. As a young congressman, Abraham Lincoln found his patriotism under severe attack when he challenged President James Polk's war on Mexico. Lincoln learned his lesson. By the end of his life, he could justify his own war on the South as part of God's plan. American presidents still find lofty reasons for war. If only they could settle for modest excuses for peace. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of
[CTRL] The noble feat of Nike
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The noble feat of Nike Johan Norberg Globalisation otherwise known as 'ruthless international capitalism' is enriching the world's poor, says Johan Norberg Nike. It means victory. It also means a type of expensive gym shoe. In the minds of the anti-globalisation movement, it stands for both at once. Nike stands for the victory of a Western footwear company over the poor and dispossessed. Spongy, smelly, hungered after by kids across the world, Nike is the symbol of the unacceptable triumph of global capital. A Nike is a shoe that simultaneously kicks people out of jobs in the West, and tramples on the poor in the Third World. Sold for 100 times more than the wages of the peons who make them, Nike shoes are hate-objects more potent, in the eyes of the protesters at this week's G8 riots, than McDonald's hamburgers. If you want to be trendy these days, you don't wear Nikes; you boycott them. So I was interested to hear someone not only praising Nike sweatshops, but also claiming that Nike is an example of a good and responsible business. That someone was the ruling Communist party of Vietnam. Today Nike has almost four times more workers in Vietnam than in the United States. I travelled to Ho Chi Minh to examine the effects of multinational corporations on poor countries. Nike being the most notorious multinational villain, and Vietnam being a dictatorship with a documented lack of free speech, the operation is supposed to be a classic of conscience-free capitalist oppression. In truth the work does look tough, and the conditions grim, if we compare Vietnamese factories with what we have back home. But that's not the comparison these workers make. They compare the work at Nike with the way they lived before, or the way their parents or neighbours still work. And the facts are revealing. The average pay at a Nike factory close to Ho Chi Minh is $54 a month, almost three times the minimum wage for a state-owned enterprise. Ten years ago, when Nike was established in Vietnam, the workers had to walk to the factories, often for many miles. After three years on Nike wages, they could afford bicycles. Another three years later, they could afford scooters, so they all take the scooters to work (and if you go there, beware; they haven't really decided on which side of the road to drive). Today, the first workers can afford to buy a car. But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more. For me, a Swede with only three months of summer, this sounds bizarre. Surely working conditions under the blue sky must be superior to those in a sweatshop? But then I am naively Eurocentric. Farming means 10 to 14 hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain, in rice fields with water up to your ankles and insects in your face. Even a Swede would prefer working nine to five in a clean, air-conditioned factory. Furthermore, the Nike job comes with a regular wage, with free or subsidised meals, free medical services and training and education. The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well. These facts make Nike sound more like Santa Claus than Scrooge. But corporations such as Nike don't bring these benefits and wages because they are generous. It is not altruism that is at work here; it is globalisation. With their investments in poor countries, multinationals bring new machinery, better technology, new management skills and production ideas, a larger market and the education of their workers. That is exactly what raises productivity. And if you increase productivity the amount a worker can produce you can also increase his wage. Nike is not the accidental good guy. On average, multinationals in the least developed countries pay twice as much as domestic companies in the same line of business. If you get to work for an American multinational in a low-income country, you get eight times the average income. If this is exploitation, then the problem in our world is that the poor countries aren't sufficiently exploited. The effect on local business is profound: 'Before I visit some foreign factory, especially like Nike, we have a question. Why do the foreign factories here work well and produce much more?' That was what Mr Kiet, the owner of a local shoe factory who visited Nike to learn how he could be just as successful at attracting workers, told me: 'And I recognise that productivity does not only come from machinery but also from satisfaction of the worker. So for the future factory we should concentrate on our working conditions.' If I was
[CTRL] The Bravery of Being Out of Range
-Caveat Lector- The Bravery of Being Out of Range Roger Waters You have a natural tendency to squeeze off a shot You're good fun at parties, you wear the right masks You're old but you still like a laugh in the locker room You can't abide change, you're at home on the range You open the suitcase behind the old workings To show off the magnum, you deafen the canyon A comfort a friend only upstaged in the end by the Uzi machine gun Does the recoil remind you, remind you of sex Old man what the hell you gonna kill next Old timer who you gonna kill next I looked over Jordan and what did I see Saw a US Marine in a pile of debris I swam in your pools and lay under your palm trees I looked in the eyes of the Indian who lay on the Federal Building steps And through the range finder over the hill I saw the frontline boys popping their pills Sick of the mess they find on their desert stage And the bravery of being out of range Yeah the question is vexed Old man what the hell you gonna kill next Old timer who you gonna kill next Hey bartender over here, two more shots and two more beers Sir turn up the TV sound, the war has started on the ground Just love those laser-guided bombs, they're really great for righting wrongs You hit the target and win the game from bars three thousand miles away Three thousand miles away We play the game with the bravery of being out of range We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range We strafe the train with the bravery of being out of range We gain terrain with the bravery of being out of range With the bravery of being out of range We play the game with the bravery of being out of range A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] America's Top 10 Presidents
-Caveat Lector- Maureen Farrell #1 - America's Top-Ranked President, Abraham Lincoln #2 - America's 2nd Greatest President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt #3 - America's 3rd Greatest President, George Washington #4 - America's 4th Greatest President, Thomas Jefferson #5 - America's 5th Greatest President, Theodore Roosevelt #6 - America's 6th Greatest President, Woodrow Wilson MJ This is MOSTLY ass-backwards. Lincoln is by far the WORST President this nation has endured. Farrell's #2 and #6 are in an almost dead heat for number 2 with the other as number 3. The BEST President, by far, was Martin van Buren. Regard$, --MJ Lincoln overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Taney that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, and in consequence the mode of the State was, until 1865, a monocratic military despotism. . . . The doctrine of reserved powers was knaved up ex post facto as a justification for his acts, but as far as the intent of the constitution is concerned, it was obviously pure invention. In fact, a very good case could be made out for the assertion that Lincoln's acts resulted in a permanent radical change in the entire system of constitutional interpretation that since his time, interpretations have not been interpretations of the constitution, but merely of public policy. . . . A strict constitutionalist might indeed say that the constitution died in 1861, and one would have to scratch one's head pretty diligently to refute him. -- Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Flimflam
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Flimflam Charley Reese Still think you are not being flimflammed by the Bush administration? Take heed of this: Newsweek has reported that Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, told the United Nations, the CIA and Britain's MI-6 in 1995 that Iraq destroyed all of its chemical and biological stocks, as well as the missiles to deliver them, in 1991. Yet the U.N. arms inspectors, the CIA and MI-6 chose to keep that secret. If it's true and there's no reason to believe it isn't then it's pretty hard evidence that the Bush administration is lying through its teeth when it keeps insisting that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It also bolsters the credibility of former chief arms inspector Scott Ritter, who has likewise insisted that Iraq's weapons were destroyed. For that matter, it bolsters the credibility of the Iraqi government, which insists it no longer has any weapons of mass destruction. You might recall that Kamel defected to Jordan and about six months later made the mistake of returning to Iraq, where he was killed. This coming war with Iraq gets murkier and murkier. Let's see if we can sort it out. First, we have a chief executive so naive about the world outside of Texas, he probably couldn't find a lot of countries on a map. Second, he has surrounded himself with American Likudniks supporters of Israel's right-wing government. Even The Washington Post reported recently what I've been saying for months: that Bush's policy is identical to that of Ariel Sharon's, the Israeli prime minister. I've said that Bush has been acting like Sharon's puppet; The Washington Post story quoted a U.S. official as saying Sharon has played Bush like a violin. The Israelis have long feared Iraq, Iran and North Korea (because they fear it will sell missiles to Iran). What a coincidence that those three countries are Bush's axis of evil. Before Bush's election, Dick Cheney (now vice president), John Bolton (now undersecretary of state for arms control), Douglas Feith (now third-highest-ranking official in the Defense Department), Richard Perle (now chairman of the Defense Policy Board) and James Woolsey (former CIA director) all had one thing in common: They served as advisers to the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. This is according to an article that appeared in the magazine The Nation. Bush recently appointed as director of Middle Eastern affairs for the National Security Council Elliott Abrams, a protégé of Perle and a man convicted of lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra affair. In 1996, according to an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Perle, Feith and David Wurmser, now an assistant to Bolton, wrote a policy proposal for Benjamin Netanyahu, then Israel's prime minister. Included in their advice were tips on how to manipulate the American government (OK, even the Haaretz reporter says the report comes dangerously close to dual loyalty) and advice to drop the peace plan, drop the idea of land for peace and concentrate on toppling Saddam Hussein and eventually replacing other Middle Eastern governments in order to create a safe environment for Israel. There's your explanation for the war. When sons and daughters come home in body bags or maimed, those are the people you can blame. Others in this group who formed an outfit called the Project for the New American Century in 1997 that also called for toppling Saddam include, in addition to most of those named above, Donald Rumsfeld; William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's No. 2 guy; William Bennett, the best the neocons can do for an intellectual; Richard Armitage, now Colin Powell's deputy; Zalmay Khalilzad, now ambassador to Afghanistan; and others. If you watch the silly cable-news shows, you will recognize many of these names as part of the parade of experts in favor of war with Iraq. The American people are being played for suckers. Their sons and daughters will be cannon fodder in a war that might benefit a foreign country but will greatly damage the interests of our own. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
[CTRL] FedEd: Education for Global Government
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] FedEd: Education for Global Government by Steven Yates Allen Quist, FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How Its Enforced. St. Paul, MN: Maple River Education Coalition, 2002. Pp. 153. Suppose your aim is to obtain power over an entire society. Youve decided that violent revolution is not the way to go. Its disruptive, and if history is any guide, you might get your own nose bloodied a time or two. What do you do? This question has been asked and answered more than once. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramscis answer undertaking a long march through the institutions to infiltrate and capture the culture by stealth is perhaps the best known. Gramsci wasnt the first to come up with this idea, though. An earlier version already existed. It involved capturing the minds of the young. Moreover, if the job of transmitting a civilizations aggregate knowledge and cultural heritage is entrusted to a single network of institutions, then so much the better. Weve had such a network for well over a hundred years. Its called the public education system. We have Horace Mann and his Harvard Unitarians to thank for doing more than anyone else to get it started back in the 1840s. Mann studied the Prussian model in Europe and returned home to found the first such schools in this country. This model involves the state raising children to meet the needs of the state. This model gave us the word kindergarten, the product of an analogy between raising children (kinder) and growing vegetables in a garden (garten). Ive long considered the phrase public education a misnomer. It implies an institution that serves the public. It has been quite a while since government schools served the public, however. The slow decline in their capacity to educate since embracing Deweyan progressive education early in the last century is so well documented I need not repeat it here. Nor need I discuss more recent fads like OBE. But in the 1990s we went from the frying pan into the fire. As literacy levels plummeted to embarrassing lows, the feds began the largest power grab over education in U.S. history in a move intended to pull in private schools and home schooling parents as well, eventually. At this point we come to the latest attempt to expose what the feds are doing to American children and why: Professor Allen Quists FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How Its Enforced. Quist is imminently qualified to write it. An author and political scientist who also has a divinity degree, he was in the Minnesota House of Representatives in the 1980s, where he served on the House Education Committee and was influential in legalizing home schooling in that state. He has been involved with school boards. He currently teaches political science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minnesota. FedEd is a slim volume packs a colossal wallop. If there were any remaining doubts how much of the decline of government schools can be explained in terms of stealth social engineering, Quists study should lay them to rest. In certain respects, FedEd picks up where Charlotte Thomson Iserbyts the deliberate dumbing down of america leaves off. Her account was historical, going back over a hundred years, and literally overwhelms you with original documentation. Quists book is a much shorter and more succinct account of where we are now. Unlike Iserbyts encyclopedic tome it can be read in one or two sittings. Quist lays out the reasons for the anti-academic and anti-cognitive biases in government schools that are producing graduates who cannot walk up to a map of the world and find the United States much less grasp our founding principles. In a sense, given their aims, government schools have to be regarded as spectacular successes rather than dismal failures. The evidence all points in a single direction: their intent has been to dumb down the citizenry of this country and produce a new serfdom a global workforce totally subservient to the needs of omnipotent world government and its internationalist corporate partners. In 1994 alone, this effort received three major boosts, in the form of the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, the School-To-Work Opportunities Act (STW), and a bill known simply as HR6, a funding appropriations bill for most federal education programs. Bill Clinton signed all three. (More recently, of course, George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which we are led to believe superceded STW.) Taken together, these bills hand control over curricular content to federal educrats, resulting in the New Federal Curriculum: FedEd, for short. Quist identifies seven themes running through FedEd (p. 43, p. 100, pp. 131-32, etc.): 1. Undermining national sovereignty (moving us toward world government under the auspices of the United Nations). 2. Redefining natural rights (substituting for the American view a Marxist and
[CTRL] Can Interventionism Be 'A Good Thing'?
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Can Interventionism Be 'A Good Thing'? by Donald Mills I recently received the following e-mail, sent in response to my article entitled Orthogonality versus Opposite Direction (which appeared in the February 14 issue of LewRockwell.com see also http://www.donaldmills.com): Interesting way of looking at things. I'm not entirely convinced that the analogy is supremely apt or useful, but it's refreshing to the technical mind. I don't really understand your basis for unequivocally concluding that interventionism and do-goodism inevitably cause more problems than they solve. I'll be impressed should you find a way to demonstrate that empirically! Should the United States have refused to engage in either World War? Should it have restricted its participation to responding to the Japanese? If the Japanese hadn't attacked would it have been morally acceptable for the U.S. to allow Hitler to operate unchecked? Morality aside, do you actually believe that if everyone had just minded his own business after Poland was invaded there wo uld have been fewer problems in the long run? Naturally, this provoked a reaction on my part, which I share with the reader below (a cleaned-up version that corrects a couple of misspellings and one subject-verb disagreement, and also removes my address of the recipient by name): The U.S. should certainly have refused to engage in WWI, which, as the eminent military historian John Keegan notes, was a tragic and unnecessary conflict. U.S. involvement in the war led to the after-war settlement known as the Treaty of Versailles, which led to German resentment and paved the way for Hitler to rise to power in the 1930's. Hardly a matter of making the world safe for democracy! As to the Japanese question, we provoked the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor because our government didn't like the idea of having a threat to rising American hegemony in East Asia. You can point to atrocities such as the rape of Nanking by the Japanese and the Holocaust by the Nazis to say that interventionism is needed, but I offer the following by way of a counter-argument: 1. Principled neutrality is usually a better alternative than interventionism. Humanitarian efforts to aid the dispossessed in question, including the opening of our borders, while not sacrificing our young on the shores of Europe and Asia, would have been a mutually beneficial arrangement that might well have saved many lives, American and otherwise. Had we stayed out of Europe in the 1940's, we could have let the Nazis and the Soviets battle it out, and then come to a negotiated truce, while putting forth our hand, in a benign manner, to help the Jews, Gypsies, and others suffering under Nazi rule. While the Swiss' hands were not entirely clean so far as the prosecution of WWII was concerned, their efforts were closer to the ideal than ours. Besides, you could make the point that the Soviets won WWII, not us and the Brits, as the USSR took over much of Eastern Europe (including Poland, the country that Britain and France declared war with Germany over in 1939, even though the USSR invaded eastern Poland shortly thereafter why was Germany's invasion not OK, but the Soviets' invasion was? And don't say that it was because, in some sense, Stalin was any better than Hitler Hitler had his millions, but Stalin had his tens of millions!) and built, as Churchill called it, the Iron Curtain, which led to the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Indeed, from that standpoint (namely the domino effect), it can be argued that WWI didn't end until 1990, when the USSR fell, and given our continuing conflicts in the Middle East (the seeds of which were planted in the post-war plans of Wilson, George and Clemenceau), it might be fair to say, as others have, that WWI is still going on, 89 years after it started! The point is that conflicts perpetuate themselves long after they are started. 2. American and allied governments have consistently employed a rank and pernicious double standard with regards to the commission of atrocities. The Holocaust was a monstrous evil, but so was the bombing of Dresden, the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the systematic rape of German women by the Soviets, all done within a 12-month span in 194445. In each case, thousands of innocent civilians either had their most basic human rights grossly violated, or were murdered outright. American policy during the Cold War, and continuing on to today, has been an ongoing affirmation of the Somoza standard: He's a bastard, but he's our bastard. A socialist regime in Chile, under the control of Allende? Why we can't have that! We'll
[CTRL] Government Asphyxiation
-Caveat Lector- The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. --H. L. Mencken ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Government Asphyxiation by Brian Dunaway It doesnt help that this Threat Condition Orange perfectly coincides with the administrations desperate attempts to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein, but lets leave politics aside for the moment. Houston press has reported that Lowes and Home Depot stores throughout Harris County have sold out of the plastic sheeting, duct tape, and other supplies recommended by the Office of Homeland Defense (OHD) in order for citizens to be better prepared in the event of an terrorist act. Its the same all over the nation. This is a very serious health issue. Place a dry cleaning bag over your head and await further instructions. This may as well have been the instructions by the time they filtered down to Betty Sue in Omaha. But we all know Betty Sue doesnt have anything to worry about, does she? Well, she does if she follows the instructions from OHD. The cause for most concern is the OHD plan for q uot;What to do during a chemical or biological attack: Seek shelter in an internal room, preferably one without windows. Seal the room with duct tape and plastic sheeting. Ten square feet of floor space per person will provide sufficient air to prevent carbon dioxide build-up for up to five hours. And Good Morning Americas Home Improvement Editor, Ron Hazelton, assured his viewers: Don't worry about running out of air. Every ten square feet of floor space will last an adult about 5 hours. And don't leave the room until you get instructions from the Emergency Broadcast System to do so. But notice the discrepancy in the phrases to prevent carbon dioxide build-up and don't worry about running out of air. Hazelton is actually correct (probably accidentally) that the amount of oxygen corresponding to a ten square foot space is probably sufficient (though marginal) to sustain an adult for about five hours, but the critical issue is not oxygen consumption, but carbon dioxide generation and accumulation. The OHD statement is correct in identifying carbon dioxide accumulation as a concern, but its conclusions are surprising, to say the least. Assuming an eight-foot ceiling (yielding eighty cubic feet per person) and a subject metabolic rate of 800 BTU/hr, after five hours the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (ppCO2) would be ~67 mm Hg (if the initial ppCO2 were zero). It cannot be understated: this is very high. (Note: 800 BTU/hr (3.36 kcal/min) is not unreasonable for a very excited person in a hot and humid enclosure with elevated carbon dioxide (more on that in a moment). For this case, a bare (but irresponsible) minimum might be 600 BTU/hr (corresponding to a ppCO2 level of 50 mm Hg after five hours). Consider that NASA Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) engineers typically assume a waking metabolic rate of 450 BTU/hr for moderate intravehicular activity, and this is with very physically efficient subjects (astronauts) not using major muscle groups (e.g., legs) in microgravity.) Keep in mind that the maximum operational limit for the Shuttle Orbiter is 7.6 mm Hg, and is actually lower for the International Space Station. The NASA Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC) for carbon dioxide is 10.0 mm Hg for a one-hour period. Similar values can be found among the literature of the various military branches. The NASA Bioastronautics Data Book (Second Edition, pp. 4849) indicates that after only 80 minutes, at a ppCO2 level of ~18 mm Hg, the subject can experience mental depression, headache, dizziness, nausea. At ~45 mm Hg (after 80 minutes), the subject experiences marked deterioration leading to dizziness and stupor, with inability to take steps for self preservation. The final state is unconsciousness. (The level in our case would not reach 45 mm Hg after 80 minutes, but the threshold of the aforementioned symptoms would be at a much lower CO2 level at the end of five hours.) Industry literature is similar. The W.E. Kuriger Associates web page titled Carbon Dioxide Fact Book, states that, Several studies have indicated that CO2 does not seriously impact human health until levels reach approximately 15,000 ppm [7.5 mm Hg]. At extremely high levels, i.e., 30,000 ppm [15 mm Hg] (these concentrations are usually never reached in a standard home), the symptoms can include nausea, dizziness, mental depression, shaking, visual disturbances and vomiting. At extremely high levels, loss of consciousness may occur. Finally, CO2 is an asphyxiate, a condition in which an extreme decrease in the amount of oxygen in the body, accompanied
