Swimming With Piranhas By SB Kayser

Here I go again for another economico-philosophical round. If you have made it so far I definitely take it as a compliment. As I already stated numerous times, my goal is to gather the evidence of world affairs affecting mankind and to share them with you.

Everybody has apprehensions and fears. So do I. What is nonetheless the most frightening statement ever in my view is when I hear someone argue about the benefits of the right to vote. At that very moment my heart starts pumping so fast that I feel the urge to incarnate the last inter-galactic Joan of Arc.

Deep political dialogue too often censors itself by the fact that it would eventually lead the speakers' to the acknowledgement of major deceptions - and a nervous breakdown is the least desirable. This why political correctness regulates or even outlaws the exchange of too diffierent political views and calls for the conversation to end. In such a case speakers will argue that nobody can change anyone’s mind. Speak and see no evil, depending on the side one sits on. It is always much easier to criticize the opponent than seeing one's own faulty reasoning. To give you an example, Democrats were outraged by Bush on spending but it didn't prevent them from unveiling their own massive $463.5bn bill.

Although I've grown highly suspicious towards psychiatry (and for a very good reason explained in depth here) the psyche cannot escape the fundamental Aristotelian axiom of existence: life is .Train of thoughts also must survive and tend to reject anything that could hurt their own projections, this regardless of their accuracy.

This rejoices our power lust addicts (monetary scientists, lawmakers and the cohorts supporting them) even more. As stated in a previous column of mine, that is where “they” get us: by being the instigators of at least 70% of the world problems then coming up with solutions concocted by themselves. Any remedy presented must be dissected. Although I may have a hard time imagining what would the world be like without “them”, there is no excuse for not acting upon it with the legal means at our disposal. This time again voters are in for a dirty rollercoaster.


Insanity consists in repeating the same errors and expecting different results. These days, you see, most people think that the market forces are subjected to some esoteric moral hazards theories. Hence most people would agree with a total take over by our financial institutions to protect or even rescue from the nasty side effect of globalization and in the worst case scenario, financial ruin. In particular when words like “seismic shifts and New World Order” were being pronounced by the Brit Chancellor Gordon Brown last 01/17/07. The latter went on referring to our mega financial houses as old-fashioned establishment in need of major reforms to meet the new demands of the international trade, more importantly winning the war on terror and also calling this proposal the “battle for the heart and minds” that will set in motion the platform of a New World Order. The very same week in The Financial Times, Bernanke warned US of ‘fiscal crisis’ fear' by the way: he urged immediate action to head off the looming Medicare and Social Security funding gap, saying the right time to start was "ten years ago".

But getting back to Brown it should be now crystal clear that our globalists never were prepared to face the so-called globalization and crises that would arise from it. Never. The Mexican bailout, the collapse of Argentina, the Russian crisis and the Asian meltdowns, all of which took place in the 1900’s, didn’t teach them a thing. Not a damn freakin' thing. Neither did the dotcom crash or the S&L crisis obviously. If you still do not see the emergency to stop swallowing blue pills... Or wait, can you conceive that we are governed by pundits who do not have a clue as how to run our lives. Now honestly, can you truly believe that? Yeah and you have the right to cast your votes! Ballots for what.. to give the elites the right to choose as how they will devour us? The truth is that people have been voting for their demises again and again since the last great depression of the 1930’s. Back to square one.


The dis/misinformed voters have certainly not realized – yet - what truly lies beneath such a peace and prosperity speech in the name of our sacred democracy. What is democracy worth by the way? Praising the endless virtues of peace and reforms is a part of the script. This time again their carrying attitudes predict a major wealth transfer and way beyond that a shift toward a “very great” depression, and its ensuing the threat of absolute fascism.

But some at the top are really freaking out. Scared that the masses may find out. And those are ready to do everything to keep the lethal world bubble afloat. Among them we find Michael Milken, the junk bond billionaire turned philanthropist who said developing countries could free up trillions of dollars by creating markets based on mortgages, credit cards and loans.

Considering the debt swap bubble (named the derivatives market ) which is about more than 400 trillion or 8 times the real wealth, 100 trillion would not postpone the day of reckoning by much. If we take this into account the banking interests running wild, this would give the planet another 2 years or so. But what after that? This would make the world crash would be even more terrible. Some highly illuminated Wall Street mavericks even argue that the opacity found in those 400+ TN derivatives is not a problem. Right now, in other words as the author of the article puts it, there is little sign of any end to the credit boom - nor, it would seem, to the mounting uncertainty about what might happen if or when this frenzied debt dance ends.

Let's take a deep breath in and travel back into time: when the frienzied debt dance ends... yes you read well. That's right... Now exhale as slow as possible.

This author surely has a good comprehension of what the stakes really are, although remaining neutral. Meanwhile at Davos, a luxury Swiss montain resort, la creme de la creme celebrates a year of booming returns and record bonuses. Though things are not what they appear to be. Clouds are gathering above the horizon.

One of the Davos players sees the future as "too good to be true" and urged to get prepared for a global blowout. In fact not him alone agreed with such views: Summers and Trichet joined the doomsayer bandwagon and warned Davos party Goers of underestimating risk and worse, compared complecency with self-denying prophecy. Prepare for a significant asset repricing he concluded!

