There was an error in this gadget
0
The Debt-Limit Mess
by Sheldon Richman, July 22, 2011
The U.S. government has run up a debt of more than $14 trillion, nearly the size of the economy's annual output -- and it's not enough! So the politicians want to borrow $2.4 trillion more. But the need congressional authorization. That's what Washington is in a tangle about these days.
For 94 years Congress has set a limit for the government's borrowing. But raising the limit was usually a mere formality. In other words, it was no limit at all, and government felt free to borrow at will. Among the effects of borrowing is bigger government. The current U.S. budget is $3.8 trillion. The government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Now imagine its having to raise the full $3.8 trillion in taxes. Borrowing permits a growth in government that would be virtually impossible otherwise, because some portion of government spending the portion borrowed appears free.
Of course it is not free. Borrowing brings several kinds of costs, but they lie in the future or are hard to discern. One cost is interest, which last year came to more than $400 billion. A second cost is higher interest rates. When the government is in the international capital markets looking for money, it adds to the demand for limited lendable funds and bids up interest rates for everyone else. A third cost is related to the last. When the government borrows money, no one else can borrow that money. Thus, private projects, which ultimately would have aimed at satisfying consumers, must go unfunded. That is a real loss in welfare, but it is unseen. We are poorer as a result.
To most pundits and politicians, the "grown-up" position is to favor increasing the debt ceiling, which stands at $14.294 trillion. Paying Mastercard with Visa is considered responsible, and anyone who says otherwise will be branded an extremist, if not a nihilist who wants to bring down the economy. We are in a pretty sorry state if thinking the debt is big enough gets that reaction. It can be chalked up only to an ethos fostered by the government's own schools, of course that regards the state as the first claimant on all income.
So the debate in Washington is not whether the ceiling should be lifted but under what conditions. Republicans generally favor raising the limit as long as some spending cuts are promised. The Democrats want increased tax revenue along with spending cuts. Thus the impasse as the August 2 deadline approaches.
What should they do? What they should not do is raise revenue in any way. Taxation is the forced extraction of money, an immoral practice. If you and I can't morally demand money from our neighbors with a threat of force, neither can the politicians. If I max out a credit card, I cannot legally steal money to make my payment. Why can the government? Of course the legal rules are different for the government, but that is what we should be objecting to. The government is a group of people, so the rules should be no different.
Over many years the policymakers have dug the hole that they are now trying to climb out of. The hole, let's be clear, is the result of government spending, not insufficient taxation. Federal spending is close to 25 percent of GDP. Those who want to raise taxes complain that revenues are at a historical low of 16 percent of GDP, but they have conveniently forgotten that the economy has not recovered from a deep recession, in which unemployment depressed revenues. Typically tax revenues are close to 20 percent of GDP regardless of tax rates.
The problem is not on the revenue side. Indeed, the government shouldn't be taking any money by force. But in the short term, if the self-proclaimed wise men and women in Washington feel they have to pay the bills they have incurred in our names, let them reallocate spending without borrowing new money. They can start by liquidating the empire and cutting the military-industrial complex off from the public trough. All spending, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, should be on the chopping block. But then, instead of paying the bondholders, let the taxpayers keep their money.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107q.asp
Beware of Republicans
Posted by Laurence Vance on July 22, 2011 04:04 PM
Out of one side of their mouths they are saying that they will not vote to raise taxes, but out of the other side they are talking about closing tax loopholes and reforming tax deductions and credits. This raises taxes just like a rate increase, but it allows the Republicans to pose as believing in more liberty and less government. The solution, of course, is more loopholes, more credits, more breaks, and more deductions so we can keep as much of our money out of the hands of the government as possible.
House Republicans, Democrats, & President Obama are in immediate
danger of completely violating Article 1, Section 8 of the
constitution of the United States of America which says clearly that:
danger of completely violating Article 1, Section 8 of the
constitution of the United States of America which says clearly that:
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defence and general welfare of the United States".