[CTRL] Liars vs. Liars
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Liars vs. Liars by David Dieteman In thinking about the possible war with Iraq, one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not ordinary men and women who begin wars, but a very limited class of men and women: politicians. Unfortunately for the human race, and more specifically, for those unfortunate men, women and children living in Iraq, politicians are not known to have an affinity for truth-telling, and are very fond of calling one another liars. The White House web site has a helpful link to the provocatively titled document: Iraq: Apparatus of Lies. American national security adviser Condoleeza Rice has authored a piece provocatively titled: Why We Know Iraq is Lying. In this piece, Dr. Rice writes that: Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Clearly, any regime which participates in such unabashed plagiarism, by copying texts word-for-word, and presenting it as original text, is populated by liars. And yet Colin Powell's United Nations speech was based upon 12-year-old information which the British government plagiarized from a private research paper. As CNN reports, Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge, told a British television station that ten of the 19 pages were taken from an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a researcher in California. As Rangwala told CNN, The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old. The British government's response: We have learnt an important lesson. One would have thought that British government officials had learned about plagiarism, as well as outright acts of deception, a long time ago. Not to be flustered, the spokesman for the British Prime Minister sought to save the case for war by adding a bit of propaganda: this issue does not take away to any degree from the accuracy of the information in the report nor does it negate to any extent the core argument put forward that Iraq is involved in deliberate acts of deception. Preposterous. First, if the information reported by Colin Powell is 12 years old, it is not accurate. Second, notice that the spokesman claims the act of deception does not negate the core argument for war. This is a very different thing from claiming that the document affirmatively supports the American position. And yet that is precisely the claim which Colin Powell made to the United Nations. As CNN also reports, it is the plagiarized and outdated British document which was highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a 'fine paper...which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.' Please never mind that the document is based on information from the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Assuming for the sake of argument that Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi politicians are liars, shall we follow lying British and American politicians to war with such liars? Remember, Condoleeza Rice herself condemns as unabashed plagiarism the lifting of text word-for-word and presenting it as original text. This is precisely what the British government has acknowledged doing. And this is precisely the basis of Powell's speech to the U.N. In this regard, consider the Bush administration's stance of war at all costs in relation to the cheerleading, sycophantic, lap dog American media (sorry to be repetitive; there is a point to be made). As Nobel prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek notes in The Road to Serfdom (see Chapter 11 The End of Truth), If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to. (p. 168) George Bush and Jonah Goldberg repeatedly tell us that Americans are free people, do they not? Nothing to worry about here! The deception practiced by politicians comes with a terrible price, Hayek argues: The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda which we must now consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth. (p. 170; emphasis added) As Hayek continues, totalitarians must propagandize not only about values (e.g., placing the government above individuals), but about facts as well. The government's values must be connected to genuine values held
[CTRL] The Incident
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Incident by Harry Browne In 1939 England and France went to war with Germany. Franklin Roosevelt assured Winston Churchill privately that the United States would join England in its war, even as he reassured Americans publicly that their sons would never fight and die in a foreign war. Americans were strongly opposed to getting into the war. So strongly that it was obvious to Roosevelt that he could never fulfill his promises to Churchill unless someone attacked the United States. Since Hitler was trying very hard to avoid provoking a war with America, Roosevelt turned his attention to Japan especially after Japan and Germany signed a mutual defense treaty. Roosevelt's diplomats held secret negotiations with the Japanese demanding that the Japanese give up their conquered possessions in Southeast Asia, although the U.S. didn't make similar demands that Britain, France, and the Netherlands give up their possessions. Japan is an island country with virtually no natural resources of any note. It had been necessary to rely on trading with the colonies of Southeast Asia until the European colonial powers began monopolizing those resources. The Japanese leaders decided they had to establish colonies of their own by force, just as the European powers had. Roosevelt's only interest in the Japanese' problems was that these problems put Japan in a vulnerable position where its leaders might do something drastic which is what he wanted. He stepped up the pressure on the Japanese, prohibiting critical exports from America to Japan. Finally, it became obvious to the Japanese that war with America was inevitable. They knew they had practically no chance to win a war against the world's #1 industrial power. Their only hope lay in the possibility of destroying the American fleet at the outset. And so the Japanese kept negotiating with the Americans in hope of reaching a peaceful settlement while making plans to attack Pearl Harbor if the negotiations failed. Roosevelt made sure the negotiations did fail, and the attack came. That incident the Pearl Harbor attack caused the anti-war movement in America to collapse. Even Charles Lindbergh, the most public opponent of war, hurried to the recruiting office to enlist the day after Pearl Harbor. It was only years and decades later that the full truth came out piece by piece that the Americans had broken the Japanese diplomatic and military codes and knew the Japanese intentions, that the American military had made a secret agreement with the British and Dutch to go to war with Japan, that Roosevelt had told his cabinet prior to Pearl Harbor that we are at war; we now have to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot, that the American Chiefs of Staff had misled the Pearl Harbor commanders about the possibility of an attack on Pearl Harbor. (For a brief summary of this deceit, see http://www.independent.org/tii/news/001207Stinnett.html or http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html.) Vietnam After World War II and the Korean War stalemate, the American people were in no mood to go to war again. However, the American government had been engaged in a war against Vietnam both overtly and covertly. The war had started in 1945 when Vietnamese nationalists wanted independence from France and the French government resisted. The U.S. taxpayers financed nearly half the French side before the French threw in the towel. By that time Vietnam had been divided temporarily between the North, run by communist dictator Ho Chi Minh, and the South, run by non-communist dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. The war resumed soon afterward only now it was a civil war between the two parts of Vietnam. The U.S. aided the South, but the American public was still generally opposed to U.S. troops fighting in another foreign war. But in August 1964 an incident occurred. The American navy was covertly aiding South Vietnamese troops making commando raids in North Vietnam. The destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy were in the Gulf of Tonkin providing support when they reported being attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The U.S. retaliated with air strikes against North Vietnamese Naval bases and oil storage areas. Lyndon Johnson also used the incident to gain support for a Congressional resolution authorizing him to use all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. No one seemed interested in asking what the forces of the United States were doing in North Vietnam in the first place. Needless to say, it turned out that there had been no attack against the American destroyers, that the Johnson administration already had plans to widen the war, and that administration officials had used hazy, ambiguous reports from the Gulf of Tonkin to do what they had wanted to do anyway. (In 1970 Congress repealed the
[CTRL] The Latest Shuttle Disaster
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Latest Shuttle Disaster by John Bartel and Tom Coughlin The dismal economic record of the space shuttle is well known. The safety flaws in the shuttle's design are not as well known. When the first shuttle disaster hit seventeen years ago, we wrote the following letter in an effort to get a wider understanding of how dangerous the space shuttle is, and hopefully introduce some free market thinking. This letter was run in its entirety in the November 1986 edition of Physics Today, the general interest magazine of the American Physical Society. One other technical journal ran it in highly abbreviated form. As is typical in areas run by government, nothing has changed over the past seventeen years. Hopefully the second shuttle disaster will provide the impetus to ground the shuttle permanently and allow free market alternatives to flourish. Physics Today, November 1986 To the Editor: The recent tragic loss of the spac e shuttle Challenger has reopened many basic issues regarding our national space program. Many mildly enthusiastic supporters of the shuttle, and even some opponents, have been so moved by the loss as to advocate building a replacement shuttle to continue the original shuttle program. However, if we seek a suitable memorial to the brave individuals who perished in the shuttle accident, then we should learn from this disaster and not repeat previous mistakes. The place to start is with the design of the shuttle itself. NASA has recently released film of the shuttle launch that indicates signs of trouble some 15 seconds before Challenger exploded. Most discussions of this issue have focused on the decision not to monitor more closely the performance of the solid-fuel boosters. This misses the essential point. Even if the shuttle crew had known at the instant of launch that the shuttle was going to explode in little more than a minute they would still have died. The Shuttle has no safety margin at launch. Either everything works right or the crew goes down with the ship. The space shuttle is the first manned US space vehicle that has no provision for emergency escape during launch. The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs all recognized the great dangers and uncertainties in any propulsion system capable of boosting man into space and made explicit provision for the type of accident that blew Challenger apart. The decision was made, early in the shuttle design, to remove these safety precautions to meet payload, crew size and mission length requirements. Given the nature of both solid- and liquid-fuel rockets, the laws of probability guarantee that something would eventually go wrong either at the launchpad or during the boost phase. And given the rather incredible design choices made, it was inevitable that astronauts would die in either of these cases. It is possible to obtain a reasonable safety margin by returning to the equipment used in the first few shuttle launches. There the crew was limited to two astronauts to allow the installation of ejection mechanisms. Of course, this sacrifices one of the major goals of the shuttle, the ability to take payloads and mission specialists into orbit. Unfortunately, there is another safety problem that has no easy remedy. The problems with the insulating tiles are well known, and the potential for disaster if a tile is lost over a critical area of the shuttle reentry is obvious. What is not so well known is that such a disaster has almost occurred. One shuttle on the reentry came within seconds of burning through a main wing support due to loss of tiles. The failure of this support would have caused the shuttle to crash, killing all on board. Given the size of the shuttle, it is not feasible to return to the proven heat-resistant alloys used on previous manned space vehicles. Given the problems with keeping the tiles attached during launch and reentry, it is inevitable that despite NASA's best efforts a critical tile will someday fall off and another shuttle crew will go up in flames with their shuttle. If the shuttle were a reliable and economical way to get into space, then it might make sense to try to live with its inherently poor safety margins. Unfortunately the reliability and economic records of the shuttle are dismal. Its reliability is so questionable that even before the Challenger loss the Air Force was developing an expendable launch vehicle to supplement the balky shuttle. Another of the major goals of the shuttle was very rapid turnaround time. As for economics, the shuttle will never fly again without massive subsidies once again in stark contrast to the original NASA promise. The nation's space program has three alternatives. It can continue the shuttle program with whatever quick fixes are deemed necessary, it can develop alternatives to the shuttle, or it can leave the launch business altogether. Continuing with the shuttle means
[CTRL] Myths of Martin Luther King
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Myths of Martin Luther King by Marcus Epstein There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isnt deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians. This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman. Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how todays civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powells otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and youll read A letter from a Birmingham Jail as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as The Center for Equal Opportunity and the American Civil Rights Institute which claim to model themselves after King. Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since Kings death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his I Have a Dream speech. In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with Kings philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you dont mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book. Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by todays civil rights leadership. This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundations Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled Martin Luther Kings Conservative Mind, where he wrote, An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision. The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life. When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis. To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas. King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population. King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Cant Wait, he wrote, No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- MJ If Joe and Steve pay $1 in taxes, their burden is EQUAL. The Government REQUIRING Joe and Steve pay $1 in taxes is EQUITABLE. If Joe pays $1 and Steve pays $2, their burden is UNequal. The Government REQUIRING Joe to pay $1 and Steve pay $2 in taxes is INequitable. goldi Taking your example above, if Joe earns 1 thousand dollars a year and Steve earns 1 million dollars a year, yet both are required to pay $1 in taxes, how do you find that to be equitable? MJ The Government is requiring them to pay the same -- income has no bearing. What does equity in taxation have to do with income? Wealth? Joe and Steve go to Goldi's Diner for a piece of pie. Should Steve pay MORE for the pie than Joe? Should Joe pay MORE than Steve? goldi Also, how do you propose it should be handled if Joe doesn't have the $1 to pay? I'm curious... MJ What happens NOW? Thew's Tax Charity would aid Joe in meeting his fair share of taxes (which would necessarily be low -- approaching zero ... while an abundance of wealth would necessarily exist -- making those in Joe's situation necessarily few). Regard$, --MJ Probably not many realize how the rapid centralization of government in America has fostered a kind of organized pauperism. The big industrial states contribute most of the Federal revenues and the bureaucracy distributes it in the pauper states wherever it will do the most good in a political way. The same thing takes place within the states themselves. In fostering pauperism it also by necessary consequence fosters corruption. ... All this is due to the iniquitous theory of taxation with which this country has been so thoroughly indoctrinated -- that a man should be taxed according to his ability to pay, instead of according to the value of the privileges he obtains from government. -- Albert Jay Nock A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- MJ 'Need' -- real or imaginary -- has NOTHING to do with equity. Thew The sad thing is that you don't see that as the problem. MJ That a WORD means what it states and not something else? Regard$, --MJ To COMPEL a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. --Thomas Jefferson A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- MJ 'Need' -- real or imaginary -- has NOTHING to do with equity. Thew The sad thing is that you don't see that as the problem. MJ That a WORD means what it states and not something else? Thew We were not discussing the WORD equitable, until I had to explain to you carefully that the word was not synonymous with Equal. (that's why we have 2 different words.) MJ I made no claim that equitable was synonymous with equal. Thew We were discussing behaviors of the state - and its responsibility. MJ A LEGITIMATE State is a collective application of the individual's right to his own life. Any other 'State' merely provides advantage to some at the expense of others. I am not certain what 'responsibilities' you imagine apply, but Thew It is not JUST or FAIR (equitable) that a greater burden is placed on those who can least shoulder it, while those who can best do so, use their resources to ensure they do not have to, while the same resources could be used more EQUITABLY, especially in the name of some fictional SAMENESS (equality), that is really just a cover for lack of compassion for the other, or the society they are riding atop. MJ Nonsense. I have no problem with YOU voluntarily providing YOUR resources to those YOU deem in need. I do, however, have a problem with YOU *FORCING* me to provide MY resources to those YOU deem in need. Of course you need your bifurcation in order to hide your lust for enslavement and theft. What is not JUST or FAIR (equitable) is that a greater burden is placed on some, while others are exempted. ALL individuals should be treated EQUAL(ly) by Government. This is the ONLY method that is EQUITABLE. After all one is supposed to have EQUALITY under the law. Thew Compassion for others is one of the few legitimate uses of government I can imagine. MJ Stealing from some citizens is not compassion. Thew We can do better that coldhearted slavery to the bottom line - as a nation, as individuals, and as humanity. MJ Continuing with your bifurcation ... Thew Equal is not equitable. eq·ui·ta·ble Marked by or having equity; just and impartial. e·qual Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another. MJ If Joe and Steve pay $1 in taxes, their burden is EQUAL. The Government REQUIRING Joe and Steve pay $1 in taxes is EQUITABLE. If Joe pays $1 and Steve pays $2, their burden is UNequal. The Government REQUIRING Joe to pay $1 and Steve pay $2 in taxes is INequitable. Regard$, --MJ When a private enterprise fails, it is closed down. When a government enterprise fails, it is expanded. -- Milton Friedman A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- Thew Willie - yes any tax reduction plan will obviously benefit the person who earns more than one who earns less. The point is to try to make a plan that at least attempts to help those who need it most, rather than one that barely helps the worst off, and hugely benefits the top. MJ Why? Why not treat ALL Citizens EQUALLY? Why should one individual pay MORE or LESS than another? Thew The republicans keep saying that the dividend thang is fair because 50% of Americans own stocks. That is really only a partial statistic. For the person who owns 1 shares of Pepsi this is a great break. For the person who owns one share of Pepsi it does not help then at all. If you crunch the numbers over 90% of the benefit of this goes to under 10% of the population - the ten percent that least needs the help. MJ sigh Many Americans -- perhaps MORE than 50% -- have retirement instruments that fall under this DOUBLE TAXATION stock problem. Regard$, --MJ I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means -- except by getting off his back. -- Leo Tolstoy A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- Jim Our tax code is based on From each according to his ability. when it comes tax reductions, some seem to be saying to each according to his need. When you unmask it, ... you see that taxation is highwaymanry [highway robbery] made respectable by custom, thievery made moral by law; there isn't a decent thing to be said for it, as to origin, principle or its effects on the social order. Man's adjustment to this iniquity has permitted its force to gain momentum like an unopposed crime wave, and the resulting social devastation is what the socialists have long predicted and prayed for ... In principle this income tax, as the founders of the Constitution realized, is more vicious than any other, for it is a direct attack on the sanctity of private property. ... If you follow through on the principle involved, you come to the conclusion that the individual's right to property is a temporary and revocable stewardship. The Jeffersonian ideal of inalienable rights is liquidated, and substituted for it is the Marxist concept of state supremacy. -- Frank Chodorov A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- Thew Willie - yes any tax reduction plan will obviously benefit the person who earns more than one who earns less. The point is to try to make a plan that at least attempts to help those who need it most, rather than one that barely helps the worst off, and hugely benefits the top. MJ Why? Why not treat ALL Citizens EQUALLY? Why should one individual pay MORE or LESS than another? Thew Because EQUAL is not the same as EQUITABLE. MJ Hmmm ... eq·ui·ty The state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair. Something that is just, impartial, and fair. eq·ui·ta·ble Marked by or having equity; just and impartial. One is HAVING the other. Oh well. Thew A family that struggles to feed and clothe its children has more need for tax relief than someone with 3 billion dollars in the bank. Because a person with 3 billion dollars can afford to support the country s/he is living in to a greater extent and not suffer, than the person who has to choose between chicken for dinner or shoes for their children. MJ This has NOTHING to do with equity, equitable or equal. Why do you believe the Person with 3 billion dollars should be FORCED to take responsibility for the 'family' that chose to have children it could not afford? Perhaps the TAX BURDEN is simply to great. My questions remains unaddressed: Why not treat ALL Citizens EQUALLY? Why should one individual pay MORE or LESS than another? Regard$, --MJ Probably not many realize how the rapid centralization of government in America has fostered a kind of organized pauperism. The big industrial states contribute most of the Federal revenues and the bureaucracy distributes it in the pauper states wherever it will do the most good in a political way. The same thing takes place within the states themselves. In fostering pauperism it also by necessary consequence fosters corruption. ... All this is due to the iniquitous theory of taxation with which this country has been so thoroughly indoctrinated -- that a man should be taxed according to his ability to pay, instead of according to the value of the privileges he obtains from government. -- Albert Jay Nock A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- Thew Thinking society can be more equitable does not make one a communist. MJ There is NOTHING 'equitable' about treating people differently. Regard$, --MJ From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F.A. Hayek A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] MRC Alert: Bush's Tax Plan 'Gives the Most to the Rich'
-Caveat Lector- Thew Thinking society can be more equitable does not make one a communist. MJ There is NOTHING 'equitable' about treating people differently. Thew You mean all people in all situations have the same needs at the same times? What a load of crock. And by crock , I mean rank horseshit. All people do not need the same thing, so there is nothing EQUITABLE about treating everybody in the exact same manner. MJ 'Need' -- real or imaginary -- has NOTHING to do with equity. Regard$, --MJ From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F.A. Hayek A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Reinstate the Draft