"We are currently seeing elements in global financial markets which are not necessarily stable," he said, pointing to the "low level of rates, spreads and risk premiums" as factors that could trigger a repricing. "There is now such creativity of new and very sophisticated financial instruments . . . that we don't know fully where the risks are located," he added. "We are trying to understand what is going on - but it is a big, big challenge".

Under the guise of being concerned about the world's economic state, the Davos meeting is a mere call to get ready for the great game of liquidation which most of the people view as the dark side of capitalism. Many even call this vulture capitalism. Capitalism is indeed destructive when for instance the system in place values debt as wealth and currency debasment to propel the markets, two main tools without which socialism wouldn’t exist. It is vulture capitalism – legal pillagism - that has allowed 2% of the population to own 50% of the world. All was done by scientifically creating successive and massive banrkruptcies thoughout the planet over a more or less 300 year period. We may easily grasp the resentment of the people toward capitalism. But Lefitism is no solution either because there is, to put it bluntly, no freedom in the absence of the gold standard and no freedom goes along with the threat of insercurity. Even Greenspan put it very well a long while back. Let's quote what the Maestro said in 1966 in his essay titled "Gold And Econmic Freedom":

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

It is particurlaly appalling to observe people's reaction when they are shown facts about the elites' predatory behaviors. Legal mass murders still find a blind support from those ignorant or worst preferring silence over action. The same crowd who instead of acknowledging that they have no answers, will not hesitate to become the most vocal defenders of individualism. It is for sure better to argue in favor of one's needs first when one feels powerless in the face of undeniable evidence of corruption. This voluntary servitude - already described more than 500 years ago by Etienne de la Boetie - allows the ruling elites to live happily ever after. Think Enron. While some heads may roll once every so often it is never really grave. The French revolution and the guillotine are far behind. Their bloated salaries subsidized by taxpayers, even with the new democratic-led Congress which just raised the minimum wage to win the hearts of the low middle-class, will not be an issue any time soon. Now let's brace for the economic consequences: firms will have to raise their prices or shut their doors if they cannot cope with the adjustment.Consumers will lose purchasing power. This will encourage illegal immigration. Taxpayers and consumers will have to come to the rescue by piling on debts to fix the imbalances or becoming poor-er. One of the ingredients for the next recession calling for another increase of the minimum wage. The complete spin.


In the meantime our high ranked CEOs get together with investment bankers and lawyers to regulate the plunder of Africa at the pace of $150bn yearly. Thinking of the people applauding the raise of the minimum wage to counter exploitation, I am sure they'd stay frozen if explained the unethical deeds of their mogul-icons abroad since it would unequivocally tarnish the idea they have about success and possibly lead to a civil war. The same applies to the sweatshop workers, I am not sure either whether they would like the prices of their favorite goods to go up by 50%. By now it should be clear that enforced altrusim is bunk.


It was Hoover who once said that people are handicaped when faced with a conspiracy so monstrous that they cannot believe it exists. Again it is our choice to believe in linearity or exponentality. If you are confused, just ask yourself how long you can play the ostrich while focusing on something terrible which happened to you in the past and whose effects were ravaging because you couldn't analyze its gravity.

Ironically the other day I came across an article by Science Daily stating that the detection of the presence of an active participant in a situation involves a brain region that's more active in altruistic people. As I put it ealier, the train of thoughts doesn't need to process accurate information, so what this article says is simply pure BS... While most of the westerners believe in the power to vote, they have absolutely no idea they have in fact always been be swimming with piranhas.

All modern history, as learnt and taught and accepted, is purely conventional. For sufficient reasons, all persons in authority combined, by a happy union of deceit and concealment, to promote falsehood. - Lord Acton

http://www.moneyfiles.org

2 last articles: Corporate responsibility is bunk and Nobel Pundits Find World Poor Bankable

I’ve been thinking about “evangineers” By Fred Cederholm

Column for on/after Jan. 28th, 2007


I’ve been thinking about “evangineers.” Actually I’ve been thinking about the landfill hearings, etomology, medicine/healthcare, MBAs, intellectual property, retailing, and action. An “evangineer” is a blend of evangelist, "someone who tries to persuade other people to share enthusiasm for particular beliefs and ideals," and engineer. It was first popularized by Apple Computer evangelist extraordinaire Guy Kawasaki: "If I had to describe in one word the perfect person to start a revolution, it would be 'evangineer.'" (From "Rules for Revolutionaries," Harper Business, January, 1999.)

You see, I spent over 40 hours last week sitting in on (and listening to) the siting hearings for the proposed landfill expansion which took place at the Hickory Grove Conference Center in Rochelle. I learned a great deal about geology, aquifers, waste containment technologies, and engineering. The specialists/ experts from Shaw Environmental hired by the City of Rochelle were consummate professionals – they were knowledgeable, articulate, and ever-so-patient in responding to questions directed at them by the attorneys - and the public at large. It was totally open and very impressive.

In a conversation with one of the principal engineers after the conclusion of this phase of the hearing process, I was introduced to the word/ concept “evangineer.” Etomology is the study of the origin, history, and derivation of words. If you add the letter “n” (entomology), it becomes the study of bugs – but that subject will be left to some future column.