The constitution does not make provision for any exceptions. It does
not say that Congress, or the President, can in any way not do what
the Constitution empowers them to do. It implies positively that they
must do what it empowers them to do. The constitution needs to be
understood as guided by the principles contained within the
Declaration of Independence, as the document providing the legal basis
consistent with the principles contained within the Declaration, which
document reads as follows, :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..... (text
omitted).... it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to
provide new guards for their future security."
We cannot possibly see, and it is unthinkable that any thinking,
rational, American could possibly see the events taking place in
United States politics, in relation to the nation's budgetary needs,
as those are being discussed currently, as consistent with those most
foundational principles of American law. It is unthinkable and the
worst possible example that America could now give to other nations,
other peoples, in the world community, as to how to meet those
fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence as it is
enacted into the details of the Constitution of the United States,
meant to enable those most fundamental principles into living
realities. That failure of example comes at the worst possible time.
It is unthinkable that potential default on the debt, failure to find
acceptable means for raising revenues, cutting barely adequate and in
some instances inadequate entitlement programs, services, even defence
at a time of greatest and increasing dangers to the safety, security,
of the United States, in violation of fundamentals to the facilitation
of any real "pursuit of happiness" for massive numbers of Americans,
is constitutional. It cannot be constitutional. It must not be
constitutional. Reason must prevail in that realization of
unconstitutionality and as to how that fact violates the most
fundamental principles of all, enshrined in the Declaration upon which
America's political system, its ideals, its progress, its foreign
policies, its domestic affairs, are all entirely founded.
It is a failure that must not happen. It is a failure that America
must find a way to avoid.
We must ask why a committee has not been struck by the House in
conjunction with the President of the United States, Barack Obama,
that would bring together the best minds to find a new solution to the
debt, to building new revenue streams, to revitalizing the economy,
consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and
of the Constitution of the United States. That committee ought to be
comprised of the best minds, from right and left wing economic
viewpoints, non partisan, Republicans, Democrats and others who excel
on matters of direct relevance, to rebuild the economic basis to
assure that what the Declaration and the Constitution demand of
Congress and the President, are realizable and are realized in fact.
That debts are paid, revenue streams built, by means of progressive
innovation, entitlements improved rather than curtailed or cut,
programs improved rather than reduced or cut, such that "the common
defence and general welfare of the United States" of "we the people"
is served according to how the Declaration and the Constitution both
demand that that ultimate purpose of government be properly served.
A nation that can bring together the best minds in engineering and
science to build nuclear weapons, the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb,
the neutron bomb, can surely bring together the best minds in
economics, finance, and business, to resolve its fiscal difficulties,
positively, not negatively. Not by cuts to programs, entitlements,
services, security, well being, but positively to maintain and improve
programs, entitlements, services, security and well being, by means of
improved revenue streams, rebuilding what is broken, failing,
inadequate, in the economy and in government finance, to meet national
ideals, before those ideals themselves are perished into being mere
words on paper, with no meaning, as the world watches, no longer
taking the principles contained in those words, seriously, because
America does not take them seriously enough, and is not exemplary
enough in its own conduct of its own fiscal, government, affairs.
America can build rockets to send men and machines into space, but it
cannot seem to find a way to deal with its deficit, and it cannot seem
to find a way to further, defend, secure and facilitate "the pursuit
of happiness" and other ideals upon which it is fundamentally based.
That is an absurd contradiction. America must be able to do better at
economics, at meeting fiscal needs, at furthering 'the common defence
and general welfare of the United States" of "we the people" of the
United States, in terms of assuring life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness. The current situation of fiscal crisis ultimately imperils
those fundamental principles for many, if not most, whether in the
short or long term, and most of all it imperils how the world views
America, its ideals and its means and ways to the pursuit and
achievement of its ideals. It puts America into question.
Bob Ezergailis
Hamilton, Canada
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Let Us All Sacrifice to Balance the Budget
By Anthony Gregory | Friday July 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM PDT
We're often told that the budget can't be cut without all of us sacrificing. This is used as a rationale to raise taxes. But it need not be that way.
After all, aren't we also told that everyone benefits from the government? Surely the poor do, or so we hear. And the middle class? Of course we all are blessed to have the federal government be as active and large as it is. That's what it's mainly there for, all the politicians tell us.