-Caveat Lector- AMENDMENT XIII Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Regard$, --MJ Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? -- Daniel Webster A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Reinstate the Draft
-Caveat Lector- Joshua I'm glad we can agree on something here. Unfortunately, because we don't have democracy here, it's not up to us if we want or don't want Empire. MJ Hmmm ... we have (supposedly) a Constitutional Republic which says NOTHING about an Empire ... although if 50%+1 chose Empire in a 'democracy' ... Joshua Empire it is and empire it will be. Our job is to create wealth through labor for the the Rich to pay for mercenary armies to protect their investments and steal other people's natural resources. Then we can get old. Get sick. And die. Capirtalism is a beautiful thing. MJ More ignorance espoused by the desirous of Socialism and all its ills -- better to label it something else. Regard$, --MJ There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises J2 A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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 A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Trial of Lott
-Caveat Lector- EXCELLENT! ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Trial of Lott by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Following the media campaign against Lott, many people were astonished by the Senator's willingness to jettison all political principle for the sake of saving his status as Majority Leader. Why would a conservative Republican suddenly find himself embracing the full panoply of the left-wing racial agenda and flog himself so mercilessly? Consider what a Chinese political prisoner under Maoist Communism had to say about the role of self criticism, denunciation, and confession: It doesn't take a prisoner long to lose his self-confidence. Over the years Mao's police have perfected their interrogation method ... . Their aim is not so much to make you invest nonexistent crimes, but to make you accept your ordinary life, as you led it as rotten and sinful and worthy of punishment, since it did not accord with the police's conception of how life should be led. The basis of their success is despair, the prisoner's perception that he is utterly and hopelessly and forever at the mercy of his jailers. He has no defense, since his arrest is absolute and unquestionable proof of his guilt. [The Black Book of Communism, p. 510] Such means are the tried and true method of assuring the supremacy of an ideology. Lott was accused of segregationism and racism for saying something kind about the presidential bid of Senator Strom Thurmond in 1948. Mostly likely, his comments reflected an affection for the attempt by the South to resist federal encroachments against the liberties and rights of the states after the Second World War. But you would never know that by listening to either Lott or his critics. As under Mao, the accused was already guilty as charged so he had only one right: to repent of his errors. If he appeared insufficiently repentant, the attacks were renewed until the accused was completely destroyed. Even at the outset, it was clear that no effort would be made to understand the deeper issues involved about the history or political issues. There would be no tolerance for anyone who might say that Thurmond's bid reflected a just political aspiration, that his States Rights Party might have had a point to make that extended beyond race hatred. The thousand-year struggle for liberty made possible by decentralized political orders was swept away or completely recast in light of racial politicsas if the United States had not been founded as anything but a unified state, and as if this conclusion were never in question. No, there was one goal at the outset of Lott's trial: extract a confession, an apology, and bring about what the Chinese communists called rectification: a visible sign that one accepts the reality of one's ideological apostasy, and declares publicly that the regime is right and you are wrong. Anything short of that is regarded as a personal indictment and further evidence that you, as the enemy, must be vanquished. Even so, perhaps it is worth examining the deeper historical and political issues. It is not true that supporting the Dixiecrats in 1948 necessarily reflected a racial bias against blacks. The real issue was not race; it was the place of freedom and federalism -- concepts that are apparently not understood by the national press or by any of Lott's critics right and left--in the post-war period. Both parties were split on the direction they would take after long years of depression and war. The industrial planning of the New Deal was shocking enough, but the wartime planning of the Second World War was as bad as the fascist governments the US opposed on the battlefront. The crucial political question concerned the direction the country would take in the future -- pushing headlong into the welfare-warfare state or returning to founding principles -- just as the country faced this same question in 1989 at the end of the Cold War. In 1948, the key domestic question concerned the uses of federal power for purposes of social planning and redistribution. On the international front, the Marshall Plan had already been passed, shocking many in both parties who had a principled opposition to foreign aid and international management on this scale. And Truman and his advisers were already embroiling the US in a Cold War against Russia, a government that had been a close US ally only a few years earlier. Many Democrats had hoped that FDR would be an aberration -- a man who betrayed his 1932 election promises (for a balanced budget, for limited government, for lower taxes, for peace) for personal power. A strong faction hoped for a return to the older style Democratic Party that favored free trade, decentralization, peace, and other Jeffersonian policies. Harry Truman, meanwhile, was untested by any presidential election until 1948. It was unclear until the convention that year which part of the party
[CTRL] Worldwide press freedom index
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Worldwide press freedom index Rank CountryNote 1 Finland0,50 - Iceland0,50 - Norway 0,50 - Netherlands0,50 5 Canada 0,75 6 Ireland1,00 7 Germany1,50 - Portugal 1,50 - Sweden 1,50 10 Denmark3,00 11 France 3,25 12 Australia 3,50 - Belgium3,50 14 Slovenia 4,00 15 Costa Rica 4,25 - Switzerland4,25 17 United States 4,75 18 Hong Kong 4,83 19 Greece 5,00 20 Ecuador5,50 21 Benin 6,00 - United Kingdom 6,00 - Uruguay6,00 24 Chile 6,50 - Hungary6,50 26 South Africa 7,50 - Austria7,50 - Japan 7,50 29 Spain 7,75 - Poland 7,75 31 Namibia8,00 32 Paraguay 8,50 33 Croatia8,75 - El Salvador8,75 35 Taïwan 9,00 How the index was drawn up This index measures the amount of freedom journalists and the media have in each country and the efforts made by governments to see that press freedom is respected. Reporters Without Borders sent out a questionnaire based on the main criteria for such freedom and asking for details of directs attacks on journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical assaults and threats) and on the media (censorship, confiscation, searches and pressure). It also asked about the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violations. The questionnaire recorded the legal environment for the media (such as punishment for press offences, a state monopoly in some areas and the existence of a regulatory body) and the behaviour of the state towards the public media and the foreign press. It also noted the main threats to the free flow of information on the Internet. Reporters Without Borders has not just taken into account the excesses of the state but also those of armed militias, underground organisations and pressure groups that can be serious threats to press freedom. In addition, the state does not always use all its resources to fight the impunity the perpetrators of such violence very often have. The questionnaire was sent to people with a real knowledge of the press freedom situation in one or more countries, such as local journalists or foreign correspondents living in the country, researchers, legal experts, specialists on a region and the researchers of the Reporters Without Borders International Secretariat. The countries included in the index are those about which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from several independent sources. Other countries have not been included for lack of reliable information. Countries that got equal scores have been ranked in alphabetical order. This index of press freedom is a portrait of the situation based on events between September 2001 and October 2002 . It does not take account of all human rights violations, only those that affect press freedom. Neither is it an indicator of the quality of a country's media. Reporters Without Borders defends press freedom without regard to the content of the media, so any ethical or professional departures from the norm have not been taken into account. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http://archive.jab.org/ctrl;listserv.aol.com/ A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/ctrl;listserv.aol.com/ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Limitations of Where one seeks to begin History
-Caveat Lector- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/10/09/fior ewhoops.DTL A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] 9 New Signs Democracy is Dying
-Caveat Lector- What, prey tell, does this nonsense have to do with mob rule? Regard$, --MJ We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship. -- Hamilton A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] 9 New Signs Democracy is Dying
-Caveat Lector- MJ What, prey tell, does this nonsense have to do with mob rule? thew Nothing. It has to do with autocratic dismantlement of our country. MJ The 'advertisement' claimed 9 signs Mob Rule is dying. We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship. -- Hamilton thew Nice quote. The banker thinks that democracy shouldn't be in the hands of the people. Funny thing is it's the accumulation of wealth by the upper 1% of society that has been the greatest threat to democracy, with it's creation of a de facto aristocracy - the aristocracy of our monied corporations, as Jefferson put it. MJ Aaaah the Jefferson quote that has no citation coupled with extreme ignorance. thew Why not just quote John Jay: The people who own the country ought to govern it. MJ Why not just leave everyone the hell alone? Regard$, --MJ All liberty consists only in being subject to no man's will, and nothing denotes a slave but a dependence on the will of others. -- Algernon Sidney A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Conquerors Shifting Ground
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Conqueror's Shifting Ground by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Following Iraq's decision to allow an unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors to that country, a rational person might have acknowledged that such a humiliating capitulation represented at least the slightest indication of progress toward satisfying U.S. demands. The White House, however, immediately dismissed the offer, declaring: This is not a matter of inspections. Not one inch was conceded not that this was a welcome step forward, not that it could be the beginning of a peaceful resolution to the crisis, nothing. For reasons that Jude Wanniski and other observers have pointed out, alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq's possession or that country's defiance of the United Nations cannot possibly be the real reasons for the Bush administration's belligerence toward Iraq, which is why it is so amusing to read a neoconservative punditry so at pains to defend these arguments. (Is any invasion of Israel planned for having defied the United Nations for 35 years over its occupations of the West Bank and Gaza?) It is obvious enough that nothing the Iraqi government could have said would have satisfied the White House. Thus I have conjured up the following scenario: Wire service, September 21, 2002: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein today put on the table a still bolder proposal: he will allow weapons inspectors from any country anywhere in the world full access to any site in Iraq they wish to investigate, and at Iraqi expense will be permitted to comb every inch of Iraqi soil for evidence of illicit weapon construction. The White House, however, is dismissing the offer as yet another example of Iraqi stonewalling. 'This isn't about permitting inspection of every inch of Iraqi soil on demand,' a White House spokesman said. 'This is about forcing Saddam Hussein to be forthcoming about his weapons programs and to come clean before the international community.' Wire service, September 26, 2002: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein put an additional offer on the table today: he will, again at Iraqi expense, authorize the deployment of a series of surveillance satellites to be used by the United States and any country that is interested, to keep constant watch over any Iraqi installation the international community indicates. Surveillance aircraft will also be permitted free access to the skies of Iraq, so that the development of any potentially illicit weapons may be monitored and prevented. 'This isn't about forcing Saddam Hussein to be forthcoming about his weapons programs,' said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. 'It is about transforming an irresponsible and despotic regime into one that will obey the will of the international community and the mandate of the United Nations.' Wire service, October 7, 2002: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, faced with overwhelming American intransigence, is now offering to establish a coalition government consisting of himself and officials from neutral countries designated by the United Nations. Diplomatic historians and political scientists around the world were unanimous in declaring such a move by Hussein to be absolutely without precedent in the history of international affairs. The White House, however, remained unimpressed. 'This isn't about transforming Saddam's regime into one that will obey the United Nations,' a White House source said. 'It's about ensuring that Iraq will be absolutely unable to threaten its neighbors or even the United States with weapons of mass destruction.' Wire service, October 14, 2002: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made today what he says is his final offer. For the next three months, he says, every Iraqi citizen will lie prostrate on the ground and will remain motionless, with the exception of three meal allowances, which will be administered by UN personnel at Iraqi expense. Otherwise the entire Iraqi population will remain absolutely still for a full three months while UN officials take any action they consider reasonable or necessary to ensure that Iraq is not a danger to her neighbors. When asked for his opinion of this most recent Iraqi proposal, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters that the President was skeptical. 'Saddam must be forthcoming and cooperative, and his persistent stonewalling and defiance are only trying the patience of the international community,' Fleischer said. 'The President has made his position very clear. The peace of the world, from New Zealand to Canada, is menaced as long as Saddam is alive.' Wire service, October 15, 2002: In a surprise move today, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein stepped up his diplomatic offensive, and said he would in fact commit suicide on live television if that was what it would take to forestall an invasion of his country. Physicians approved by the United Nations would perform all the necessary tests
[CTRL] George Bush I: The Man Who Helped Make September 11 a Reality
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] George Bush I: The Man Who Helped Make September 11 a Reality by William L. Anderson As Americans embarrassingly stumble into a mawkish remembrance of those awful attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a year ago, I would like to take time to honor (if that is an appropriate word) the man who more than anyone else made those attacks a reality: George H.W. Bush. While conservatives blame Bill Clinton and Democrats still are looking to find if the present George W. Bush Administration was culpable (it was), I would like to turn to the real source, the man whose legacy we seem to have forgotten. If anything, conservatives claim that the only problem of Bush I was the failure to take out Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. Actually, I would like to question whether or not there should have been a war in the first place and point out that the Gulf War, for all of the supposed glory it brought the U.S. Armed Forces, was a huge disaster that continues to this day to have awful repercussions upon much of the world. To understand the magnitude of Bush I's folly, we need to return to 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in early August. The previous fall, the communist regimes of Eastern Europe had fallen and the once-formidable U.S.S.R. was beginning to break up, as the Cold War had ended. For people who had lived their entire lives under the shadow of all that the struggle between East and West had been, this was a wonderful and heady moment. With the end of the threat of nuclear war between the U.S.S.R. and the USA having ended, for a brief moment, it seemed that prospects for a larger peace could not have been greater that is until that fateful day when Iraq invaded Kuwait. In another era, this invasion would have gone unnoticed, as the actions of one desert regime against another would not have had any effect upon the world scene. However, because of the fact that a huge portion of the world's crude oil comes from the Persian Gulf region, that was enough to make politicians panic, as people began to assess the possibilities of Saddam Hussein having control over that oil. The U.S. Government dealings with Hussein himself provide an informative study of how not to engage in foreign policy. During the 1980s, when Iraq was at war against Iran, which had held a large number of Americans as hostage in the last year of Jimmy Carter's administration, Hussein was seen as a U.S. ally. Like the Muslims who hold to the belief that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the U.S. Government courted Hussein as a moderate who could stand as a bulwark in the region against the fanaticism of the Iranian Islamic regime. After all, Iraq was a secular country, despite its overwhelming Muslim population, and there was a thriving Christian community there. Even when an Iraqi warplane attacked a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf in 1987, killing dozens of U.S. sailors, the U.S. Government, then under Ronald Reagan, accepted Iraq's apology for its mistake in much the same way the U.S. Government told the public that the deadly 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty also was a mistake. Even when Hussein's armed forces used poison gas against Iranian soldiers, Iraq was still regarded as a moderate regime in State Department language. In July 1990, however, it all changed. After the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, indicated to Hussein that the Bush Administration would not object to an invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqis took the U.S. at its word and sent its armies over the border, meeting almost no resistance. (At the time, there was a legitimate dispute at the Iraq-Kuwait border involving the Kuwaiti practice of drilling sideways under the border to extract oil from pools in Iraq. No one seems to have remembered that this was Hussein's main gripe, although Iraqis never have regarded Kuwait, which once was part of Iraq, as a legitimate state in the first place.) After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush demanded that the Iraqis leave at once. Saddam, once our ally, all of a sudden was a demon, a threat to world peace and someone who was obsessed with obtaining and building weapons of mass destruction. The Saudi Arabian Royal Family also privately expressed fear that Saddam (who probably was more popular in Saudi Arabia than the corrupt rulers of the royal family) would turn his military might towards them. The Saudis, as well as the Israelis and others who saw this as a golden opportunity for a U.S. military response, began to raise the specter of Iraq controlling the world's largest single oil source. Journalists began to write about the possible reappearance of the dreaded gas lines, forgetting that the chaos at the gas pumps in the USA during the 1970s was the direct result of government price controls on domestic crude oil and gasoline. The prospect of the U.S. Armed Forces being able to set up permanent bases also appealed to a number of Democrats
[CTRL] Uncertainties abound in pinpointing the real enemy
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Uncertainties abound in pinpointing the real enemy By ERIC MARGOLIS PARIS -- A year after the 9/11 attacks on the United States, we know remarkably little about the attackers, or about who really organized the complex operation that seems well beyond the capabilities of amateur terrorists. Among the major questions: The suicide attackers were apparently middle-class Saudis, though some identities are still in question. They were quiet, well-educated, westernized technical students living in Hamburg, Germany, whose links to the bin Laden Afghan-based al-Qaida remain uncertain. Part of the attack planning was done in Spain. The men who piloted the doomed aircraft were trained at American flying schools. Some may have briefly visited Afghanistan, but none resided there or were known al-Qaida members. Were they sent by Osama bin Laden? Bin Laden lauded the attacks that murdered 3,000 civilians, but denied involvement, though a trail of circumstantial evidence leads to him. Al-Qaida is portrayed by the U.S. government and media as an octopoid, world-wide conspiracy with thousands of members. In fact, Qaida - which began as a guest-house for holy warriors during the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle in Afghanistan, never numbered more than 1,000 men, and usually much less. Today, there are probably only 300 or so hardline Qaida members, scattered mainly in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Europe. But there are numerous other underground, militant Islamic groups that align themselves from time to time with Qaida, or draw inspiration from bin Laden's fiery preachings. Such fighting groups as Egyptian Jihad, Gamma Islamiya, and Algeria's Armed Islamic Groups, have formed a loose anti-American/anti-Israel alliance of convenience. But other Islamic groups, notably Lebanon's Hezbollah, have nothing to do with al-Qaida. Nor do Iraq and Syria, whose rulers have been targets of bin Laden's wrath for a decade. Taliban and a variety of Muslim resistance groups - Kashmiri independence fighters, anti-communist insurgents from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Filipino Moros, and Uighurs fighting China's ethnic absorption of Eastern Turkestan (Chinese Sinjiang), have all been lumped together as Qaida. Some of these Islamic International Brigades were trained in old Afghan camps originally funded by CIA. Others went through two service support and commando training camps run by al-Qaida - a sort of Islamic version of Ft. Bragg, home of the U.S. Green Berets. The biggest camps were not run by Qaida, but by ISI - Pakistani intelligence - preparing holy warriors, or jihadis, for combat in Indian-held Kashmir. Many of the 1,000 prisoners captured and murdered by Uzbek forces of Gen. Rashid Dostam - assisted by U.S. Special Forces - were from the international brigades. President George Bush claimed America was attacked because the assailants hated democracy and America's way of life. He describes terrorism as pure evil, unrelated to any specific political events. This is nonsense. The U.S. was attacked because of its deep involvement in Mideast affairs, and total backing for Israel's iron-fisted repression of the Palestinians. In July, Washington agreed to Israel's request to replenish huge amounts of heavy munitions used in crushing the Palestinian intifada. These included $80 million US worth of TOW heavy anti-tank missiles to be fired at buildings, tank shells packed with thousands of razor-sharp flechettes, and Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. Israel reportedly used more heavy munitions against Palestinians in one week last April than it expended in the previous 20 years. American money and weapons kill Arabs, Arabs kill Americans. Bin Laden arrogated to himself the right to champion revenge against the United States for the bloodbath in Palestine. There will be no peace in America, bin Laden warned, until there is peace in Palestine. These frightening words were never widely reported in the North American media, which is filled with uninformed commentators explaining why Muslims are inherently bloodthirsty or anti-western. America's virtual military occupation of Saudi Arabia, its punishment of Iraq that caused at least 500,000 civilian deaths, and Bush's planned jihad against Iraq have enraged the entire Islamic world against the United States. There is little doubt more attacks against American targets will be coming. Such is the cost of empire. Did the 9/11 perpetrators foresee the immense damage they would inflict on the United States? Besides the 3,000 Americans murdered, $70 billion in property losses; $10 billion so far of airline losses; insurance rates across the U.S. soaring by up to 300%. 9/11 helped puncture the stock market tech bubble that brought $3 trillion in equity losses that cost 160,000 jobs. The next attack on the U.S. may be designed to cause more economic mayhem rather than kill people, targeting telecommunications nodes,
[CTRL] The Empire Was: Case Method for Achieving a Peace Treaty ...