This was a completely new word/ concept and got me TH*NK*NG in the much wider/ broader concepts of the problems facing this nation. “Evangineering” need not be limited to landfills - or to the engineers who deal with them. An “evangineer” could be ANY person who seeks to change some aspect of society and who has the high level of technical expertise required to make that change. They might come from numerous disciplines and fields of study. The important thing is that they have knowledge/ expertise, they speak out, and they use what they know for the good of all in fixing/ solving a problem.

Medicine/ healthcare is a huge sector of our economy. That sector is growing far in excess of the rate of inflation. We as a nation are spending a bigger chunk of our budgets on medicines, healthcare, and medical insurance. We are less fit and popping more pills than any prior generation. The current generation of young Americans more-than-likely will face a shorter life expectancy than their parents. We need “evangineers” in medicine/ healthcare to come up with real fixes and cures. I mean… why cure anything when the goal of research and “solutions” is to make everything a “chronically treatable” disease requiring the daily intake of costly wonder drug medications? This doesn’t cure anything; it does guarantee the future profits and cash flows of the pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare industry.

MBA’s, “das Wunderkinders” of the business schools, are the professionals of Wall Street, industry, and finance with their fingers on the pulse of our economy, our growth, our efficiencies, and our corporate cultures. Their focus/ solution of late has been on “the cheap.” Cut your costs by down-sizing, right-sizing, and shipping our manufacturing jobs to the countries in the third world which pay subsistence wages with no benefits and fewer worker protections. True, short term profits may soar and management can get eye-popping bonuses. Down the road, who here will have the money to buy things?
Our colleges and universities are the best in the world. Students come from all over the globe to study here and we welcome them – but sometimes at the expense of educating our own nationals. Some émigré scholars stay in the US; that is fine because we are after all a nation of immigrants. If they pack-up their knowledge and degrees and return home, they increase the future competition against US/us. Intellectual property – patents, trademarks, technology, and brands – have a huge intrinsic value – far more than we realize.

It’s true that inventors make some money, but the real profits (or the values added) accrue in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution. How many things and products that the world must have were invented here, but are now all made elsewhere? Does that really help our economy or long range situation in the broader scheme of things? We no longer have the option to “Buy American.”

We are at a critical juncture in the problems facing our community, our state and/ or our nation. In many cases, we must even backtrack to get on the right path. Let’s face it: it’s time for us to fish - or to cut bait. More graphically stated… or get off the pot. We face hard choices, but we are an inventive people with knowledge/ expertise unsurpassed. We must speak up and act accordingly. (Thank you, Devin, I needed that.) I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.

(To be continued.) Copyright 2007 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Awakening of the UsuryFree Creatives By Tommy UsuryFree

The Awakening of the UsuryFree Creatives

During the past twenty-five years, the thoughts and actions of the pioneering usuryfree creatives have spread from rural British Columbia to countries all over the world, making a profound impact not only in the movement of usuryfree living, but also in the overall achievement of consciousness-raising of the whole planet.

Read more...
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2007/01/the_awakening_of_the_usuryfree_creatives.html

I’ve been thinking about sunshine By Fred Cederholm

Column for on/after Jan. 21st, 2007

I’ve been thinking about sunshine. Actually I’ve been thinking about Sunshine Week, the League of Women Voters, Katrina, Homeland Security, embarrassments, the “siting hearings,” and illumination. Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. It is spearheaded by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, with a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Sunshine Week occurs each year in March.

You see as part of the 2006 observance, an open dialogue/ forum was broadcast from the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The topic of discussion was “Are we safer in the dark?” It was an excellent presentation. This coming Thursday evening at 7:00 P.M. the Rochelle Area Chapter of the League of Women Voters will host an open forum at the First National Bank’s VIA Room (in the May Mart Plaza) and will present a DVD of that 90 minute broadcast.
The material on the DVD covers the following questions: Do federal laws such as the Freedom of Information Act promise to guarantee an openness in Government? How do laws passed and policies/ regulations implemented after 9/11 encourage secrecy or openness? How does transparency affect the government's readiness to implement disaster assistance? What about the public's ability to plan and prevent disasters? What tools and resources work effectively in safeguarding the public's ability to hold government accountable?

A segment of the presentation focuses on one reporter’s futile attempt to learn what chemicals/ toxins were floating in the waters of a submerged New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Not only was the reporter denied access to the information regarding the chemicals, the quantities, and the location/ status of the storage facilities; the first responders to this disaster were denied timely access as well. The reason given by the “stonewallers” for the secrecy was Homeland Security. Security WAS central here, but should not the security and well being of those left stranded to wade in the toxic soup which submerged the City of New Orleans have been the real issue?

Since 9/11 we have seen an escalation in the abuse of the justification of “security” as the basis for withholding data/ information from the public. The actions in Iraq and the global war on terror have compounded the secrecy as well as the attacks on (and deferrals of) so many of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Is the true public interest really served by withholding the facts and keeping US/us in the dark? How much of the secrecy is justified because disclosure is dangerous? How much of the secrecy is really justified because it covers-up or obfuscates the embarrassments, the mistakes, or the mis-deeds of those in the government working on our behalf?

This week we are experiencing the third attempt to secure a major expansion of our local landfill. The siting hearings are open to the public and any citizen will be given the opportunity to listen to the sworn testimony of the experts as well as to make their own comments/ concerns known. Hundreds of pages of reports, analyses, and studies have been made available to the public at several locations. I am truly in awe of the openness of the process and lengths to which the public has been brought into the loop. We (and future generations) all have an interest in the outcome of the expansion, but the “system” of openness applied in this case has many implications to other matters affecting us at the local, state and federal levels. Why can’t the public be trusted with such “illumination” there as well? It works here.