The rich too must benefit immensely from the government. Why else are they always browbeaten into "giving back"? Surely if society is all in this together, certainly if the government represents some sort of proxy of the collective will, then when do-gooders talk of giving back to society, they at least in large part are implying that the rich do in fact benefit, in great deal, from the government.
Indeed, we are reminded that every group benefits from the government. If not for government, workers would toil in factories for 20 hours a day at less than minimum wage, and businesses would collapse amid the economic instability caused by their own lack of foresight and greedy orientation toward the present. If not for government, very few would enjoy a higher education, a horrible fate that would plague all of society. Without government, parents would have no one to help them raise their kids, and kids themselves would be at a loss, and childless adults would have no future to look forward to. If not for government, the West would be without sufficient support of its agriculture, the South would suffer from lack of economic protection, the North would lose its industrial advantages, the East would be deprived of much of its cultural lankmarks, and the whole middle of the country would have inadequate institutional linkages to the rest of America.
Without government, no one but the richest Americans would be able to afford a home, while banks simultaneously signed the poor up to high risk mortgages to get them into homes they couldn't afford. Without government, everyone would be doomed to a lifetime of tobacco addiction, whereas tobacco farmers would be missing the subsidies that keep these great Americans afloat. Without government big corporations would have no one to bail them out and small businesses would never be able to compete. Without government police wouldn't have any jobs, criminals would be missing their chance at rehabilitation, and the rest of us would suffer. Without government Americans would be threatened by foreigners and foreigners wouldn't be liberated by American bombs and military occupations. We'd be at constant war or would lose the chance to fight for freedom, doomed as we would be to live at peace. Muslims would be subject to hate crimes and the rest of us would be attacked by Muslims.
Without government immigrants wouldn't be able to go on welfare and American citizens would have nothing protecting them from immigrants going on welfare. Without government young people would have no role models, the elderly would have no voice, and adults in the middle would lack a safety net.
Without government car manufacturers would all go belly up and car buyers would have no one to protect them from the manufacturers. Without government there would be no money for scientific research; all that would be funded is the arts that appeal to the masses. Yet there would be no money in the arts since only the hard sciences would be profitable. Consumers wouldn't get what everyone clearly wants from the market, while at the same time they would only be offered what was made to suit popular demand.
No one would deliver our letters and we would be flooded with junk mail if not for government. Our phone lines wouldn't operate and we'd get telemarketing calls on those lines that don't operate all day and night. There would be no roads, and yet if they did exist, they'd be congested always with drunk drivers and lunatics. There would no longer be any advanced industry at all, and the advanced industry that ceased to exist would spew poison into the air without limit. No one would have anything to eat and obesity would reign supreme. No one could afford pharmaceuticals and everyone would be addicted to prescription drugs.
All classes of people would suffer, since government is obviously there for the own good of all classes. It is fair to say we all benefit from government, so here's a plan to make us all sacrifice relatively proportionally, a plan to address the budget shortfall: Cut the government across the board in one fell swoop. Indeed, cut everything by 50% just for good measure. It's the even-handed thing to do.
http://blog.independent.org/2011/07/22/let-us-all-sacrifice-to-balance-the-budget/
 | Compare Your State to Others in Govt Spending and Tax BurdenEowyn | July 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Categories: Economy, Taxes, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8fy |
The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel has an interactive map showing how each of America's 50 (not 57!) states collects taxes and measures up nationally on tax burden, government spending and user fees.
Tax burden on income, from heaviest to least. No. 1 indicates highest taxes or spending:
- Alaska
- New York
- Wyoming
- Hawaii
- Vermont
- Maine
- New Mexico
- New Jersey
- Louisiana
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Rhode Island
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- California
- Kansas
- Minnesota
- Connecticut
- Utah
- Nebraska
- Pennsylvania
- Arizona
- Michigan
- Arkansas
- Delaware
- Washington
- Illinois
- North Carolina
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Mississippi
- Montana
- Maryland
- Nevada
- Georgia
- Florida
- Massachusetts
- ldaho
- South Carolina
- Virginia
- Indiana
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Texas
- Missouri
- Colorado
- Alabama
- Tennessee
- South Dakota
- New Hampshire
To find out how your state measures up, click here.