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Empire Was: Case Method for Achieving a Peace Treaty Between Saddam Husseins Iraq these United States by Alan Turin The Empire Was. We knew someday Americas empire would end. The end is at hand. An empire must be able to project power at a steep discount relative to its possessions or outside challengers. Once the steep discount for power projection cost is gone, in time, [when not if] challengers emerge, from within the realm, outside or both. The signs have been there for a while. Some mark the fall of Saigon as the sign others the ouster from Lebanon. C. Northcote Parkinson in his The Law and the Profits used taxes as a measure. Once States consume more than a third of national income they began international decline. For myself the twenty-two months from the Berlin Walls collapse to the failed coup in the Soviet Union marked the end. In that short time the U.S. fought two wars: a small one with Panama and a larger one with Iraq. Panama and Iraq were U.S. client states that went renegade. Only against tiny Panama did the U.S. win. Challenges from within the realm began. Since that watershed moment the U.S. has: o Intervened in Somalia only to be forced out by native guerilla action. o Invaded Haiti [a military joke] to restore democracy. Haitians today get political asylum as democracy and its allied virtues are not firmly held. o Waged an air war in the Balkans and have stayed to keep the peace. Serbias former leader, indicted for war crimes, has effectively argued his case. He may win. o U.S. forces are in harms way in the Philippines [literally a former colony]. o Near the Iraq border the U.S. is giving diplomatic cover to the Russians who are suppressing their own peripheral challengers. o Red Cathay got the U.S. to identify a separatist, dissident group as a terrorist organization. o Afghan President [proconsul?] Karzai was almost assassinated despite U.S. bodyguards. U.S. bodyguards? Karzai cant be certain of Afghans. Can we? How secure is Our Man in Kabul if he cant trust Afghans? Are China, Russia and the Philippines supporting war against Iraq? No. NATO has voted no. The U.N., of which the U.S. is a charter member, permanent member of the Security Council, can expect a veto by China, France or Russia. Or they could all vote no. Expending blood and treasure to achieve zero diplomatic results is a sign of an empire in decline. Steep decline. Look back to October 1956. President Eisenhower had twin foreign problems. Hungary revolted from Soviet rule counting on NATO support. England, France Israel invaded Egypt to regain the Suez Canal. Eisenhower felt betrayed by the three, as they had assured him they would act in concert with the U.S. The Soviets bitterly denounced the Anglo-French-Israeli actions to take diplomatic pressure off of them for Hungary. Eisenhower ordered an oil embargo against the three and had the Treasury sell their currencies. His action forced them to pull back. That was imperial action: at a trifling cost to the U.S. Eisenhower got the three to heel. An empire must be able to project power at a steep discount relative to its possessions or outside challengers. Imagine the U.S. today ordering a sell-off of foreign reserves to pressure allies to join, or at least acquiesce, a war with Iraq. Add an embargo of U.S. oil exports [U.S. oil exports?] also. It would be a fiasco. We would face an oil embargo. Add in a dollar sell-off to boot. Double-dip recession? Try, bent tire rim in a pothole, then into a ravine, panic. Which is the point: the [American] Empire was. Trouble: President Bush is in denial of U.S. power capacity. Rejecting an aspect of ones persona can hurt the denier, his family, friends and even those with whom he interacts. Denial, in a leader of an empire, is deadly. This isnt to say that the U.S. couldnt invade Iraq. Recent war games proved the U.S., virtually unassisted by allies, could beat Iraqi forces. Unless the Iraqis fight as a retired U.S. Marine did at the same war games thwarting the invasion: which meant Iraq won the war. To say the Iraqis could not fight that way is a species of denial. The Case for a Peace Treaty Between Saddam Husseins Iraq these United States. The general principle of U.S. Mideast policy is to support a balance of power so that no one regime controls the flow of oil. Second, to maintain diplomatic relations with all parties so as to have access and influence among them. When Israel was founded this complicated the policy as the U.S. chose to be a guarantor of an Israeli state which was opposed by Arab states. Remember Israel has had conventional wars with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and today has a peace, albeit a cold one, with them. Israels main military activity has been anti-guerilla actions. Most anti-Israeli guerillas come from dispossessed Palestinians of
[CTRL] If you have dignity, the terrorists have won
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] If you have dignity, the terrorists have won The Cheesification of 9-11-02 by Ted Rall NEW YORK--Are you the kind of person who believes that attaching a plastic American flag to your SUV makes a major patriotic statement? If so, you're no doubt anticipating the looming anniversary of the September 11 attacks with the enthusiasm of a nine-year-old on Christmas morning. Then there's the rest of us. Don't get the rest of us wrong. We love America too. But we are understandably tense as we approach what is likely to be the greatest orgy of cheesy sentimentality, naked political opportunism and rank corporate necrophilia in this country's history. Well before the millennium, we Americans had already created a consumer and political culture so simultaneously compelling and appalling that other people wanted to kill us. To that tawdry tradition add the self-pity, sanctimoniousness and self-congratulations that have characterized the last year, filter them through the cynical minds of a fiendish array of politicians and corporate marketers looking to capitalize on the television event of the century, and we're set for a world class schmaltzfest. By the end of 9-11-02, you may wish Osama had killed you. Boston's Logan International Airport, for example, has scheduled an unintentionally ironic memorial gesture at 8:46 a.m.--the time when the first jet struck the World Trade Center. For one minute planes will not be permitted to take off or land. Given that Logan's crappy security allowed two of the four planes to be hijacked in the first place, one might expect the Massachusetts Port Authority to come up with a more appropriate sign of respect for the victims--say, hiring pe ople smarter than stones to scan baggage correctly. But no. A runway of briefly stalled planes will have to do. Here in New York, corporations are planning to celebrate the second Wednesday in September with an array of gleefully gauche gestures. According to managing consultant Andrea Eisenberg, many companies plan to allow employees to come to work late(perhaps since only employees who arrived before 9 a.m. died in the attacks) and will display the American flag (never mind that many corporations have moved their HQ to Caribbean tax havens). Also look for a personal statement by the CEO or office head, delivered in person (hey--they can announce the latest round of layoffs at the same time!). One business is naming conference rooms after employees who were lost on 9-11. Don't laugh--they could have been storage closets. Or fire exits. Naturally, most Americans will experience this day unlike any other the same way they experience all the others--while watching television. The more mystifying programming offerings include a repeatedly-broadcast three-minute Blue Man Group video about scraps of paper found in Brooklyn that blew over Ground Zero, an ESPN special about the FDNY football team and post-Taliban sports (!) and ABC Family's griefsploitation piece Love Legacy: The Babies of 9-11, which takes a look at the pregnant wives left widowed on that day. Check your local listings. Fortunately, those who stare at books instead of screens will not be left out of Cheezathon 2002. The most anticipated September 11 book is the latest installment in that kitsch masterwork, Chicken Soup for the Soul of America. Start with ten thousand Afghan civilians, bomb into mulch, stir with processed plutonium from spent daisy-cutters, and voilà--the dead are avenged! Of course, mondo memorial madness would not be complete without the biggest cheese of all. George W. Bush will spend the day in quiet contemplation as he streaks from one disaster site to another, beginning at the White at 8:46 a.m. with--you guessed it--a minute of silence. He only has a minute, because then he's off to the Pentagon, the crash site near Shanksville, Pennsylvania and Ground Zero in New York City, where he'll appear at 4:30 p.m. (Memo to Osama: That's disinformation. Neither Bush nor the entire U.S. Congress will be in NYC that day.) Generalissimo El Busho caps off his madcap day of high-speed mourning with a televised speech at 9:01 p.m. (I assume a lucky advertiser paid big bucks for the 9 p.m. slot). I think it will be a reminder of the importance of liberty, promised Ari Fleischer, assuming a dignified tone, promised, and how our United States stands strong throughout the world in promoting liberty. I, for one, am anxious to hear how Bush's post-9-11 policies, which involve sucking up to brutal dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia while plotting a coup against the democratically-elected president of Venezuela, promote liberty throughout the world. For my money, the most gloriously over-the-top moment of this gloriously garish spectacle will occur in a city that had nothing to do with 9-11 but is anxious to get in on the grieving. In Los Angeles, residents of West
[CTRL] Uncle Sam's a Bigger Bully Than Saddam
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Uncle Sam's a Bigger Bully Than Saddam by James Ridgeway Spun through the gears of Bush's PR juggernaut, Saddam Hussein becomes the subhuman demon incarnate. Saddam will terrorize usand not just our troops, but our civilians. He, or the terrorists he shelters in Iraq, will wipe out our cities with nuclear bombs, poison our schools and subways with bioweapons, cut off our water supplies, threaten our hospitals, strangle our economy. We'd better get him before he gets us. Let's use any means short of nuclear attack, or maybe we'll resort to that, too. But by Bush's own standards, America is the true global bully, with a record not just of perceived threats but of action. During the Gulf War, we bombed Iraq's cities. We took out transportation, communication, and power facilities. Our push for long-term sanctions rendered a generation unable to obtain basic vaccines and left a nation thirsting for clean water, a situation the UN says has resulted in the deaths of well over 500,000 small children. And a decade earlier, in the 1980s, the U.S. government fully supported Iraq's use of chemical warfare against Muslim fundamentalists in Iran. In the end, we haven't so much miscast Saddam as the bad guy as covered over our own heinous acts against innocent men, women, and children. Now a Bush-led White House is again preparing to use every effort against Saddam's militaryand more generally against the civilian population. The average citizen of Iraq remains vulnerable, having never recovered from the Gulf War. The infrastructure is still in ruins. There are no seeds to grow crops, no fertilizer, no pesticides. This year's drought has made everything worse. But all of this suits Vice President Dick Cheney real fine. He's stumping again for blowing away Saddam, showing the same bluster as when he trumpeted the American victory in 1991. Speaking to reporters in July of that year, then secretary of defense Cheney addressed the issue of our bombing Iraq's civilian infrastructure. Every Iraqi target was perfectly legitimate, he said, adding, If I had to do it over again, I would do exactly the same thing. The only real question for the U.S. military this time is what's left to hit in the upcoming turkey shoot. Much of the firing may end up taking place in the cities, putting Yankee soldiers in the position of carrying out their own urban jihad. But with production lines working overtime to convert old bombs into high-tech smart ones, America could always just flatten the entire nation. Among the heavy weapons to consider: Fuel air explosives: Big, horrific bombs, these send out a volatile mist that spreads through any openinga doorway into a building or underground bunker or, as at Tora Bora, a cave. The bomb then detonates, its explosion rocketing through underground passages. Daisy cutters: Used in Afghanistan last winter, these 15,000-pound monsters wipe out everything in a 300-feet radius. You're not literally so close that the bomb is breaking you apart or you catch on fire or anything, explains Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, but the shock wave is so powerful that it crushes internal organs. Microwave weapons: Supposedly nonlethal crowd controllers, these beam-blasting transmitters can cause third-degree burns. In combat, the weapons might be used to clear urban riots. But their power source is cumbersome, which might prohibit using them. Cluster bombs: Tossing these sweethearts around has been likened to laying a minefield from 15,000 feet. We used these as many as 1500 times in Afghanistan. To prevent infantry from walking in front of the tanks and picking them up, anti-personnel explosives are mixed in. The cluster bombs wait on the ground to go off in predetermined sequences. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE
[CTRL] Abraham Dubya Bush
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Abraham Dubya Bush by Thomas J. DiLorenzo As has been their tradition for decades now, neocons who are in favor of waging total war against somebody (this time it's Iraq) have been invoking the sainted Lincoln (Father Abraham, as the war enthusiasts at the Claremont Institute call him) as their role model. After all, there must be some kind of ideological cover for mass murder (as all wars are), and that is the role of the Lincoln Myth. As Joseph Stromberg recently noted (Bring on the Honors List!, LRC, Aug. 28), George Will has written in the Washington Post that President Bush should look to Lincoln's war tactics as a model for American ways of waging war. In recent months historian Jay Winik has written in the Wall Street Journal that, in the spirit of Lincoln, security should come before liberty. To hell with civil liberties. Tony Blankley repeated this same anti-civil liberties theme in the Washington Times; and David Broder and Ronald Radosh, among many others, have explicitly invoked Lincoln in advocating that we send a quarter of a million men to invade Iraq (for starters). A recent article posted on the Neo-conservative website FreeRepublic described President Bush's developing foreign policy as Lincolnesque but on a world-wide scale. What, exactly, should President Bush do in order to mimic Lincoln's war policies, as the neocons are urging him to do? Well, the first thing he should do (as Lincoln did) is to unilaterally suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and order the military to begin arresting and imprisoning all dissenters, especially the press. He should issue an order to one of his top generals similar to the one Lincoln issued to General John Dix on May 18, 1864: You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof. . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of aforesaid newspapers. Imagine the cheering at the Claremont Institute if President Bush were to put the New York Times and Washington Post out of business and throw their editors and owners into military prisons without issuing any warrants, making any charges, or even telling their families where they were. Father Abraham lives! Just to make sure all other members of the press get the message, President Bush should also follow the practice of President Lincoln, the founder of his party, and have federal troops physically demolish the printing presses of opposition newspapers (see Dean Sprague, Freedom Under Lincoln, and James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln). In order to assure congressional support for his war, President Bush should also order federal troops to interfere with elections in predominantly Democratic districts, as Lincoln did. In Maryland, for example, Lincoln ordered the arrest and imprisonment of several dozen state legislators, Congressman Henry May, and the mayor of Baltimore. He won New York State in the 1864 presidential election, writes Pulitzer Prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, with the help of federal bayonets. President Bush might also consider re-instituting the draft, and instructing the draft board to conscript primarily young registered Democrats. Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota is the current leader of the opposition, and he has been dutifully performing his proper role by criticizing the Bush administration every chance he gets, even on the topic of starting a war in the Middle East. If President Bush really wants to be considered to be Lincolnesque he would have 60 or 70 heavily armed Marines break down the door to Senator Daschle's home in the middle of the night, throw him into military prison without charging him with any crime, and eventually deporting him. That's exactly what happened to the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party in Lincoln's day, Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham. Congressman Vallandigham had protested vehemently on the floor of the House of Representatives against Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus and his trashing of much of the rest of the Constitution. He was also a vociferous opponent of Lincoln's high-tariff policy and his adoption of an income tax. He favored seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict; Lincoln did not, so Vallandigham was deported. There were a great many prominent Northerners like Vallandigham who preferred peace and compromise over what became the bloodiest war in all of American history. Lincoln's political strategy, carried out by the propaganda arm of the Republican Party known as the Union League, was to spread the lie that all of these men were traitors and Confederate sympathizers. They were denigrated as Copperheads, a form of snake in the grass. To make this point Vallandigham was ceremoniously escorted across the lines
[CTRL] The Other Reparations Movement
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Other Reparations Movement by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Jack Kershaw of Memphis, Tennessee, wants to file a class-action lawsuit against the US government for reparations. Not on behalf of the descendants of slaves but on behalf of Southerners of all races whose ancestors were the victims of the US government's rampage of pillaging, plundering, burning, and raping of Southern civilians during the War for Southern Independence. In 1860 international law -- and the US government's own military code -- prohibited the intentional targeting of civilians in war, although it was recognized that civilian casualties are always inevitable. Foraging to feed an army was acceptable, but compensation was also called for. The kind of wanton looting and destruction of private property that was practiced by the Union army for the entire duration of the war was forbidden, and perpetrators were to be imprisoned or hanged. This was all described in great detail in the book, International Law, authored by San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, who was appointed by Lincoln as general in chief of the Union armies in July 1862. International law, the US army's own military code, and common rules of morality and decency that existed at the time were abandoned by the Union army from the very beginning. A special kind of soldier was used to pillage and plunder private property in the South during the war. In The Hard Hand of War Mark Grimsley writes that the federal Army of the Potomac possessed its full quotient of thieves, freelance foragers, and officers willing to look the other way, and that as early as October 1861 General Louis Blenker's division was already burning houses and public buildings along its line of march in Virginia. Prior to the Battle of First Manassas in the early summer of 1861 the Army of the Potomac was marked by robbing hen roosts, killing hogs, slaughtering beef cattle, cows, the burning of a house or two and the plundering of others. In Marching through Georgia Sherman biographer Lee Kennett noted that Sherman's New York regiments were filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World. Unable to subdue their enemy combatants, many Union officers waged war on civilians instead, with Lincoln's full knowledge and approval. Grimsley describes how Union Colonel John Beatty warned the residents of Paint Rock, Alabama, that Every time the telegraph wire was cut we would burn a house; every time a train was fired upon we would hang a man; and we would continue to do this until every house was burned and every man hanged between Decatur and Bridgeport. Beatty ended up burning the entire town of Paint Rock to the ground. The Union army did not merely gather food for itself; it pillaged, plundered, burned, and raped its way through the South for four years. Grimsley recounts a first hand account of the sacking of Fredericksburg, Virginia, in December of 1862: Great three-story houses furnished magnificently were broken into and their contents scattered over the floors and trampled on by the muddy feet of the soldiers. Splendid alabaster vases and pieces of statuary were thrown at 6 and 700 dollar mirrors. Closets of the very finest china were broken into and their contents smashed . . . rosewood pianos piled in the street and burned . . . Identical events occurred in dozens of other Southern cities and towns for four years. Sherman was the plunder-in-chief, and he had three solid years of practice for his March to the Sea. In the autumn of 1862 Confederate snipers were firing at Union gunboats on the Mississippi River. Unable to apprehend the combatants, Sherman took revenge on the civilian population by burning the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife Sherman explained that his purpose in the war was extermination, not of the soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people. In the spring of 1863, after the Confederate Army had evacuated, Sherman ordered his army to destroy the town of Jackson, Mississippi. They did, and in a letter to General Ulysses S. Grant Sherman boasted that The inhabitants [of Jackson] are subjugated. They cry aloud for mercy. The land is devastated for 30 miles around. Meridian, Mississippi was also destroyed after the Confederate Army had evacuated, after which Sherman wrote to Grant: For five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire, and I have no hesitation in pronouncing the work well done. Meridian . . . no longer exists. In Citizen Sherman Michael Fellman describes how Sherman's chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, advised that the bombing of Atlanta was of no military significance (the Confederates had already abandoned the city) and
[CTRL] This Is 2002?