We are only beginning to realize “wealth” of information being accumulated by our government on every minutia of our daily lives – done in the name of security. We, however, are left the poorer and more vulnerable because we do not know what is out there - such riches are not being shared with us. Even if we ask about/for it, will we be given timely access? Is that really an “offensive strategy” to make us safer? Or… is it truly an “offend-sive invasion” of privacy – snooping for snooping’s sake alone?

Understanding comes from knowledge and knowledge comes from the openness of government and the availability of information to the public. Knowledge empowers the people. So much of the information accumulated by various levels of government was done so in the name of serving the people and that accumulation of it was paid for with our tax dollars. If such was done on our behalf at our expense, are We the People… not entitled to an open and timely access to it? Or… “Are we safer in the dark?” I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.

Copyright 2007 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To “audit” this column and to learn more about the subjects discussed, please check out:
Are we safer in the dark? A sunshine week national dialogue (DVD order information available here) http://www.sla.org/marketplace/stores/1/DVD_-_Are_We_Safer_in_the_Dark_P90.cfm
Are we safer in the dark? – an overview MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Ts56Ra92QPkJ:www.lwvme.org/voter/02_06/page3.pdf+%22are+we+safer+in+the+dark%22+sunshine+week&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11
Are We Safer In the Dark?—Questions and Answers
http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=5577

OPEN GOVT. IS GOOD GOVT. http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/polls06

Significance of the $1Bill By James Jaeger

Take out a one dollar bill. The one dollar bill you're looking atfirst came off the presses in 1957 in its present design.This so-called paper money is in fact a cotton and linen blend,with red and blue minute silk fibers running through it. It isactually material.We've all washed it without it falling apart. A special blend ofink is used, the contents we will never know.


It is overprinted with symbols and then it is starched to make itwater resistant and pressed to give it that nice crisp look.


If you look on the front of the bill, you will see the United States Treasury Seal.


On the top you will see the scales for a balanced budget.In the center you have a carpenter's square, a tool used for aneven cut.


Underneath is the Key to the United States Treasury.That's all pretty easy to figure out, but what is on the back ofthat dollar bill is something we should all know.If you turn the bill over, you will see two circles.


Both circles, together, comprise the Great Seal of theUnited States.The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklinand a group of men come up with a Seal.


It took them four years to accomplish this task and another twoyears to get it approved.If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid.Notice the face is lighted, and the western side is dark.


This country was just beginning.We had not begun to explore the West or decided what we could dof for Western Civilization.


The Pyramid is uncapped, again signifying that we were not evenclose to being finished.Inside the capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancientsymbol for divinity.


It was Franklin's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but agroup of men, with the help of God, could do anything."IN GOD WE TRUST" is on this currency. The Latin above thepyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means, "God has favored ourundertaking."


The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM,means, "A new order has begun."At the base of the pyramid is the Roman numeral for 1776.


If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully,you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in theUnited States.


It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, FloridaNational Cemetery, and is the centerpiece of most heroes'monuments.Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States, and it is always visible whenever he speaks, yet veryfew people know what the symbols mean.


The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for tworeasons:First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smartenough to soar above it.Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken from theKing of England.Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now standon its own.At the top of that shield you have a white bar signifying congress,a unifying factor.


We were coming together as one nation.


In the Eagle's beak you will read, "E PLURIBUS UNUM", meaning,"one nation from many people."Above the Eagle, you have thirteen stars, representing thethirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstandingrolling away.


Again, we were coming together as one.


Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branchand arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid tofight to preserve peace.


The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time ofwar, his gaze turns toward the arrows.


They say that the number 13 is an unlucky number.This is almost a worldwide belief. You will usually never see aroom numbered 13, or any hotels or motels with a 13th floor.


But think a bout this:13 original colonies,13 signers of the Declaration of Independence,13 stripes on our flag,13 steps on the Pyramid,13 letters in the Latin above,13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum,"13 stars above the Eagle,13 bars on that shield,13 leaves on the olive branch,13 fruits, and if you look closely,13 arrows.


And, for minorities: the 13th AmendmentThe writer of this advises that he always asks people, "Why don't you know this?" Your children don'tknow this, and their history teachers don't know this.Share this page with someone, so they can learn what is on the backof the UNITED STATES ONE DOLLAR BILL, and what it stands for...Otherwise, they will probably never know...


For information on who we have now allowed to sheppard these Dollar bills, see the movie, FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution, at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531&q=FIAT+EMPIRE&hl=en

I’ve been thinking about “enough” By Fred Cederholm

Column for on/after Jan. 14th, 2007

I’ve been thinking about “enough.” Actually I’ve been thinking about Iraq, vagueness, polling, duration/costs, November 7th, constitutional semantics, Rockford/Rochelle, and “the speech/interview.” The quagmire of Iraq is finally getting its due on the front page national domestic media as well as in the features in the nightly news. It is surprising how often the word “enough” is figuring into those stories and commentaries. But… therein rests the dilemma - and the rub.