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] This Is 2002? by Bob Wallace Sometimes I have a hard time believing it is the year 2002. It just doesn't feel like it. I was at least expecting levitating skateboards, like the one Michael J. Fox had in one of the Back to the Future movies. Not that I would ride it. My dog would like it, I'll bet. There are few things funnier than seeing a pug grin. I'd even buy him a little helmet, like the one moronic adults wear when they ride their bikes on a busy city street. Instead, what I see are janitors on strike where I work. These are adults, in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s. They're making $7.50 an hour. After taxes and deductions for their benefits, there ain't much left. They certainly aren't going to be buying skateboards, levitating or not. I saw one of the elderly female janitors going into her apartment, located in some not-so-hot public housing. Some of the cars on the street were not only not levitating up and down, they weren't going back and forth, not unless people pushed them. It's a bit hard to keep a car running on $7.50 an hour, even if it is an 250,000-mile ex-taxi that cost $200. These janitors should be making $30,000 a year. My grandfather, who was born in 1893, dropped out of school in the 8th grade, yet was still able to raise nine kids and live a middle-class existence. He installed and sanded wooden floors. But in those days, taxes, inflation, regulations, and the federal deficit were but a fraction of what they are now. What he did is now impossible. My father told me that when he was a kid, his father would send him to the corner bar to bring back a big bucket of beer for the workers to drink. My father was about ten. Let a kid try that these days. And if you think that's bad, I saw a 90-year-old man carded for a pack of cigars at a Walgreens. How old do you think I am? he asked the clerk. I don't know, she replied. I'll bet you couldn't find your butt with both hands, he told her, and walked out. That's when I found that trying to stifle laughter makes you snort. She had a J-Lo I Only Need One Hand butt. Speaking of butts, I'll bet mine is smarter than the entire management of Walgreens. When my grandfather was a kid, opiates were legal, so you could buy Bayer heroin at the corner drugstore. But when he was an adult, it was during Prohibition, so he was a bootlegger. Too bad he didn't become filthy rich running rum, like Joseph Kennedy. I wouldn't be driving a 2000 Chevy Cavilier. And I'd be in Congress, chasing Ted Kennedy around, saying, Here, stupid drunken fat socialist piggie. All people understand that when they get a tax cut, their salaries go up. Few understand that when businesses get a tax cut, they use the money to give employees raises, otherwise other businesses will use their newfound money to hire them away. (I really shouldn't say all people. Richard Gephardt, who is as lacking in brains as he is in eyebrows, certainly doesn't understand it.) Mean average wages haven't budged since about 1974, which is when Nixon severed the dollar from gold (who was advising him? His dog, Checkers?) In the 20th century, the dollar lost 99% of its value through the government inflating the money supply. Forty-five percent of that loss has been since 1983, nine years after the Checkers-brained Nixon allowed inflation to proceed with no brakes at all. I believe if the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank hadn't been created in 1913 (thereby allowing inflation), if the IRS had never come into existence, if the federal deficit was a single-digit fraction of what it is now, and if all these asinine job-destroying regulations didn't exist, then those janitors would be making $30,000 a year. Most people don't know it, but half of what they make goes to taxes. Most of those taxes are hidden. How many people know exactly how much tax is hidden in the price of a gallon of gasoline? Historically, people who have half of what they make taken from them are called slaves. I grew up on The Jetsons and the original Star Trek. (I spent hours in front of the mirror, trying to raise my eyebrow like Spock. And I succeeded. Even today, I can raise my left eyebrow. But not my right.) As a little kid I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey goggle-eyed. I halfway expected 2001 to be like 2001. I expected Jetsons flying cars and those little Star Trek saltshaker thingies that Bones used to scan patients with (You need a heart transplant. Plop. Okay, done.) Today ain't even close to what I expected, and I blame it on the State. (I won't blame it for my jumping off the barn roof with a blanket as a parachute. At least I learned my lesson by getting the wind knocked out of me. Seven years old, and I was smarter than the feds. I only needed to make a mistake once.) In the past 3600 years there have been more than 14,000 wars. God knows where the human race would be if they hadn't been fought. With space stations, and with colonies
[CTRL] Incentives and Motivation
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Incentives and Motivation by Brad Edmonds It sounds pedestrian, but one way to gain insight into people's behavior is to ask what the motivation could be for the behavior you're observing. This is more than a curiosity, or even a truism relevant only for obscure psychological research; examining the motivation of others can help you make important decisions, and thereby affect your own outcomes. As noted by a home schooled student recently, one of the reasons home schooled children are better educated and socialized than government- or private-schooled students is that parents are motivated only by the well-being of their children. By contrast, public school teachers are union members and government employees; both groups produce distorted incentives for members, primarily in that member loyalty is not to the constituency served. Put another way, if government teachers are loyal to their unions, they are better off financially; what is good for the students is irrelevant (or worse a population deliberately made ignorant is more likely to continue voting for increased funding for government schools). Further, that they work for the government means teachers can continue to demand funding and perquisites regardless of the quality of their service. Private school teachers are much less beset by such conflicts, but private schools usually still have to please the government, by hiring government-certified teachers and by submitting curricula for government approval. (Private schools suffer in other ways compared to home schools: A class with 20 students will exert pressure on the teacher to orient himself toward the lowest common denominator; and since a private school must satisfy the largest number of parents, Alan's parents might have to accept for Alan what the parents of Barbara and Charles want for Barbara and Charles.) Our heroes in Congress, while they claim they are rushing to rescue us from evil CEOs, are motivated only to win votes a concern independent of solving financial reporting problems. Votes are won by politicos' acting publicly as though they are solving problems. In reality, in their ignorance they are worsening current financial reporting problems by writing new laws that will have unintended consequences of their own. (Even worse is the near certainty that some Congressmen realize that more laws will deepen the problems, but that the true cause-effect relation will escape the awareness of the public; they know that future outcries arising from the new problems will have Congress making new laws that take still more freedom from us while giving still more power to government.) People are not automatons, and incentives such as job security, money, power, and recognition are not the only things that motivate us. In many not all law schools, first-year students leave dissatisfied when they learn that justice is ignored while the law as considered a tool to be used to win settlements. Regardless what government-fostered short-term incentives they face, most CEOs are interested in the long-term outlook for their company, most have used their rank to ensure that honest financial statements are produced, and most would be honest in the absence of government attempts to make them so. And many individuals not only behave honestly in business, but even tithe. People are more complicated than simple punishment/reward schemes make them out to be. That being said, incentives can be viewed another way: Whenever a large population is offered an incentive for doing something, there will be takers. If the government offers a monthly check to teenaged girls, even if the catch is that they have to have a baby and no job prospects, and even though most teenaged girls will recognize that it is a raw deal, there will be girls lined up at the government office, infant in hand, to begin receiving their checks. If Congressmen offer the prospect of legislation that favors businesses who forward campaign contributions, they'll have plenty of campaign contributions. If Congressmen are promised votes from Midwestern states for supporting legislation that amounts to direct transfer payments from the rest of us to farmers, along with higher prices for food (indirect transfer payments), Congressmen will weigh the votes they'll gain and lose, and make their decisions, without regard to the effect on the economy or individual families. The tangible incentives we face are just a subset of the varied things that motivate us. They don't explain behavior to the extent that it is easy to predict what any individual will do, except in those cases where there is an exceptionally strong incentive at stake and there are no counterbalancing disincentives. But applied to a population, incentives reliably tell you what to expect on a larger scale. They help explain the inefficiency of government and the effectiveness of the private sector.
[CTRL] Bush and the Money Changers
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Bush and the Money Changers by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. For all the talk about corrupt CEOs who betray their stockholders, it's time we consider the problem of power-mad politicians who betray the voters. With or without criminal penalties for CEOs, the stock market is brutal in its propensity to punish companies with shady management. What means is there to punish governments with leaders who do everything contrary to what they promised in the election? In his campaign, Bush promised a humble foreign policy, smaller government, freedom for enterprise, and free trade. In practice, he was been a big-government warmonger who has massively increased the power of the consolidated state and topped it off with brazen protectionism. From a moral point of view, it is no different from a CEO hired to build a company who then turns to destroy it a very rare occurrence in a market economy because such behavior is not rewarded. But because there is no market to buy and sell presidents only the crude, fickle, and vacuous opinion poll there is no real way to register displeasure and thus very little accountability. Imagine if the market for CEOs worked like a presidential election. Imagine there were two huge cartels for CEOs called the reds and the blues. Every four years, each team picked one person they deem appropriate to run a company. The stockholders of that company in turn could vote, but the vote would be was rigged in such a way that either a red or a blue would always win. Of course candidate red and candidate blue would be very pleased to say whatever is necessary to get elected as CEO. Once one of them is in power, he knows that he will maintain power until the next election, scheduled four years hence, and, in the meantime, there is nothing that anyone can do to dislodge him from that post. In fact, he has the power to shut up, audit, smear, harass, and even jail anyone who objects too strenuously to the things he does. What is to keep this CEO from using his position, not to help the company, but to help himself and his friends? In four years, he knows that he can wash his hands of the whole thing. Obviously, this is a prescription for business corruption on a massive scale. Maybe if we christen this system economic democracy and kept it around for 100 years, we would get used to it, but that wouldn't change the reality. Of course the analogy is far from exact. Under this system of choosing CEOs, there would be some standard by which to evaluate his performance, stemming from the marketplace. In government, there is no such standard, so the possibilities for corruption are far greater. In fact, we shouldn't be surprised that government deprived of all financial incentive for accountability, with no standards of profit or loss, where the goal is to reward your friends, punish your enemies, and grab whatever power you can for yourself while hoping to be rewarded in the history books for having presided over some fabulous domestic and international calamity would operate like a jungle in which only the unscrupulous survive, a power-grabbing free-for-all guided only by greed. But wait a minute! Those are the words that George W. used to describe the currently existing market economy. More precisely, he said this is what the market economy would amount to were it not for the glorious power of the state. We are spared that fate, he says, thanks to his new edict that adds criminal penalties for corporate fraud. Perhaps it is only a symbolic gesture but it is a powerful one: it seems designed to taint all of business life with the suspicion that criminality and commerce are somehow closely related. No boardroom in America is above or beyond the law, he said, but he might have added that the lawmakers themselves consider themselves above and beyond this law or any law. Those who deliberately sign their names to deception will be punished, he said, leaving out that this is precisely what happens every time he signs a budget or a law, or Congress votes. In the aftermath of September 11, Bush said concerning a violent attack on a profit-making center, we refused to allow fear to undermine our economy and we will not allow fraud to undermine it either . No more easy money for corporate criminals. Just hard time . This law says to every dishonest corporate leader, you'll be exposed and punished. The era of low standards and false profits are over. Bush himself brags that the new laws are the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is not a bad analogy. FDR ran on a platform of cutting expenditures by 25 percent, ending deficits, reducing federal salaries, assuring a sound currency, protecting states rights, and keeping the peace. And when he governed, he did exactly the opposite. FDR's first inaugural provided the tone for this recent series of Bush
Re: [CTRL] 54 Socialists are in the U. S. Congress
-Caveat Lector- 54 Socialists are in the United States Congress By Chuck Morse MJ Not even close. Try at least 534. Regard$, --MJ There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] A short, sad history of taxation
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] A short, sad history of taxation By John Seiler America was born in a tax revolt. The founders decried taxation without representation. On Dec. 16, 1773, revolutionaries in Boston dumped tea into the harbor rather than let the British collect taxes on it. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed, charging of King George III, He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. The new Constitution of 1787 severely limited taxation, basically allowing only small import duties - a fiscal constraint designed to prevent the federal government from growing too large. The states were free to use internal taxation, such as property and sales taxes, as they saw fit. The Civil War changed that when President Lincoln imposed the first income tax to help pay for the Union war effort. After the war, the tax lingered until several court cases, such as Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. in 1895, ruled it unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes in incomes, from whatever source derived ... . The new tax promptly plunged the country into the recession of 1913-14. Revival came with U.S. industries providing war goods to the European combatants in World War I, which began in 1914. American involvement in the war in 1917 depended on using the new income tax to pay for soldiers and armaments. The income tax first was imposed mainly only on the rich, with the top rate being 7 percent on income more than $500,000 (about $10 million in today's money). But it taxed such fellows as Edison and Ford, meaning they had less money to invest in their inventions and factories. Two world wars, the New Deal and Great Society welfare programs and new regulatory agencies vastly expanded the government, so the middle class and the poor eventually had to be included, bringing us today's pervasive, confiscatory, x labyrinthine tax code. Although the poor today don't pay an income tax, they do pay the 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare (including the half of that tax supposedly paid by the employer but actually paid by the employee), which in reality is an income tax at twice the rate rich people paid in 1913. The IRS today has vast powers to confiscate wealth without a jury trial, to investigate any person or corporation, and to fine or jail those it considers offenders. Tax rationalizations Taxation supporters offer any number of reasons why we need high taxes: Taxes support government programs that protect or improve society. Death, or estate taxes, are an economic equalizer that keep hardened classes from forming. Most crassly, politicians use their proceeds to demonstrate effectiveness, bring government projects to their hometowns as pork projects, and thus win re-election. This is not, as you may have guessed, what the founders had in mind. One practical problem is that taxes, like government programs, are rarely sunsetted. The temporary 3 percent federal telephone excise tax was first imposed in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-American War, but is still on the books because President Clinton vetoed a repeal in 2000. The California public safety sales tax increment was made permanent in 1993. Philosophically speaking, a growing tax burden is an anathema to a free society. Taking nearly 50 percent of a person's labor - often for programs the person might object to strongly - is what the Declaration called a long train of abuses and usurpations of the liberties of a free people. It is despotism by taxation. Another problem is that government has no competition. Few people can opt out of Social Security, Medicare or other expensive programs. Without competition, government programs become bloated and inefficient, protecting their own turf instead of serving the people they're supposed to. Taxation and growth There's also a connection between taxation and economic growth. The income tax was, of course, but one factor in growth or recession; but it always was a factor. How do taxes affect growth? During the economic slowdown of 1960, candidate John F. Kennedy promised to get America moving again. His tax cut proposal, enacted in 1964 just after his death, cut the top tax rate to 70 percent from 90 percent. That helped spark the boom of the late 1960s. Unfortunately, his successors, Presidents Johnson and Nixon, spent lavishly on the Vietnam War, the Great Society welfare state and the Apollo moon program. This brought about a 10 percent income tax surcharge passed in 1968 and inflation that pushed people into higher tax brackets, the notorious bracket creep of the 1970s, bringing stagflation through most of that decade. Late in the decade people finally had enough of inflation and taxes. The Proposition 13 tax revolt in California in
Re: [CTRL] Fwd: [ctrl] Socialism at work: ...3,2,1,0 - The self destruction of the NWO.
-Caveat Lector- MJ The NWO has NOTHING to do with capitalism. Joshua Your an idiot. MJ While it is difficult to discern the meaning of your above ad hominem, it remains that the NWO has NOTHING to do with capitalism. Jim When using the word capitalism it should be modified by an adjective. There are several kinds of capitalism which is merely the accumulation of capital. MJ Nope. Capitalism is an economic system void of government intervention. Joshua On which planet? MJ On every planet. Jim There is state capitalism, e.g. socialism where the state accumulates and owns the capital. MJ This is correctly, as you cite, a version of socialism. Jim There is monopoly capitalism where private individuals with the connivance of government amass huge amounts of capital. MJ This too is a variety of socialism. Joshua But NOT a variety of Capitalism? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. MJ To aid you in the understanding of such a simple concept ... Are there variations of atheism? No. Once a god or gods is introduced, atheism ceases. Are there variations of theism? Yes. Are there variations of capitalism? No. Once Government or government is introduced, capitalism ceases. Are there variations of socialism? Certainly. What is described above (both) are variations of SOCIALISM. Jim Finally there is free enterprise capitalism where capital is accumulated based on the entrepeneurship and effort of individuals. Joshua ...who steal the benefits of other people's labor. Where this is not the case, there is nothing wrong with it. The minute you profit from someone else's work, you are a thief and a parasite. THIS is the basis of all Capitalism. MJ One can only 'steal' other people's labor with socialism -- in capitalism one has committed a crime. In capitalism, two or more individuals mutually agree to the exchange. There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises Joshua This is totally stupid and absurdly, obviously wrong. Everywhere in the world, this is not the case. Ludwig is still dead isn't he MJ? MJ Maintaining your problem with reality, I see. Regard$, --MJ The beginning and end of the socialist policy, which has dominated the world for decades, is destruction Although destructionism is more easily recognized in the actions of the Bolshevists than in other parties, it is essentially just as strong in all other socialist movements. State interference in economic life, which calls itself 'economic policy,' has done nothing but destroy economic life. Prohibitions and regulations have by their general obstructive tendency fostered the growth of the spirit of wastefulness That production is still being carried on, even semi-rationally, is to be ascribed only to the fact that destructionist laws and measures have not yet been able to operate completely and effectively. Were they more effective, hunger and mass extinction would be the lot of all civilized nations today. Ludwig von Mises A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] Bad Theatre
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Bad Theatre by David Dieteman In a Wall Street speech today (Tuesday, July 9) President Bush called for more penalties for corporate criminals and a crackdown on boardroom scandals. The mighty conqueror of Afghanistan (excepting Osama bin Laden) and cosmic injustice has promised to end the days of cooking the books, shading the truth and breaking our laws. Is the government going to abolish Social Security? No. As reported by the Washington Post, (link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43384-2002Jul9.html) Confronting a wave of corporate wrongdoing that has undermined investor confidence and threatened political damage to the White House, Bush said, 'We will use the full weight of the law to expose and root out corruption.' Notice the key phrase in the above quotation: _threatened political damage to the White House_. Do not think for a minute that the White House cares to do any more than cover its behind. This bit of cheap Washington theatre would be palatable if it were not so obscenely laughable. Consider, for example, the oxymoron of government accounting. There is no such thing. Perhaps you have heard of the Pentagon budget. Or Social Security. Perhaps you have heard of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bureau, custodian of millions of dollars of tribal trust money, um, well -- _cannot account for the money_. The B.I.A. is unable to account for millions, and possibly, billions of dollars which are allegedly held in trust for the poorest of the poor. (In 1887, the Congress decided that it would administer leases of Indian land, and mail checks for the royalties to each Indian family. Right. Not surprisingly, 115 years later, the government's accounting system has been shown to be, well, a bit deficient). Oops. Time to shell out the tax dollars, to the tune of $625,000 to cover the fine for contempt of court, imposed by a federal judge when Clinton appointee Bruce Babbit and the Bureau refused to comply with a court order to turn over records. The most egregious case of government misconduct I've ever seen, to paraphrase the judge. And let us not forget to mention the millions spent by the government on legal fees. Despite the utter joke of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, of Social Security, and of the Pentagon budget, the Emperor Bush rattles his sabre about corporate criminals. Puh-lease. At least in the corporate world, fraud is the exception. The profit motive provides a natural disincentive against fraudulent accounting. Corporations go out of business when they mismanage money. Not like the government. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] Blaming Business
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Blaming Business by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Forget gridlock and partisanship, the US Senate has found something besides attacking other countries to agree on: attacking business right here at home. No one can accuse these guys of being soft on crime, so long as the alleged crime occurs within the private sector, and involves the always-vulnerable businessman. Should supposedly defrauding shareholders be a distinct crime punishable by up to ten years in prison, thereby replacing the existing system in which defrauding shareholders falls under the category of mail and wire fraud? Yes, said the Senate in a 100-to-0 vote. Should the government prohibit companies from docking the pay of employees who scheme with government investigators? Yes, 100 to 0. Should the period of time in which investors can file lawsuits against companies to recoup losses due to alleged securities fraud be extended? Yes, 100 to 0. Should it be easier to prosecute people for altering or destroying their records when a government agency is investigating a corporation, even if the investigation isn't yet official? Yes, 100 to 0. Should all penalties of all sorts be expanded? Yes, 100 to 0. John The Bomber McCain caught the reigning fascistic spirit of the moment: Until somebody responsible goes to jail for a significant amount of time, I'm not sure these people are going to get the message. The message is: all the crooks are in business, and only great government can save us. The proposals to crush, thrash, smash, and otherwise slam business are raining down hard, with Republicans joining with Democrats in sheer demagogic hatred of the capitalist system itself. None of this has to do with a conviction that WorldCom and Enron and the rest really committed fraud in the usual sense. The problem with these companies (and they are not typical) is that they took part in a more general fraud called the New Economy: the idea that the Federal Reserve can create limitless prosperity through money creation and lower interest rates. Had these companies' forecasts of infinite product demand, and thus infinitely increasing stock prices panned out, nobody would be complaining. But the Fed's boom turned to bust, as it must, and the political parasites had to find someway to deflect the blame. Remember the scale of what we are dealing with. By the late 1990s, tens of millions of people had grown accustomed to checking their online holdings daily, and watching them grow. Regular citizens became day-traders. Folks were exuberant as their portfolios rose to double and triple expected figures. Visions of early retirement and the lush life danced in their heads. Everyone was a financial genius. But by this year, these same people have seen their once-fat portfolios grow shockingly skinny. While people can deal with stock-market losses, they cannot understand how in a mere 12 to 19 months, trillions could have vanished, and their exuberant visions too. There is something intuitively correct about the average person's suspicions. It doesn't make sense that so much could be wiped out so quickly, and people are right to assume that powerful people are rigging the game. The business cycle isn't an act of nature. It is brought about by shady characters working behind the scenes. So Washington is attempting to turn public anger away from the guilty the Federal Reserve and the politicians who cheered on its credit runup to business. All this hot air about corporate fraud is designed to permit people to believe that their portfolios were looted by CEOs with shredding machines. You say: nobody is stupid enough to believe that! Think again. In the early 1930s, this was precisely the view promoted by FDR and widely believed among the general public. This was also the import of Bush's anti-business rave on Wall Street, which Republicans celebrated and Democrats denounced for not going far enough. This is why the Senate is passing stupid resolutions and voting on bad legislation, which will muck matters up further in predictable and unpredictable ways. Not even Wall Street experts have a clear fix on why markets fall, other than some general lack of confidence that plays on itself. Not one in a thousand would identify the loose credit of the 1990s as the cause of the boom, and fewer still could explain how that boom unraveled and why. Every economic downturn in modern history has been accompanied by a boom-time accounting scandal, leading to more regulation. This is why ignorance of economics in particular Austrian economics is so dangerous. Something about the business cycle seems fishy, even crooked, but precisely what does not flow from intuition alone. It's time to buy copies of Gene Callahan's smart and funny Economics for Real People for your friends and family, and your stockbroker and congressmen too. Knowledge may be the only way to stop the government
[CTRL] Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Are We Doomed To Be a Police State? by Rep. Ron Paul, MD U.S. House of Representatives, June 27, 2002 Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them. Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered. I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security. For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor: Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties. Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out. I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home. So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing. As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world. But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion. The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners. Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory. We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: Are we already living in a police state? If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction. Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a
Re: [CTRL] (Fwd) LP RELEASE: Southwest Airlines and jumbo flyers
-Caveat Lector- A Coward Well, if the policies on overweight people are passed...then the next to go will be the ugly people...they will have to fly at night so the pretty people won't have to look at them. Then snip MJ Start you OWN fucking airline and run it how YOU want. Regard$, --MJ Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product, should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option . . . solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice. -- Frederic Bastiat A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] Is Buchanan Deep Throat?
-Caveat Lector- http://www.comm.uiuc.edu/spike/deepthroat/ snip One possible clue was a line that had been deleted in the final version: Significantly, he was perhaps the only person in the government in a position to possibly understand the whole scheme and not be a potential conspirator himself. A note in the margin asked, Bob, too close to id of throat here? To the student investigators, it underscored the finding that most of the finalists were speechwriters or press relations people. They would be present at crucial times but having no staffs would be insulated from giving orders. Among other hints in the manuscript was a margin note suggesting possible description of Throat in connection with White House social friends and parties in the Georgetown section of the city, which could have fit all seven, but was mentioned by students as a reason for emphasis on Buchanan as a Washington insider. As a native of the city, he also was thought likely to have known of the trucker's bar where Woodward and Throat met. But the goal of the student investigators is to uncover facts rather than speculate, so the class will press on. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Constitution? What constitution?
-Caveat Lector- Someone forwarded Israel lacks a single, authoritative constitution snip MJ Why not SKIP to the chase and simply install an Oligarchy of --say -- 9 old geezers ... who whimsically decide what laws mean at any particular time? Regard$, --MJ The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now. -- Unknown A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Soviet threat was bogus
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Soviet threat was bogus by Andrew Alexander The Cold War was fraudulent and jeopardised our security Like others of my generation, I hugely enjoyed the film Dr Strangelove when it came out in 1963, despite my orthodox view of the Cold War and its causes. But as I came to visit the United States and meet American politicians and military men, it struck me that General Jack D. Ripper is not such a total parody. This set me on a long and reluctant journey to Damascus. As I researched, through the diaries and memoirs of the key figures involved, it dawned on me that my view of the Cold War as a struggle to the death between Good (Britain and America) and Evil (the Soviet Union) was seriously mistaken. In fact, as history will almost certainly judge, it was one of the most unnecessary conflicts of all time, and certainly the most perilous. 'So what will this mean to the average couple on average wages in the average million-pound semi?' The Cold War began within months of the end of the second world war, when the Soviet Union was diagnosed as inherently aggressive. It had installed or was installing Communist and fellow-travelling governments throughout Central and Eastern Europe. The Red Army, intact and triumphant, was ready and able to conquer Western Europe at any time it was unleashed by Stalin, who was himself dedicated to the global triumph of communism. But 'we' principally the United States and Britain had just learnt from painful experience that it was not only futile but also counterproductive to seek accommodation with brutal and 'expansionist' dictators. We had to stand up to Stalin, in President Truman's phrase, 'with an iron fist'. It was a Manichean doctrine, seductive in its simplicity. But the supposed military threat was wholly implausible. Had the Russians, though themselves devastated by the war, invaded the West, they would have had a desperate battle to reach and occupy the Channel coast against the Allies, utilising among other things a hastily rearmed Wehrmacht. But, in any case, what then? With a negligible Russian navy, the means of invading Britain would somehow have had to be created. Meanwhile Britain would have been supplied with an endless stream of men and material from the United States, making invasion virtually hopeless. And even if the Soviets, ignoring the A-bomb, had conquered Europe from Norway to Spain against all odds, they would have been left facing an implacable United States across more than 2,000 miles of ocean the ultimate unwinnable war. In short, there was no Soviet military danger. Stalin was not insane. Nor was he a devout ideologue dedicated to world communism. He was far more like a cruel oriental tyrant. He was committed, above all else, to retaining power, murdering every rival, and ruling Russia by mass terror on a breathtaking scale. Stalin had long been opposed to the idea that Russia should pursue world revolution. He had broken with Trotsky, and proclaimed the ideal of 'socialism in one country'. Of course he was content to have Communist parties abroad believe that the eventual global triumph of the creed was inevitable Marxism made no sense otherwise but for all practical purposes foreign Communist parties were instruments of Russian policy, encouraged to become significant enough to influence or interfere with their own nations' actions where it helped Soviet purposes. But it was never Stalin's idea far from it that they should establish potentially rival Communist governments whose existence and independence would be liable, indeed certain, to diminish the role of Russia as the dominant global power on the Left, and Stalin's personal position. Yugoslavia and China were to demonstrate the peril of rival Communist powers. In Britain many of us saw the bitter conflict between the Trotskyite Socialist Workers' party and Communists as an amusing sideshow, some sort of absurd quarrel between two groups of fanatics on points of doctrinal purity. But the Trotskyites had a point. They understood, if others did not, that Moscow had betrayed the world revolution. The Cold War began because of Russia's reluctance to allow independence or freedom to the 'liberated' countries of Eastern and Central Europe, Poland in particular. Stalin was held to have welshed on promises at Yalta. Roosevelt and Churchill had demanded that Poland would be allowed a government that would be 'free' and also 'friendly to Russia'. It was a dishonest formula on both sides. The two countries had a long record of enmity. As recently as 1920, they had been at war. There was also the Soviet massacre of 11,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest. No freely elected Polish government would be friendly to the USSR. Furthermore, as Stalin pointed out forcibly at Yalta, Russia had been twice invaded through Poland by Germany in 26 years, both times with devastating consequences. The
[CTRL] The Cooling World
-Caveat Lector- It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. -- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Cooling World There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century. A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the little ice age conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data, concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions. Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. The world's food-producing system, warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago. Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political
[CTRL] The Rise of Tax Slavery
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Rise of Tax Slavery by Joseph Sobran Tax time approaches, and Americans are as always paying H R Block billions to help them save some of their wealth from their ravenous government. Pitiful, in a way: it underlines the grim but unacknowledged fact that the government is their enemy and they have to hire protection from it. But don't we enjoy self-government? Well, if we have it, I'd hardly say we enjoy it. True, we aren't being taxed by the monarch of Great Britain, but our American-born rulers claim far more of our wealth than the British monarchs ever did. The first income tax was imposed during the Civil War under President Abraham Lincoln you know, the Great Emancipator. He is known for abolishing chattel slavery in seceding states; he is less well-known for introducing tax slavery in all the states. That's one reason why the libertarian Lysander Spooner opposed both sides in the war: he said the South was fighting for chattel slavery, while the North was fighting for political slavery. Political slavery won. The government was just getting its foot in the door. The top tax rate at first was 5 per cent. And that was only on relatively high incomes. The U.S. Supreme Court, which in those days paid some attention to the Constitution, struck down the income tax several times. So, in the days of Woodrow Wilson, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, giving Congress the power to impose an income tax. Again, the first tax rates were low by today's standards. A bachelor had to make about $50,000 a year in today's money before he paid a 1 per cent tax; the top rate was 7 per cent, and only the very rich paid it. But within a few years the country was at war the war to end all wars, you'll recall and the tax rates were raised very high. Over time, the tax code became enormously complex, while the debasement of money drove ordinary people into tax brackets originally aimed at the rich. The government, needless to say, was impenitent and unapologetic about what looked very much like a bait-and-switch operation. Along the way, the Federal Government greatly expanded its own powers, no longer bothering to amend the Constitution. The welfare state, though flagrantly unconstitutional, created broad political support for usurped powers. Franklin Roosevelt, a president of multifaceted treachery, consciously adopted the demagogic strategy of buying votes by soaking the rich. Federal programs, all unconstitutional, have continued to multiply and expand. We now live in what Hilaire Belloc dubbed the Servile State, in which one part of the population is forced to support the other. Yet the average American is unaware of the total transformation and repudiation of the original American Republic. To the extent he knows of it at all, he has been taught to think of it as progress. He doesn't realize that most of the taxes he pays are spent for purposes unauthorized by the Constitution. Today liberals howl in protest when President Bush proposes to cut the top tax rate to 33 per cent! One might ask whether there is any moral limit to what the government can take from us; but the point is that, under the Sixteenth Amendment, there is no constitutional limit. That amendment, the welfare state, and shifty interpretation of Congress's power to regulate commerce have combined to enable the Federal Government to impose a socialist or fascist system while feebly pretending to honor the Constitution. It illustrates how tyranny may creep in under the outward forms of traditional law. Will Americans ever awaken to what has happened to their country? Some vigilant souls have seen it all along. Many were aware of it long before I was. No doubt more are learning every day. It may seem doubtful that the truth will penetrate enough people to reverse the trend. Passivity, ignorance, cowardice, venality, and sheer discouragement will always keep the majority acquiescent. The government's greatest strength is the enormous numbers who depend for their income on its abuse of the taxing power. They sense that a return to constitutional government would be a disaster for them. But a vigorous and intelligent minority, if it refuses to surrender, can do wonders. The good news is that such a minority already exists, and it is growing. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
[CTRL] War on terror endangers liberty
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] War on terror endangers liberty Paul Craig Roberts The war on terror is creating media attention and fund-raising opportunities for conservative organizations. It is also creating confusion of thought among conservatives and, thereby, opportunities for more centralized government power and a police state. Too many Americans are coming to accept that a successful war on terror requires a police state in whole or part. For example, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act would give state governors the power to order people from their homes and force them into quarantines, separate parents from children, impose price controls and rationing, and confiscate guns and other property. Supposedly, this is to protect us from germ warfare, but herding people into confined spaces is the best way to spread disease. The Emergency Health Powers Act is sponsored by the federal agency Centers for Disease Control. According to Phyllis Schlafly (www.eagleforum.org), the bill, conveying dictatorial powers upon governors, is already moving through state legislatures. We are in far more danger from the belief that the ends justify the means than we are from terrorists. Fortunately, in our time of need Loyola College Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo has stepped forward with a blockbuster of a book, The Real Lincoln, just released by Prima Publishing. Read it and regain perspective. Lincoln believed that his ends justified his means. He used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government. Lincoln assumed dictatorial military powers. He used them to suppress all Northern opposition to his illegal and unconstitutional acts. Lincoln violated every constitutionally guaranteed civil right. He ignored rulings hand-delivered to him by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney ordering Lincoln to respect and faithfully execute the laws of the United States and to protect civil rights. Lincoln replied by suspending habeas corpus, by instituting a secret police and by arbitrarily arresting without warrants or due process thousands of leading citizens of Northern cities, state legislators, U.S. congressmen, newspaper owners and editors, ministers, bankers, policemen -- literally everyone who expressed the slightest reservation about Lincoln's aims and means, or who was anonymously denounced by a rival or envious neighbor. In the thoroughness with which Lincoln suppressed dissent, he prefigured 20th century totalitarians. Lincoln's train of abuses far exceeded those that provoked our Founding Fathers to declare independence from Britain. In conducting the war, Lincoln encouraged his generals to violate international law, the U.S. Military Code and the moral prohibition against waging war on civilians. Lincoln urged his generals to conduct total war against the Southern civilian population, to slaughter them with bombardments, to burn their homes, barns and towns, to use rape as a weapon of war, to destroy foodstuffs, and to leave women, children and the elderly in the cold of winter without shelter or a scrap of food. In order to carry out Lincoln's wishes, a new kind of soldier was needed. Gen. Sherman filled his regiments with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of Europe. The war against the Southern civilian population was fought with the immigrant soldier. DiLornezo writes that had the South won the war, there is no doubt that Lincoln and his generals -- Grant, Sherman and Sheridan -- would have been hung as war criminals under the Geneva Convention of 1863. Lincoln was an American Pol Pot, except worse. Pol Pot's barbarism was justified by the Marxian doctrine of class genocide to which he adhered. Lincoln's barbarism was prohibited by the morality of his time and the U.S. Constitution, yet neither deterred him. DiLorenzo's greatest contribution is to show the real reasons for which Lincoln went to war. Abolishing slavery was not one of them. Lincoln was determined to destroy the Southern states in order to remove the constraints that Southern senators and congressmen, standing in the Jeffersonian tradition, placed in the way of centralized federal power, high tariffs and subsidies to Northern industries. Lincoln lusted after Empire. The juggernaut he put in place exterminated the Plains Indians with the same ferocity with which Southern towns and cities were sacked and pillaged. Far from saving the union, Lincoln utterly destroyed the union achieved by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution. So little is left of accountable government that the war on terror could very easily bring down the remaining timbers of a once great house. Conservatives should rethink their enthusiasm for the police state methods of the war on terror while there is still time. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational
[CTRL] Fascist Code Words
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Fascist Code Words by Ron Liebermann Some code words are euphemisms with political intent. A euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable word for one that is not so agreeable. That's why we have the Department of Defense, rather than the Department of Killing People. The word Defense is friendly, and carries moral authority. When civilians are murdered by the Department of Killing People, the result is collateral damage. Fascist code words re-label theft and murder to make them appear as commerce and justice. The four organizations listed below employ code words to disguise their one true objective: Complete subjugation of the human race. Curiously, each claims a different justification in order to pursue this goal. Following is a description of the worlds primary code language generators, along with the moral claim of each. D.O.D. Vote Delivery Machine, and Home for Unwed Mothers. Official Description: The Department of Defense is the nations largest employer, with 1.4 million men and women on active duty. Annual published budget of 270 billion dollars. The D.O.D. also maintains a classified budget, amount unknown. Moral Claim: Evil can be eliminated if we eliminate freedom. I.A.D.B. Training camp for Tin Pot Dictators, including the American kind. Official Description: The Inter-American Defense Board. This organization operates a top-level military planning center, and college. The I.A.D.B. teaches government employees and military commanders the methods of acquiring power . I.A.D.B.graduates, according to their website, occupy positions of great influence. Moral Claim: Anarchy can be eliminated if we eliminate freedom. Interpol Money watchdog. Makes sure everyone pays taxes somewhere. Official Description: Short for International Police, it isthe second biggest international organization after the United Nations. It's stated mission is to gather and disseminate criminal intelligence in order to combat international crime. Moral Claim: Crime can be eliminated if we eliminate freedom. NATO World Government enforcement tool. Official Description: The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. Their stated role is to safeguard the freedom and security of its 19 member countries. According to the NATO website, the North Atlantic Treaty derives its legitimacy from the U.N. Charter. Moral Claim: War can be eliminated if we eliminate freedom. Now that we have examined the four sources of fascist code language, we can look at the specific code words that they employ: Covert Operations Operations which are planned and executed as to conceal the identity of the sponsor. Example: Have a CIA funded terrorist fly a plane into the World Trade Center. Psychological Consolidation Activities Activities directed at the civilian population in areas under friendly control, in order to rally support for military objectives. Example: Have the Pentagon oversee production of a pro-war movie such as Black Hawk Down. Psychological Media Controllable media which establishes communication with a target audience. Example: The New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, Google. Psychological Operations Operations that convey information to foreign audiences in order to influence their behavior. Example: Drop food and money on Afghan refugees. Psychological Situation The emotional state or behavioral motivation of a target audience. Example: Patriotic fervor. Psychological Operations Approach The technique adopted to induce a desired reaction on the part of the target audience. Example: Incite Patriotic fervor, then declare war. Psychological Warfare The use of propaganda in order to influence the attitudes and behavior of hostile foreign groups. Example: Suggest the possible use of nuclear weapons. Psychological Warfare Consolidation Psychological warfare directed toward populations in friendly areas with the objective of promoting cooperation. Example: Have CIA operatives grant cash rewards for useful intelligence. Perception Management Actions that convey or deny selected information to a civilian population in order to influence their behavior. Example: Force a search engine to de-list unapproved websites. The code words listed above represent deception, chicanery, and manipulation. In other words: Evil. In order to understand why organizations use these methods, it is worthwhile to examine the makeup of systems in general. A book by John Gall entitled Systemantics describes the nature of systems, and how they eventually become living, breathing entities. Not only do they develop a collective consciousness, but they also develop the desire for growth, and mechanisms of self-preservation. A system can be (among other things) a country, an
Re: [CTRL] Rosie: 'I Am Gay Parent'; Invites Bush to Spend Weekend :-)
-Caveat Lector- Was there EVER *any* doubt? Regard$, --MJ I like seeing Sumo wrestlers. They make me feel like I am not so overweight, after all. -- Thomas Sowell A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Lefts Truth Problem
-Caveat Lector- It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. -- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Left's Truth Problem The suppressed record of liberal deception Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D. COLUMNIST, New York One of the strangest aspects of the ongoing attacks on Pope Pius XII is that they seem to intensify the further away in time we move from the events they involve. You may well wonder how the New York Times can today criticize Pius XII for inaction with regard to Jewish persecution during World War II when the same New York Times praised him in the early 1940s for being the only person in Europe who was doing anything. You may also wonder why the New Republic just published a rather lengthy screed by Professor Daniel J. Goldhagen (author of the absurd book Hitler's Willing Executioners) dismissing Pius as a hopeless anti-Semite when one Jewish commentator after another in the 1940s and 1950s, from Albert Einstein to Golda Meir, said just the opposite. The answer, though, is not hard to find: such distortions serve useful purposes for those who perpetrate them. They cast the Catholic Church, an institution such people generally despise, in a profoundly negative light, and aim to render the Church helpless and contemptible in a never-ending quest to apologize for a never-ending catalogue of alleged sins. What is truth? asked Pilate. Our current adversaries do not even bother to ask. There is no such thing. To them, scholarly work does not involve a search for truth or even an attempt at serious, accurate, and disinterested analysis, but is simply another arena in which the revolution may be advanced. In the academic world, the latest such incident involves Michael Bellesiles' book Arming America. Bellesiles, a professor of history at Atlanta's Emory University, argued that gun ownership in early America was in fact far less widespread than had originally been thought, and that all this time we had mistakenly supposed that a gun culture or at least some emphasis on the importance of being armed had significant roots in American history. It turns out, though, that in order to reach this counterintuitive conclusion, Bellesiles had to falsify dataa lot of it. He also claimed to have consulted sources that do not exist, or that were destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco fire. Even liberals are deserting him now, and his university is calling on him to answer the charges that the entire scholarly community, practically in unison, have brought against him. But Bellesiles was only doing in much cruder and less elegant fashion what leftists have made a habit of doing for generations, even centuries: prostituting their scholarship for a political cause. I still remember a student-faculty dinner at Harvard at which the professor I'd invited, a political centrist, admitted to me that in his experience the Right tends to be more scrupulous with facts than the Left. That about says it. Let us take Denis Diderot, for example. Diderot was a key figure in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and indeed was the classic eighteenth-century French freethinker. We also know that Diderot was, shall we say, a little bit restless in monogamy. His marital fidelity left much to be desired. Now let us examine his discussion of faraway Tahiti. Diderot intended to use what he persuaded himself were the extremely relaxed standards regarding human intimacy that existed in Tahiti. Diderot, in fact, wrote a fictional dialogue between a Catholic priest and a native of Tahiti that has to be read to be believed. To no one's surprisecan't the Left ever surprise us?the priest is made to look like a fool, and the Tahitian a vessel of simple wisdom. We now know that this is all a lie from start to finish. But it was a lie that Diderot had to believe. He had to believe that the European standards of morality with which he was familiar were merely time-bound and not universal. He had to believe that somewhere there existed, in greater peace and harmony than obtained in Europe, a society in which monogamy was ridiculed and casual liaisons celebrated. Diderot thus set the stage for a whole series of leftists who followed him who, in the name of science, falsified data in order to reach the conclusions they believed in already. The most spectacular example in the following century must have been Karl Marx, the father of Communism. One of the chief teachings of Marx's system was that the capitalist system, as sure as the sun rises in the east, would lead to what he called the immiseration of the working classes, whose earthly fortunes would surely be so systematically reduced with the passage of time that they would ultimately find themselves one day with no choice but to rebel violently against the entire system. Then, at last, would mankind cross the threshold of the final stage of