You see, the word “enough” is one of those terms which both quantifies and qualifies. By its very nature, it is sufficiently vague to give wiggle room; yet… it can also be sufficiently specific to make its point. Depending on the context and the implied tonal inflection - on the low end, it suggests an amount that is sufficient to do “whatever;” on the high end, it suggests an amount that is plenty to achieve the same thing. Alphabetically, synonyms for it include: abundant, adequate, ample, bounteous, complete, fed up, had it, last straw, satisfactory, suitable, and unlimited. Regardless of where one stands on the status of the action in Iraq, “enough” seems to apply.

The polling of opinion is both and art and a science. It is safe to say that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the progress in the Iraq conflict – as well as where we are and where we are headed. Regardless of how the polling sampling is stratified and the questions are structured, roughly two-thirds of the US population sees it negatively. This has been true since before the recent mid-term elections. Now, even more than 50% of those in the military see it that way, too. I find it particular of interest that the White House has not been hawking poll results (of any kind) for some time now. Could that be because no matter how the polling population is stratified, or how the questions are asked; the results fail to support their position, policy, and strategy?

Since November of 2006, the action in Iraq has dragged on longer than the Second World War in both the European theater AND the Pacific theater for THOSE conflicts. The loss of life of our service men and women in Iraq now exceeds the casualty tolls from the attacks of September 11, 2001 – the event which supposedly originally triggered the intervention there. The dollar cost of war estimates of $ 50 BILLION are already eight times that - and there is no end to the conflict in sight on the horizon.

The November 7th election was clearly about dissatisfaction on the part of the electorate. Not since the Newt Gingrich led “Contract with America” campaign of 1994 has the swing of the political pendulum been so lopsided. This time the momentum for change went to the Democrats with “control” of both the House of Representatives and the Senate shifting to the party of the Donkey. Not one incumbent Democrat lost on November of 2006. The electorate had had “enough,” and wanted change. But, just what was the so-called mandate for change? How much change would be “enough” to placate the voters?

The Iraq situation is complicated on so many fronts. Like every conflict since World War II, Iraq was never declared a war by Congress. By tacitly deferring all decision(s) to Bush as Commander in Chief via a resolution of open-ended support for actions there, did Congress preclude their subsequent right to pull the plug? The Constitution gives Congress control of the purse strings, but will stopping funding be a legitimate, a politically expedient, and an effective way to prevent further escalation there - and bring our troops home? Will non-binding resolutions be “enough” to placate the voters – convincing them that they are getting from the 110th Congress what They the People… voted for on November 7th?

It is hard for me (living in a small town of 500 souls in North Central Illinois) to conceptualize the over 150,000 of our young service men and women who are already there in Iraq - plus the current supplementary “surge” of 21,500 more being mobilized as you read this. Then it hit me. Using the 2000 census data, it was like the entire population of Rockford, Illinois at 150,115 (our second largest city after Chicago) had been picked up and already transferred to Iraq. The escalation now in progress would take the entire population of Rochelle, Illinois at 9,424 TWICE, pack it up, and ship it there to join “Rockford.” Will that then be “enough” to finish the job? Or, will that merely buy more time until…?

In the past seven days, we have seen President Bush hold a press conference and stage an interview on “60 Minutes.” It is clear from his words that “the decider” has decided what he as Commander in Chief will do. He “knows” what he “wants” to happen. But… there are no guarantees of that happening by any means. Just when (or how much) of enough… is enough? I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.

Copyright 2007 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved

asklet@rochelle.net

Drug reimportation is back in the headlines. "It should happen. But it won't" By Peter Rost, M.D

What brought this issue back to life was the introduction of two identical bills in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to legalize importation of less expensive prescription drugs into the United States.

The fight for affordable drugs in the U.S., where uninsured patients pay the highest prices in the world, has gone on for a long time, with very little result.

A 2004 study by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that comparable drugs sold for 35 to 55 per cent less in Canada than in the U.S. The only ones benefiting from this situation have been the drug companies, and Canadian Internet pharmacies, which supply drugs to about three million Americans.

The proposed legislation would allow U.S. licensed pharmacies and wholesalers to import medications from Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.

Is it going to happen?

I doubt it.

Last time I was involved with this issue Senator Dorgan told me it was definitely going to happen. It didn't.

What is different this time around is that Democrats are now controlling both Houses, so the legislation stands a better chance of being passed.

What is not different is that to become law, the new legislation must be approved by President Bush, and he's made it very clear that he will not sign such legislation.

The issue seems like a no-brainer. But too many people in our government are paid off and will not allow this to happen, no matter how many uninsured Americans are suffering.

There is, however, some hope: Another presidential election is around the corner.

Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Vice President of Pfizer. He is the author of " The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman." He also writes the daily Dr. Peter Rost blog.

I’ve been thinking about P-oil-ITICS By Fred Cederholm

Column for on/after Jan. 7th, 2007

I’ve been thinking about P-oil-ITICS. Actually I’ve been thinking about our October energy imports, proven reserves, Iraq, nationalization/ de-privatization, pipelines/ diversions, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, the Saudis, and the “weaponization”. Politics is driven by policy and policy seems driven more and more by energy needs. In 2007 we will find politics morphing into p-oil-itics as policy morphs into p-oil-icy. What had been the focus/concerns behind “the closed doors of government(s)” in the past will become more obvious to us all in the light of day and the news stories on page one this coming year.