[CTRL] Lincoln's legacy of corruption
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Lincoln's legacy of corruption By Ilana Mercer Enron is not the topic of this column Lincoln is. So why mention Enron in the same breath? Well, the system of subsidies and corporate welfare exemplified by the government-Enron incest is one of the pillars of policy that Lincoln whose birth was celebrated yesterday by some dedicated his life to realizing. Cretinous commentary in the media notwithstanding, Enron's entanglement with the state has nothing to do with genuine capitalism. True capitalism ropes entrepreneurs into the service of only one master: the consumer. It allows no grants of government privilege, and it banishes corrupting interference from the political class. Enron's decline relates to capitalism as Lincoln relates to liberty: not in the slightest. There is, however, a direct historical link between Abraham Lincoln and the phenomenon epitomized by the Enron fiasco. It is this link, among others, that Thomas J. DiLorenzo's soon-to-be released book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, painstakingly traces. Professor DiLorenzo documents Lincoln's consummate and unrelenting devotion to the cause of protectionist tariffs, taxpayer subsidies for corporations, and the nationalization of the money supply, so that governments could simply print paper money in order to finance their special-interest subsidies. At once, it becomes clear that Lincoln's legacy lives on in the ugly specter of a Congress that uses the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation as a routine money-laundering scheme, to hand over taxpayer-funded subsidies and grants to politically connected corporations. This is Lincoln's legacy in action. As DiLorenzo proves, Lincoln's political career was guided by The American System, the brainchild of his Whig idol, Henry Clay. Lincoln wanted to extend to politically favored industries in the north legal protection from international competition through trade tariffs and quotas. There is no better example of special-interest politics than protectionism and the corporate welfare schemes that Lincoln championed, where the force of the law is used to benefit a select group of politicians and their cronies, at the cost of limited choice and high prices for the consumer at large. Lincoln never wavered in this pursuit. The American System had, at its core, a massive consolidation of power in the hands of a central government. The powers Lincoln sought were inimical to the Constitution of the founders. To realize his dream of empire, Lincoln would have to crush any notion of the Union as a voluntary pact between sovereign states. In fact, the entire American political history, including the fact that America was born of secession, would have to be expunged, and secession tarnished as treason. Lincoln then would proceed to fabricate the notion that the federal government created the states, when the opposite was true. Wait a sec what about slavery? No serious historian, says DiLorenzo, would claim that Lincoln invaded the South to free slaves. In Lincoln's own famous 1862 words: If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it. Here too, DiLorenzo exposes the Lincoln who could speak of the natural right to liberty from one corner of his mouth, and from the other corner express opposition to citizenship for blacks. Or the Lincoln who never once lent his legendary legal skills to a runaway slave, but did plead the case of a slave owner. Or the Lincoln who was devoted to and attempted to implement Henry Clay's colonization ideas, namely the plan to send blacks packing back to Africa. If anti-slavery sentiments were his muse, the dissembling Lincoln never let on until 1854, which is when he began getting religion on slavery. Stripped of bafflegab, Lincoln's proclaimed primary objective was to destroy federalism and states' rights. His victory included much more than waging a war that killed 620,000 young men. Lincoln's achievement went beyond murdering roughly 50,000 Southern civilians, blacks included. His coward's conquest transcended the destruction of the Southern economy. Lincoln's victory is fulsome yet fetid today. It lives on in the unconstitutional, violent and mob-dominated institution over which President Bush now smirkingly presides. Having exposed every dank nook and cranny in Lincoln's putrid pedigree, DiLorenzo understandably expresses sadness that the loss of state sovereignty and by extension, individual sovereignty over the state seems not to matter to most Americans. As fine a Lincoln scholar as he is, DiLorenzo the economist is as valuable a presence throughout, dissecting for the reader the perverse incentives and consequent ruinous economic outcomes that Lincoln's slash-and-burn economic plank of nationalization and nepotism wreaked. DiLorenzo has harnessed his passion for
[CTRL] The Mythical Lincoln
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Mythical Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Every February 12 Americans think they are celebrating Lincoln's birthday. But what they are really celebrating is the birth of the Leviathan state that Lincoln, more than anyone else, is responsible for bringing about. No wonder federal politicos have made his birth date a national holiday, engraved his face is on Mount Rushmore, built a Venus-like statue of him in Washington, D.C., and put his mugshot on the five dollar bill. More than 130 years of government propaganda has hidden this fact from the American people by creating a Mythical Lincoln that never existed. Take, for instance, the fact that everyone supposedly knows that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This would be a surprise to the preeminent Lincoln scholar, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, who in his 1961 book, Lincoln Reconsidered, wrote that Lincoln was not an abolitionist. And he wasn't. He was glad to accept on behalf of the Republican Party any votes from abolitionists, but real abolitionists despised him. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins. Garrison knew Lincoln well. He knew that Lincoln stated over and over again for his entire adult life that he did not believe in social or political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriage, supported the Illinois constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, once defended in court a slaveowner seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended a runaway, and that he was a lifelong advocate of colonization of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America anywhere but in the U.S. Garrison and other abolitionists were also keenly aware that the January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed no one since it specifically exempted all the areas that at the time were occupied by federal armies. That is, all areas where slaves could actually have been freed. Historians have portrayed the Mythical Lincoln as a man who brooded for decades over how he could someday free the slaves. Nothing could be more absurd. According to Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln's Collected Works, Lincoln never even mentioned slavery in a speech until 1854, and even then, says Basler, he was not sincere. When Lincoln first entered state politics in 1832 he announced that he was doing so for three reasons: To help enact the Whig Party agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare subsidies for railroad and canal-building corporations (internal improvements), and a government monopolization of the nation's money supply. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance, he declared: I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff. He was a devoted mercantilist, and remained so for his entire political life. He was single-mindedly devoted to Henry Clay and his political agenda (mentioned above), which Clay called The American System. Lincoln once announced that his career ambition was not to free the slaves but to become the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois. DeWitt Clinton was the governor of New York in the early nineteenth century who is credited with having introduced the spoils system to America and supervising the building of the Erie Canal (which became defunct in a mere ten years because of the invention of the railroad). Lincoln is also portrayed as a champion of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, especially the statement that all men are created equal. Political scientist Harry Jaffa has written an entire book along this theme. But this is hard to square with his statement during the Lincoln-Douglas debates that I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese Twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism. So, with the possible exception of Siamese twins, Lincoln did not believe that any two men were ever created equal. Moreover, Lincoln destroyed the most important principle of the Declaration the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C. in 1860, and Lincoln put an end to that idea by having his armies slaughter 300,000 of them, including one out of every four white males between 20 and 40. Standardizing for today's population, that would be the equivalent of around 3 million American deaths, or roughly 60 times the number of Americans who died in Vietnam. As H.L. Mencken said of the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln absurdly claimed that Northern soldiers were fighting for the cause of self determination (that government of the people . . . should not perish . . .: It is
[CTRL] The US as Third-World Nation
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The US as Third-World Nation by Bob Wallace One of my friends, a Filipina who still lives in the Philippines, told me there are basically two economic classes in her country: the rich rich and the poor poor. There isn't much of a middle-class. How did this sad state of affairs come about? How else the rich rich have gained control of the State and use it to enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else. This is what always happens. It's human nature. It's what happened in the former Soviet Union, and what is happening in Mexico and the Middle East (the members of the House of Saud what a joke, because there's no such thing as Arab royalty are bazillionaires, while the populace is mostly poor and unemployed). It has always happened in the past. The example I generally use is Galilee of Jesus' time, in which two-thirds of the people were poor because the Romans and the upper-class Pharisees used the State to tax everyone into poverty. As best as I can tell, under a free market two-thirds of the people are middle-class. When there isn't a free market, two-thirds of the people are dirt-poor, and a very small minority (those who have gained control of the State) are Scrooge McDuck-rich. That is what the Third World is: a handful of billionaires and everyone living in shacks. In the Philippines, there is so much poverty that there has sprung up child prostitution to service wealthy pedophiles from other countries. The prostitutes are both boys and girls. The Philippine government looks the other way. Drug abuse is rampant, because the users are without hope. My friend lives in a gated community with armed guards at the entrance. That's starting to sound familiar even in America, isn't it? What do these other countries have to do with America? They show that America isn't immune to the diseases of the Third World. Here's an example: the mean average tax burden in the US is 40 percent of a person's income. The economist Walter Williams said when you factor in everything else such as the fact the citizens pay 100 percent of the Social Security tax, since businesses pass their taxes onto their customers then the tax burden is in reality 50 percent. Someone making $40,000 a year is actually making $20,000. When you take into account the fact the dollar, because of government-caused inflation, has lost 99 percent of its value in the last 100 years, plus all of the job-destroying regulation of the economy, plus deficits...it's entirely possible the US could turn into a Third-World country. It might take a century, but it could happen. My paternal grandfather dropped out of school in the 8th-grade. He spent his life installing wooden-strip floors and finishing them. His wife did some sewing part-time in their home. They raised nine kids and lived a middle-class existence. This is now impossible in the United States. How did my grandfather do this? Because taxes and regulations were a fraction of what they are now. My father's first brand-new car was a 1967 VW Bug. It costs $1600. He dropped out of high school and opened up his own construction company. He made $10,000 a year, which put him right in the middle of the middle-class. The car costs 16 percent of his yearly income. A cheap car today costs $10,000. The mean average salary is $40,000. The car is now 25 percent of a person's yearly income, not 16 percent. My parents' home solidly middle-class costs $12,000 in 1968. A little over one year of my father's salary. Today, the average home costs $120,000. Three year's income. While today's homes are somewhat larger than the ones in 1968, they're not ten times larger (and if you want to see what houses really cost, look at an amortization table and figure the interest). The price of a house now cost ten times more than it did a little over 30 years ago. If mean average income had kept pace, people would now be making $100,000 a year. It's not the free market that is doing these things. It's the State. Taxes. Regulations. Inflation. Deficits. I read an interesting newspaper article a few months ago, in which it was found the overwhelming majority of those arrested for failing to pay parking tickets didn't pay because they couldn't afford to. They were poor people. I see them all the time, driving their hubcap-less, 30-year-old cars with cracked windshields. The economy's pretty good if you have a degree or two. But if you don't, you're generally falling further and further behind every year. Not because of the free market, but because the State, every year, raises taxes a little bit more, regulates a little bit more, reduces the value of the money and savings through inflation just a little bit more... Now we have the Democrats (what I call the Evil Party) trying to rescind Bush's utterly insignificant tax cut (will the Republicans the Stupid, Cowardly Party have the guts to stop them?) It's not the rich get
[CTRL] Our Masters of Propaganda
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Our Masters of Propaganda by Stephen Gowans Washington pulls out the stops in its own propaganda war One of the surest ways of knowing you're being blanketed by propaganda is to be told that whatever makes Washington look bad is propaganda. That's been happening a lot lately. As the devastation in Afghanistan becomes clearer, as stories of broken bodies and blood and flattened Red Cross depots and orphaned children and weeping mothers trickle out of the war-torn and drought-stricken country, the White House and the State Department and the Pentagon fire back: Don't believe it. It's propaganda. If it looks like the war that was supposed to capture Osama bin Laden dead or alive has become a war on Afghans, well, that's just because the Taliban, backward, medieval, unworldly, are masters of deception. Through guile they've lured us all into believing innocents are being blasted away, displaced, and threatened with starvation. But isn't it always that way? The other side, no matter how small, no matter how poor, no matter how devastated by war, crippled by sanctions, weakened by IMF reforms, is always cunningly able to manipulate perceptions, twist the truth, exaggerate, tell tall tales, while Washington, with its ready access to the media, to PR firms, to spin-doctors, to overnight polling, struggles to get its message -- and the truth -- out. The 1.5 million Iraqis the UN says have died from sanctions-related causes? Iraqi propaganda. The thousands of Yugoslav civilians who died during NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia in 1999? Propaganda. The war crimes the US committed against the Serbs and Iraqis, against Afghans and Sudanese? Propaganda. When NATO missiles destroyed the Serb Radio-TV building, killing civilians inside, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the attack was necessary to shut down Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's propaganda machine. But Serb Radio-TV was relaying pictures of the extent of devastation NATO bombs were wreaking on civilian infrastructure, and people. Not soldiers, and police, but old ladies, and children, and, well, people who looked like you and me. It made people in the West wonder whether bombing was the answer. It made them ask questions and squirm in discomfort and wonder about the war's morality. And one thing you can't have is the public going soft on you. No sir! You don't want a repeat of what happened to former president Lyndon Johnson. When he looked out his window in 1968 to see hundreds of thousands of protesters, he knew, then and there, the Vietnam war was lost. Astonishingly, the attack on the Serb broadcasting building, a blatant war crime, has never been the object of a war crimes indictment, but then hundreds of war crimes committed by the United States in other wars have been sheltered from prosecution, too. It helps when you have a veto over the Security Council. It helps when you refuse to approve an International Criminal Court that could impartially prosecute war crimes, demanding blanket immunity from prosecution as the price of your approval. Instead, the Hague Tribunal, a creation of the UN Security Council, and therefore under the control of the principal members of NATO, threatened to indict Milosevic for the attack. Milosevic knew of the attack in advance, the Tribunal's chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte charged, and failed to warn the civilians inside, a cynical ploy to use their deaths for propaganda purposes. See the pattern? Commit outrages, trample international law, ignore international protocols banning attacks on civilians, and then, when the other side complains, and the public gets restive, dismiss it all as propaganda. But it must be propaganda, right? We're civilized. We would never kill countless numbers of civilians. Yeah, so maybe we used weapons of mass destruction against Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and lied about the targets being military bases selected to minimize civilian casualties.) Maybe we firebombed Tokyo during WW II. Maybe we carpet bombed North Korea until there were no targets left to bomb, killing millions. Maybe we stood by and watched with a check list as Indonesian dictator Suharto rounded up and murdered up to a million communists. Maybe we carpet bombed North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, wiping out three million. Maybe we killed 200,000 in the Gulf War. Maybe we killed 2,000 Panamanian civilians to arrest Manuel Noriega, a former CIA operative. Maybe we bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days, killing thousands. But that was all in the past. This time it's different, right? So why has the Pentagon bought the exclusive rights to photos taken of Afghanistan by a commercial satellite, photos it's not letting anyone else see? It's not as if the Pentagon needs the photos. It has its own satellites that provide far better photos. It's more like the Pentagon doesn't care to have you see what's really going on. So why did
[CTRL] A History of Folly
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] A History of Folly by Adam Young How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America? I'll tell you how I respond: I'm amazed. I just can't believe it, because I know how good we are. --President George W. Bush Before we celebrate the bombings of Afghanistan with hope of their expansion to other countries, let's pause and take a look back on the past fifty years of U.S. folly in the Middle East. 1949--Syria Defeat in the war against Israel discredits the ruling French-allied civilian regime. American agents and interests take the opportunity to provide support to Colonel Husni az-Zaim in a coup against the civilian regime. American agents call az-Zaim our boy and Husni, but when they arrive to inform the new dictator whom to appoint as his ambassadors and cabinet, az-Zaim orders them to stand at attention and to address him as His Excellency. Syria turns against the U.S. and descends into a series of coups and counter-coups and police-state government by quasi-military regimes. 1952--Egypt American influence and assistance backs the conspiracy of Gammal Abdel Nasser's Free Officers to oust the Egyptian royal family, the British post-colonial client regime in Egypt. The U.S. expects Nasser to support Washington's anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East, dubbed the Baghdad Pact, but he turns against the U.S. U.S. agents support Colonel Mohammad Naguib's attempt to overthrow Nasser, as well as later assassination attempts. In 1956, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles rescinds pledges of foreign aid for the Aswan Dam project. In response, Nassar uses this as a pretext to nationalize the Suez Canal, and uses its toll revenue to fund the dam. Britain, France, and Israel in response launch a joint invasion of Egypt with plans to occupy the Suez Canal. Arab support for the U.S. reaches its highest point when President Eisenhower, out of a distaste for European colonialism and European intervention in the Middle East, pressures the invading forces to abandon their invasion of Egypt. 1953--Iran After the government announces plans to grant the Soviet Union a territorial oil franchise in Northern Iran, modeled on the British one in the south for the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a local leader named Mohammed Mosaddeq leads the successful popular movement to oppose the grant to the Soviets and pushes further to nationalize all foreign oil facilities. Mosaddeq's popularity and influence increase to the degree that the shah appoints him prime minister. Faced with economic and political turmoil, the shah attempts to remove Mosaddeq but is met with mobs and mass public demonstrations, causing the shah to flee the country. The CIA then backs Mosaddeq's opponents, who then overthrow his administration and sentence him to house arrest for the rest of his life. The shah is restored and becomes America's best friend and now controls the nationalized British oil facilities as well. Eventually, opposition to the shah's autocracy and U.S. political domination, as well as the Savak--the U.S.-trained Iranian secret police--grows into a nationalist revolution to oust the shah and the West, and in 1979, Iran too turns against the U.S. 1958--Iraq In opposition to the British-client Iraqi regime, and in opposition also to Nasser's growing influence in Iraq, the bloodthirsty Colonel Kassem spearheads the American-supported military coup to overthrow the Iraqi royal family. The king and crown prince and most of the royal family are executed, and the prime minister is murdered by a mob. Years later, after Kassem has alienated all his allies except the Soviet Union and is overthrown and executed in 1963, United States support swings to a small group called the Ba'th Socialist Party. After many twists and turns, coups and elections, coups and revolutions, Saddam Hussein emerges as president of Iraq in 1976 after leading the coup that, with American insistence, installed that regime in 1968. 1958--Lebanon After the Iraqi monarchy is overthrown, the president of Lebanon requests U.S. military intervention to save his tottering regime from insurrections of United Arab Republican sympathizers. U.S. Marines arrive the next day in Beirut. Lebanon enters into a thirty-five-year period of instability and civil war. 1969--Libya In 1959, oil is discovered, which transforms the country. To elbow out the British, American support flows to a young reformist colonel in the Libyan army, Muammar al-Khadafy, who, once in power, turns against his U.S. sponsors, under the pretext of Western exploitation of Arab oil. He confiscates and nationalizes oil facilities and assets, including those of the local Jewish and Italian communities. 1980--Iraq With the Islamic revolution in Iran, the U.S. tilts toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein as its proxy against the Iranians. Iraq and Hussein become
Re: [CTRL] Liberty or Death
-Caveat Lector- thew if you read the messages I didn't mention capitalism, but corporatism MJ Yawn. Thew without even getting into it the media is anti- capitalist? Regard$, --MJ The sting [of gossip] is the truth of it. -- Benjamin Franklin A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Liberty or Death
-Caveat Lector- Thew without even getting into it the media is anti- capitalist? MJ Very much so. Thew could you explain how? MJ Simply WATCH or READ the material put forth. Thew I do read it, and I do watch it, and I don't see it. So instead of a snide non-answer, how about something more concrete? MJ There was no 'snide non-answer'. Observing the Media's 'anti-capitalist' slant is no different than identifying Dan Rather's red tie -- one simply needs to 'watch' and see. Thew WTF? the media in this country is nothing but a corporate shill at this point - the news, which used to stand on its own, and therefore have some room to actually investigate, is now wholly owned by megacorps and reports only what serves their interests. MJ Not really. The media is pro-state. Thew yes the media is pro state - and for the last 20 years at a minimum, the state exists almost solely for corporate interests - MJ And thus your problem: equating things which are not. Thew equating things which are not what? MJ You are 'stuck' on the idea that an orange is an apple -- which is likely why you are unable to readily 'see' what exists as pointed to above. Thew are you saying the govt. is NOT all about corporate interests? I think you've been sleeping since Reagan took office. MJ No and no. Thew again, you hive a non answer. how about facts, instead of pronouncements? MJ There were no 'non-answers'. Apparently you have far too much difficulty with 'facts' as you call them 'non-answers'. Regard$, --MJ There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Liberty or Death
-Caveat Lector- Thew without even getting into it the media is anti- capitalist? MJ Very much so. Thew could you explain how? flw If you define capitalism as Free Market, then of course the media is anti capitalist. If you define modern capitalism as corporatism, then the media is pro capitalist. MJ Defining 'capitalism' as *anything* other than capitalism is NOT capitalism. As Joshua oft demonstrates his woes in determining the difference between Government and private ... so it continues here. flw Today in America the Free Market does not exist. MJ Nor does capitalism which NECESSARILY requires such to exist. flw State Corporatism is the dominant theme. Modern corporations abhore the free market and use the power of the state to manipulate markets. MJ And hence has *NOTHING* to do with capitalism. Duh. Regard$, --MJ There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Liberty or Death
-Caveat Lector- thew what you say may be true, but there are no facts in anything you've said. MJ What 'facts' do you imagine are absent? thew all I've asked you for are some hard facts, examples to back up what you say MJ And I have POINTED to reality FOR you. thew I do watch the news, I do read the papers, and I do not see an anti-capitalist leaning in there, I see exactly the opposite MJ As I previously pointed out but your refused to grasp, you are looking for apples and seeing only oranges that YOU purport to be apples. Regard$, --MJ There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Liberty or Death
-Caveat Lector- Thew without even getting into it the media is anti- capitalist? MJ Very much so. Thew WTF? the media in this country is nothing but a corporate shill at this point - the news, which used to stand on its own, and therefore have some room to actually investigate, is now wholly owned by megacorps and reports only what serves their interests. MJ Not really. The media is pro-state. Regard$, --MJ Truth and news are not the same thing. -- Katharine Graham, owner of The Washington Post A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Liberty or Death
-Caveat Lector- Thew without even getting into it the media is anti- capitalist? MJ Very much so. Thew could you explain how? MJ Simply WATCH or READ the material put forth. Thew WTF? the media in this country is nothing but a corporate shill at this point - the news, which used to stand on its own, and therefore have some room to actually investigate, is now wholly owned by megacorps and reports only what serves their interests. MJ Not really. The media is pro-state. Thew yes the media is pro state - and for the last 20 years at a minimum, the state exists almost solely for corporate interests - MJ And thus your problem: equating things which are not. Regard$, --MJ There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way. -- Ludwig von Mises A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] Children's drug is more potent than cocaine
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Children's drug is more potent than cocaine Jean West The children's drug Ritalin has a more potent effect on the brain than cocaine, a study has found. Using brain imaging, scientists have found that, in pill form, Ritalin - taken by thousands of British children and four million in the United States - occupies more of the neural transporters responsible for the 'high' experienced by addicts than smoked or injected cocaine. The research may alarm parents whose children have been prescribed Ritalin as a solution to Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. The study was commissioned to understand more about why Ritalin - which has the same pharmacological profile as cocaine - is effective in calming children and helping them concentrate, while cocaine produces an intense 'high' and is powerfully addictive. In oral form, Ritalin did not induce this intense psychological 'hit'. But Dr Nora Volkow, psychiatrist and imaging expert at Brookhaven National Laboratory, in Upton, New York, who led the study, said that injected into the veins as a liquid rather than taken as a pill, it produced a rush that 'addicts like very much'. Interviewed in last week's Journal of the American Medical Association newsletter, she said: 'They say it's like cocaine.' Even in pill form, Ritalin blocked far more of the brain transporters that affect mood change and had a greater potency in the brain than cocaine. Researchers were shocked by this finding. A normal dose administered to children blocked 70 per cent of the dopamine transporters. 'The data clearly show the notion that Ritalin is a weak stimulant is completely incorrect,' said Volkow. Cocaine is known to block around 50 per cent of these transporters, leaving a surfeit of dopamine in the system, which is responsible for the hit addicts crave. But now it is known that Ritalin blocks 20 per cent more of these auto-receptors. 'I've been almost obsessed about trying to understand [Ritalin] with imaging,' said Volkow. 'As a psychiatrist I sometimes feel embarrassed [about the lack of knowledge] because this is by far the drug we prescribe most frequently to children.' However, it was still not clear why a drug that has been administered for more than 40 years was not producing an army of addicted schoolchildren. Volkow and her team concluded that this was due to the much slower process of oral ingestion. It takes around an hour for Ritalin in pill form to raise dopamine levels in the brain. Smoked or injected, cocaine does this in seconds. Dr Joanna Fowler, who worked with Volkow on the project, said: 'All drugs that are abused by humans release large quantities of dopamine. But dopamine is also necessary for people to be able to pay attention and filter out other distractions.' But opponents of Ritalin, labelled a 'wonder drug' and a 'chemical cosh', believe it may be addictive and has dangerous side-effects. Moreover, many believe ADHD is a fraudulent title for a non-existent condition once put down to the exuberance of youth. Professor Steve Baldwin, a child psychologist from Teesside University, who died this year in the Selby rail crash, campaigned against Ritalin. He pointed out similarities between the drug and amphetamines as well as cocaine. Mandy Smith of Banff in Scotland has a son of eight who was prescribed Ritalin for nine months. 'I am astonished the British Government have allowed this drug to be prescribed,' she said. 'It can destroy people's lives. My son was a changed person when he took Ritalin. He was suicidal and depressed.' Janice Hill, of the Overload Support Network, a charity for parents of children with behavioural problems, said: 'Now we have thousands of children in Scotland taking a drug that is more potent than cocaine. What does it take before the situation is thoroughly investigated?' A spokeswoman for Novartis, which makes Ritalin, said: 'Ritalin is available as tablets only. It should only be initially prescribed by a doctor who is a specialist in child behavioural disorders and should always be used and monitored under strict medical supervision.' A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at:
Re: [CTRL] Fw: The Subversion of Education in America
-Caveat Lector- laural What gets to me is the separation of Church and State is a first Amendment right! MJ This is untrue. The First Amendment PLAINLY prohibits Congress from mak[ing] laws in regards to 5 items. Regard$, --MJ The Constitution wisely forbids Congress to make any law respecting the establishment of religion, but it is idle to hope that the Nation can be protected against the influence of secret sectarianism while each State is exposed to its domination. We, therefore, recommend that the Constitution be so amended as to lay the same prohibition upon the Legislature of each State, and to forbid the appropriation of public funds to the support of sectarian schools. -- Republican Platform of 1880 A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Government at work: US boom bypassed middle class
-Caveat Lector- Again, TAXES, TAXES, TAXES. Will you EVER learn? Regard$, --MJ He who dares not offend cannot be honest. -- Thomas Paine A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] Saddam Hussein is Right
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] Saddam Hussein is Right by Bill Barnwell Do you have to be a bloodthirsty bully to be a conservative? That's one of the prerequisites, if the rhetoric of many Republicans are taken seriously. My conservative credentials hold up pretty well. If I had things my way, the IRS would be dismantled. The income tax would be abolished. Affirmative action would come to its miserable conclusion. The powers of the federal and even state governments would be dramatically reduced, Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and the nation would be magically rescued from the perverse warriors of political correctness and humanistic new age morality. Indeed, over the past couple of years, I have written quite bluntly on virtually all these subjects without apology. But there is one position I hold which cannot be tolerated by the conservative establishment. It is such a great heresy that it is considered blasphemy by the self-appointed ecclesiastical lords and guardians of real conservatism. That position is the rejection of the long held right wing doctrine of internationalism and militaristic imperialism. Think that is dramatic and overblown rhetoric? Think again. This country believes it has the right to rape the sovereignty of any nation that fails to succumb to its dictatorial demands. This is a country that has its military in countless foreign lands where it was never invited and never belonged. This is a country that tells foreign powers where and when it can fly its own planes over its own territory, then screams bloody murder when these same people try to protect themselves against US aggression. Just witness the ongoing 11-year rape of Iraq. Since the end of the Gulf War, armed forces, led by the United States, have engaged in a ruthless, merciless perpetual war against the Iraqi people. Countless children and elderly citizens have been starved by sanctions. Many civilians have needlessly died in US retaliation strikes (retaliation for Iraq trying to free itself from US aggression). Why, just two days ago, the US again bombed Iraq for daring to assert its sovereignly over its own air space. These kinds of events are hardly ever news anymore. These stories are buried in the back of our newspaper and rarely receive any attention in the national news because such imperialism is now the norm. Saddam Hussein, an aging and unhealthy dictator who allegedly poses a huge threat to American interests put it this way: Do you know what excuse was invented this time by the masters of the (White) House? That Iraq is threatening the planes of the US enemy which fly through our skies, our sovereignty and our territory. That is exactly the excuse coming from the Pentagon, the President and from imperialists in both parties. And guess what. Saddam is absolutely, 100% correct. And the United States, as it frequently is on matters of international relations, is totally in the wrong. Which one of you, my fellow right-wing (alleged) lovers of liberty, would like for a foreign power to dictate to us the terms of where we could fly our planes over our own territory? Who are the bold and consistent cheerleaders of US foreign policy that believe that China has the full rights and privileges to send spy planes over US land to monitor our military activities? Conservatives, please raise your hands if you believe that we'd have no right to shoot down such a plane that violated our sovereignty, or that we must follow orders from a foreign state that declared part of our airspace a U.S. no-fly zone? Would you agree to such terms? Of course you wouldn't. You would rightly want to fight back against such oppression. So in the name of all that is rational, why is it such a hard concept for some of you armchair generals to understand that other countries also don't want to be subjected to such tyranny? The response is all too predictable: You're comparing apples and oranges you idiot! Iraq is a threat to our national and world security! This ho-hum argument is getting as tiresome as it is moronic. Does Iraq, or any other country for that matter, possess as huge of a nuclear arsenal as the United States? Is Iraq sending their armed forces all over the globe to topple dictators, settle foreign disputes, and play the god of internationalism? Is it any wonder that Iraq wants to rebuild its military strength when it is being constantly humiliated, provoked and attacked by the world's greatest military superpower? Have any of you ever stopped to wonder why so many countries hate us and plot terrorist attacks against us? Could it be because of our much cherished doctrine of internationalism which arrogantly tries to control the affairs of the world? You conservatives who buy the official propaganda of the US government could learn from the golden rule of Christ. So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you (Matthew 7:12, NIV). Nobody in their right
Re: [CTRL] U.S. Aid To Israel Violates 1st Amendment
-Caveat Lector- Violates the First Amendment nothing ... there is no Power provided the Congress To forcibly take the earnings of Americans and give them to *any* Foreign Government or any other 'charitable' endeavor. Regard$, --MJ I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. -- James Madison A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
[CTRL] The Roots of Racial Profiling
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes only~~ [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107] The Roots of Racial Profiling Why are police targeting minorities for traffic stops? By Gene Callahan and William Anderson It is early in the morning, and the well-dressed young African-American man driving his Ford Explorer on I-75 sees the blue lights of the Georgia State Patrol car behind him. The officer pulls behind the sport utility vehicle and the young man's heart begins to sink. He is on his way to Atlanta for a job interview. The stop, ostensibly for speeding, should not take long, he reasons, as the highway patrol officer walks cautiously toward the Explorer. But instead of simply asking for a driver's license and writing a speeding ticket, the trooper calls for backup. Another trooper soon arrives, his blue lights flashing as well. The young man is told to leave his vehicle, as the troopers announce their intention to search it. Hey, where did you get the money for something like this? one trooper asks mockingly while he starts the process of going through every inch of the Explorer. Soon, an officer pulls off an inside door panel. More dismantling of the vehicle follows. They say they are looking for drugs, but in the end find nothing. After ticketing the driver for speeding, the two officers casually drive off. Sitting in his now-trashed SUV, the young man weeps in his anger and humiliation. Unmotivated searches like this are daily occurrences on our nation's highways, and blacks and white liberals have been decrying the situation for several years. Many conservatives, on the other hand, dismiss such complaints as the exaggerations of hypersensitive minorities. Or they say that if traffic cops do in fact pull over and search the vehicles of African Americans disproportionately, then such racial profiling is an unfortunate but necessary component of modern crime fighting. The incident described above should give pause to those who think that racial profiling is simply a bogus issue cooked up by black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to use as another publicity tool. One of us teaches in an MBA program that enrolls a fairly large number of African Americans, and the story comes from one of our students. Indeed, during class discussions, all of the black men and many of the black women told stories of having their late-model cars pulled over and searched for drugs. While incidents of racial profiling are widely deplored today, there is little said about the actual root cause of the phenomenon. The standard explanations for racial profiling focus on institutional racism, but that idea runs contrary to the sea change in social attitudes that has taken place over the last four decades. On the contrary, the practice of racial profiling grows from a trio of very tangible sources, all attributable to the War on Drugs, that $37 billion annual effort on the part of local, state, and federal lawmakers and cops to stop the sale and use of illicit substances. The sources include the difficulty in policing victimless crimes in general and the resulting need for intrusive police techniques; the greater relevancy of this difficulty given the intensification of the drug war since the 1980s; and the additional incentive that asset forfeiture laws give police forces to seize money and property from suspects. Since the notion of scaling back, let alone stopping, the drug war is too controversial for most politicians to handle, it's hardly surprising that its role in racial profiling should go largely unacknowledged. The Practice of Racial Profiling Although there is no single, universally accepted definition of racial profiling, we're using the term to designate the practice of stopping and inspecting people who are passing through public places -- such as drivers on public highways or pedestrians in airports or urban areas -- where the reason for the stop is a statistical profile of the detainee's race or ethnicity. The practice of racial profiling has been a prominent topic for the past several years. In his February address to Congress, President George W. Bush reported that he'd asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to develop specific recommendations to end racial profiling. It's wrong, and we will end it in America. The nomination of former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman as head of the Environmental Protection Agency was challenged on the basis of her alleged complicity in racial profiling practices in the Garden State. Whitman had pioneered her own unique form of minority outreach when she was photographed frisking a black crime suspect in 1996. Copies of the photo were circulated to senators prior to her confirmation vote. (By the same token, in February 1999, Whitman fired State Police Superintendent Carl A. Williams after he gave a newspaper interview in which he justified racial profiling and linked minority groups to drug trafficking.) More recently, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of
Re: [CTRL] Agriculture After Global Warming
-Caveat Lector- MJ Corporations -- a creation of Government -- does NOT possess legalized FORCE. Nessie (1.) Tell that to Wackenhut. MJ You PREACH your nonsense to 'Wackenhut'. Nessie (2.) Corporations own the government. Ergo, they control the poluce and military. If you don't believe me, try not paying your mortgage and see who the government sides with, you or the bank. MJ Let's see here ... YOU sign a CONTRACT with another PARTY whereby YOU agree to PAY $X per month in exchange for THEM to PAY $Y to a THIRD PARTY in a lump sum. YOU breach said CONTRACT. THEREFORE, corporations own the government. Such impeccable religious nonsense you cling. It REMAINS that Corporations do NOT possess legalized FORCE. Regard$, --MJ A state of skepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive minds. But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret the loss of their pleasing vision. -- Edward Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
Re: [CTRL] Global Warming Much Worse Than Predicted
-Caveat Lector- The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;ctrl/A 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