You see, the biggest markets (and the emerging markets) for energy consumption – the US, Western Europe, Japan, China, and India – find themselves well (pun intended) on the short side of their own domestic production. Energy has clearly evolved into a sellers’ market – if indeed THAT has not already been the case for some time now. As “buyer competition” increases, the global clout of the sellers can only continue to rise. Trust me… the sellers are very aware of that fortuitous fact of life!


We are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before - with a slightly different percentage mix of the recent suppliers. In October 2006 our domestic production of crude was 161.0 MILLION Barrels per MONTH – up from our February 2006 and (62 year low) domestic production of 141.4 MILLION Barrels per MONTH. The top eight sources of Uncle $ugar’s crude oil imports for October 2006 were: Canada (1.704 MILLION barrels per DAY--MBPD), Mexico (1.481 MBPD), Saudi Arabia (1.322 MBPD), Venezuela (1.125 MBPD), Nigeria (1.049 MBPD), Angola (0.506 MBPD), Iraq (0.505 MBPD), and Algeria (0.449 MBPD). Uncle $ugar’s top eight sources of total petroleum imports for October 2006 were: Canada (2.144 MILLION barrels per DAY--MBPD), Mexico (1.646 MBPD) Saudi Arabia (1.382 MBPD), Venezuela (1.354 MBPD), Nigeria (1.088 MBPD), Algeria (0.813 MBPD), Angola (0.536 MBPD), and Iraq (0.505 MBPD). These figures for the October 2006 imports were made available by the Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy on December 27, 2006.


In December of 2006, a NEW ranking of proven oil reserves by country of origin was released. These are as follows: Saudi Arabia #1 with 264.3 BILLION BARRELS (BB), Canada #2 with 178.8 BB, Iran #3 with 132.5 BB, Iraq #4 with 115.0 BB, Kuwait #5 with 101.5 BB, United Arab Emirates #6 with 97.8 BB, Venezuela #7 with 79.7 BB, Russia #8 with 60.0 BB, Libya #9 with 39.1 BB, Nigeria #10 with 35.9 BB, and the United States #11 with 21.4 BB. It should be noted that despite the fact that Iraq is sitting on the fourth largest proven oil reserves, their output/sales continues to set new record LOWS with each passing month. Just what light does this ranking shed on who is in the news, and why?


In 2007 we shall continue to see more and more countries (on the producing side) nationalizing their domestic oil/gas/energy industry sectors. Whether one calls it “nationalization, de-privatization, or re-negotiation of contracts with the major global oil companies;” the sovereign states sitting on the “reserves” will increase their owners’ rights and their share of the profits from exploration, extraction, and distribution from their crude, natural gas, and distillates. This has been an ever increasing trend from 2005 and 2006 in South America, the Middle East, Russia, and the former Soviet Republics.


Some nations - who by the luck of their geographic positioning - will enter into the mix of saber rattlers on the energy front in 2007. This will be true whether they have any subterranean oil or gas reserves/production at all. Here… the producers “need” the right of ways of those third parties to get their energy resources out to the consumers; or, the consumers “need” the right of ways of those third parties to get their energy resources from the producers – in a timely, cost effective, and strategic manner. Announcements (or even rumors) of pipeline agreements or multinational contracts of promises to provide future crude, distillates, or natural gas can rattle the world’s markets. Right of ways/ thru-put negotiations and/or disputes will only complicate and de-stabilize an already shaky situation globally.


Energy demand will continue to grow - as will the competition for the finite and proven sources of that energy. There are alternatives out there, but bringing them from concepts on the drawing board into viable realities will take time. In the owner/seller market as we face it now, they can use their clout as both a carrot and a stick. When you use any tool or surrogate “item” to get what you want (or prevent what you don’t want), does that not effectively “weaponize” the said tools or surrogate items? Policy becomes p-oil-icy, and politics will become p-oil-itics. I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.


Copyright 2007 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To “audit” this column and to learn more about the subjects discussed, check out:

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

U.S. Crude Oil Field Production (Thousand Barrels)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus1m.htm

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Iraq's Oil Production at Post-Invasion Lows. Cui Bono?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/iraqs-oil-production-at-_b_18351.html

Belarus Blocks Transit of Russian Oil
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070108/D8MH37GG0.html

Russian oil supplies to Poland, Germany caught in Belarus dispute
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/08/070108124819.kkhgowaq.html
Blackmail fear after Russia doubles the price of its gas http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=424434&am p;in_page_id=1811

Iran threatens to stop oil flow via Hormuz strait
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467686686&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

World's Largest Gas Pipeline Proposed to Run Through Amazon http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070104-gas-pipeline.html
Securing the U.S. Energy Supply http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/issues/issuearea/EnergySupply.cfm

God vs. Science By James Jaeger

I read the below article, God vs. Science last night and it put me to sleep.

These idiots in the media (e.g., TIME mag) often write and host the most banal and wandering interviews on this button subject possible. Who wants to hear Collins and Dawkins rehashing what many, for instance, covered exhaustively at the MIND-X 10 years ago?!

For starters, these two endlessly throw around the following terms without even defining them: God, natural world, mind, brain, faith, reason, morals, science, religion, universe, supernatural, existence, creation, physical world, evolution, outside space and time, full knowledge, intelligence, intelligent design, God, God, God, God, ad nauseum ...

One of the reasons they have failed to define their terms is because if they did they would more easily make fools out of themselves as they would be forced to be consistent in their thinking -- "God" forbid! Case in point: Collins says: "By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation...."

Then Dawkins chirps in: "I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings ...."

God is commonly defined as an entity (or static) that is omni-intelligent, omni-potent, omni-present and that is the creator of matter, energy, space and time. Had Collins or Dawkins actually defined and agreed on a definition of the word "God," Dawson's statement would be foolish because obviously 10 billion years would create no "waiting" time for a God, as defined. Such "time" would go by instantly thus the "process" of evolution would be no "roundabout way" or methodology. Thus Collins statement could/would make sense.

So rather than actually exploring the NATURE of God or supreme Being or existence or the infinite, or existence, from the starting point of agreed upon terminology, these two just massage their egos. For a finite mine, such as the ones we all MAY have (there is no proof either way), nothing is a more noble study than the study of epistemology and ontology. These ARE the supreme studies of all human existence and ALL other studies, even the realm of science, are of secondary consideration. Whether we approach an understanding of existence (approach being epistemology and ontology) inductively (through so-called science) or deductively (through so-called religion) probably makes no difference as the end cognition is the same.

If God IS all powerful, by definition, THEN God COULD imitate a human being to such perfection that no other human beings could differentiate the GOD-human from the human-human.(1) This is a given, given the definition assumed about an infinite entity. Also, if God could assume the status of one human, it could also assume the status of all humans. Thus is may be correct to say GOD is ME (i.e., or YOU), whereas it may be incorrect to say I am GOD.

If GOD is ME, that doesn't necessarily mean I am GOD, but if it does mean this, then an individual's SUBJECTIVE view of existence is equal to a GOD's OBJECTIVE view of existence, by definition. In otherwords, the objective view of existence becomes tantamount to the subjective view of existence, hence we CAN approach an understanding of existence inductively OR deductively. Thus religion and science ARE effectively the same study as are epistemology and ontology because they are seeking the SAME goals. Epistemology is the study of the nature and extent of knowing (knowing HOW to know) and ontology is the study of the nature of being and existence.

Thus, epistemology is really a SUBJECTIVE study and ontology is really an OBJECTIVE study. Accordingly, religion is a subjective study (it's governed by "belief") and science is an objective study (it's governed by empirical observation).(2)

I feel the path to ultimate truth is to embrace both the objective study as well as the subjective study.

Why aren't Dawkins and Collins talking about any of this?

Because what their whole moronic "discussion" really comes down to is nothing more than an attempt to sell magazines by generating controversy. Our first cue is the title of the piece itself: God vs. Science. Create conflict and you can sell crap. That's the media and film industry's formula. All writers are even taught this at age 3. A good story MUST have conflict. This is of course all crap itself. A good story does NOT need conflict, it simply needs dramatic CHALLENGE or interesting CHARACTERS or a wild-river ride plot.(3) Thus, again, this TIME article does nothing more than stir up conflict without making any attempt to reveal truth. Since none of the words or terms were defined, these two stooges are given free license to talk AT each other endlessly with no regard to rational thought or argument.


All of this is thus just more "amusement" for our popcorn-brain culture. If you want to really discuss God verses science (which would have been more appropriately named, Religion vs. Science) go to the MIND-X and actively participate in the arguments and discussions there or get actively involved in the religion of your choice.

Happy New Year? By Joost van Steenis

Phnom Penh, January 1 2007

Dear reader. this is the 81st Letter of an Autonomous Thinker

Alas, the world will not become much happier in the coming year.
Elites are still fighting each other for a bigger part of the cheese in wars in which only masspeople die.

Only when masspeople will point their arrows at the elite and the eliteworld, the possibility will arise for a New World in which all people have equal status.

Superficially masspeople seem to be happy but the everlasting hunger, avoidable illnesses and poverty in the Third World, the secondary position of women all over the world or the rising number of people who need psychiatric assistance show that real happiness is still far away.

It is a fact that in the last twenty years the rich have become much richer. Some poor people have also improved their living standard but many still live on a dollar a day.
And we see already the first signs of a new financial crisis. The stagnating American economy, the fall of the dollar, or the increasing American debt create a climate in which crises easily can come around.
The fall of the Thai exchange by 20 percent is a first concrete sign that the elitist economy is basically wrong. And in a crisis the rich hardly suffer. The poor bear the brunt of the downfall because they do not have any reserves to fall back on.

But anyhow I wish you a happy New Year and I hope you distance yourself from any elite.

Yours truly, Joost van Steenis
http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis
Ways to increase masspower

I’ve been thinking about phenomenon By Fred Cederholm

Column for on/after Dec. 31st, 2006


I’ve been thinking about phenomenon. Actually I’ve been thinking about the 2008 elections, Barack Obama, “the speech,” audacity, listening, and the media. It seems like only yesterday that we completed the 2006 election cycle on November 7th. The newly elected don’t take office until this coming January! We the People… normally get the hiatus of a year off from campaigning between the biennial national elections – meaning 2007 should be a break for US/us. However… the 2008 election process has already begun in earnest on the Democratic side of the ballot; John Edwards has just declared his candidacy, there is the “not-as-yet declared candidacy” candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton, and finally there is the phenomenon that is Barack Obama.


You see, while the word “phenomenon” technically refers to any observable event, it also brings to mind something extra-ordinary, something exceptional, and something not expected – an anomaly if you will. The presumed (at the time my writing this column) presidential candidacy of the junior Senator from Illinois fits all those criteria points. Senator Obama’s rise to the front pages of the nation’s daily mega-newspapers and the covers of the nation’s weekly newsmagazines has been both meteoric and unprecedented. He has done very well for himself, but just what do we know about him?


Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His undergraduate studies were at Occidental College, Los Angeles, California, and Columbia University, New York City. He studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received a J.D. in 1992. In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate from the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park, in Chicago. He served as chairman of the Public Health and Welfare Committee when the Democrats regained control of the chamber. In 2000, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st Congressional district against incumbent Bobby Rush.


In 2004, he decided to challenge incumbent Illinois US Senator Peter Fitzgerald knowing he faced a real uphill battle - thus he began his first campaign for a statewide office fueled by a shoestring budget and a shoe leather (door to door) strategy. What then transpired not even a fictional Hollywood screenwriter would have fantasized. Fitzgerald chose not to seek re-election. The seven Republican candidates bloodied themselves to the bone marrow in the primary. The “winner” was forced by public disclosures of a personal scandal to withdraw before the election. Then…the Illinois Republicans chose to bring in a “ringer” candidate from Maryland to run against him. Obama clearly had a guardian angel and his star was truly on the rise.


These rising perceptions of Obama got him a spot as a keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston, Massachusetts. This was unprecedented – he had held an in-state (Illinois) office for only seven years and was only “a candidate” for his first national office. The speech – the “Audacity of Hope” – was a both blockbuster and a knockout. Its message of hope and belief in the “American Dream,” a destiny of continued greatness for America, and a faith in simple dreams and an insistence on small miracles wowed everybody. Such exposure certainly didn’t hurt his campaign either for he was soundly elected to the US Senate. He was sworn in on January 4, 2005. He then ranked 99th out of 100 Senators in terms of official seniority (greater seniority brings greater privileges in the Senate).


The word “audacity” conjures up thoughts of “how dare you!” Senator Obama capitalized on the success of his keynote speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 following it up with a book length expansion of his thoughts in 2006. “The Audacity of Hope – Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” is a masterful treatise on values, our constitution, politics, opportunity, faith, race, the world beyond our borders, and family. It says a lot of things that I personally want to believe, but is the book biographical, or novelistic? Just what does it tell us about Barack Obama - the person, Barack Obama – the phenomenon, or Barack Obama - the candidate for the Office of the President of the United States?


Senator Obama has been truly blessed in this business of politics. He has been the exception to the “rules” in that he has run clean (and positive) campaigns. He “listens” when in face to face contact with potential voters at events. Thus far… he has pretty much received a pass from the media and his other (potential) adversaries in their microbial examinations into “everything” about a candidate for such a high office. Just who is this phenomenon known as Barack Obama? We’re going to find out - I can guarantee THAT. I’m Fred Cederholm and I’ve been thinking. You should be thinking, too.


Copyright 2006 Questions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To “audit” this column and to learn more about the subjects discussed, check out:

The use of phenomenon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon
Barack Obama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Barack Obama – Congressional Biography
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167

Barack Obama – Washington Post Congressional Archive (voting record)
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
Barack Obama From SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama

BARACK OBAMA (D-IL) - Top Industries who have funded him
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00009638

Barack Obama – the 2004 Keynote Speech
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm

The Saddam Execution Video By Peter Rost

The “Question Authority with Dr. Peter Rost” blog was one of the first displaying the uncensored and complete version of the Saddam Hussein execution video, here. The video showed an undignified spectacle, with Mr. Hussein appearing more composed than his killers. I have no tears for Mr. Hussein; yet, I also have no respect for his executioners, who made the state-orchestrated execution appear like an assassination by thugs. And of course, our self-censored television news just couldn't bring themselves to show the end result of thousands of sacrificed American soldiers—one dictator falling to his death, his head twisted horribly to the side as he was swinging at the end of the rope.


Out of thousands of visitors viewing the video on my site, those visitors included CBS News, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. After all, they couldn’t view what happened through any official channel. I guess 2006 will be remembered as the year when the blog world truly took over as the most important source for useful, uncensored reporting.


I don't have any respect for a justice system which uses the death penalty. Killing is always barbaric, whether it takes place in Iraq or in the U.S. As for the Iraqi justice system, the puppets currently leading the country apparently made a late-night end run around the legal protections any prisoner is entitled to before his death, in order to quickly assassinate Mr. Hussein. This process speaks for itself. The fact that the Americans held Mr. Hussein in captivity and turned him over after having been assured of the “legality,” of the decision, doesn't make the spectacle any more palatable. In the end, Mr. Bush caught and killed his father's archenemy, under the thinly veiled guise of “justice.” Just as clearly Mr. Hussein, who has been the miniature Stalin of our time, deserved his fate. But, the whole affair leaves a bitter aftertaste.


The killing of Mr. Hussein doesn’t confirm that there is any justice. It simply confirms that whoever is in possession of raw power can do whatever he wants.

Welcome to 2007.


Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Vice President of Pfizer. He is the author of "The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman," see http://the-whistleblower-by-peter-rost.blogspot.com/. He also writes the daily Dr. Peter Rost blog, see http://peterrost.blogspot.com/.