~Eowyn
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Bail
Eye-balling the Fifth Century
July 21, 2011
Fred Reed
When a country works reasonably wellwhen the schools teach algebra and not governmentally mandated Appropriate Values, when the police are scarce and courteous, when government is remote and minds its business and works more for the benefit of the country than for looters and special interests, then pledging to it a degree of allegiance isn't foolish. Decades back America was such a country, imperfect as all countries are, but good enough to cherish.
As decline begins, and government becomes oppressive, self-righteous, and ruthless yet incompetent, as official spying flourishes, as corruption sets in hard, and institutions rot, it is time to disengage. Loyalty to a country is a choice, not an obligation. In other times people have loved family, friends, common decency, tribe, regiment, or church instead of country. In an age of national collapse, this is wise.
A fruitful field of disengagement might be called domestic expatriationthe recognition that living in a country makes you a resident, not a subscriber. It is one thing to be loyal to a government that is loyal to you, another thing entirely to continue that loyalty when the Brown Shirts march and the government rejects everything that you believe in. While the phrase has become unbearably pretentious, it is possible to regard oneself as a citizen of the world rather than of the Reich.
Home schooling is an admirable form of disengagement for those who cannot physically expatriate. The primary schools once taught enough of reading and arithmetic, and little enough of medioccritizing propaganda, as to render them other than pernicious. Today, no. Here it is worth reflecting, contrary to governmental insistence, that schools are needless, at least for bright children. An intelligent child quickly reads several years ahead of his grade level, at which point school becomes only an obstacle. He will be savagely bored, regard his teachers as imbeciles, and learn nothing that justifies his being there but much that justifies being somewhere else. In the deepening twilight, home-schooling becomes almost a responsibility, a parallel to medieval monks copying Greek manuscripts.
Disengagement from the system of universities, or as I should say, "universities," is also advisable. This is true, first, because if you seek cultivation, to gain a grasp of such matters as history, literature, the arts and the sciences, you can do it better on your own. Professors serve little purpose other than to ensure that the student does his homework. If the student wants to study, he can do it by himself, and if he doesn't want to study, he has no business in a university.
Second, universities these days, with exceptions I hope, are citadels of intellectual darkness. They teach little, and chiefly serve to force the young to borrow backbreaking sums from colluding banks. The wasted time and phenomenal cost cannot be justified unless they provide some remarkable recompense, and they do not.
Universities largely prepare the student for a life of office work in some dismal institution, trapping him in the retirement system and making him a prisoner of the state. In a nation subsiding into the third world, institutions cannot be counted on.
It makes more sense to become, say, a commercial diver, or a master auto mechanic. The training costs less than piratical fifth-rate USOs (university-shaped objects). Both are interesting, challenging, and well-remunerated, which cannot be said of law for most who do not go into Wall Street. Crucially important, cars can be found everywhere, and such as oil companies the world over need divers. You are not tied to the United States, where the death rattle begins to be heard over the thump of the storm troopers' boots.
Disengagement from the consumerist zeitgeist is essential. Yes, I know. Distaste for a life dedicated to buying the unnecessary can seem a pose: "I, I, am of such lofty character that I do not dirty my philosophical hands with mere...things."
No. It is not a pose. In a time of economic retrogression, rejection of consumerism is utterly practical. And almost treasonous.
One might ask oneself, "What do I really need, and what things really matter to me? How much money do I really need, and how much am I willing to pay to get it?" Remember, you pay more for money than for anything else.
I once lived briefly in an old one-bedroom trailer set in a patch of pine woods near Farmville, Virginia. A brick barbecue came with it, and a large floppy pooch, apparently a mixture of Irish setter and whatever was around. The place was blessedly quiet. Birds and bugs aren't noise. When it rained I delighted in being almost in the storm, but dry. I think the whole shebang cost the owner five thousand dollars, including a well and septic system.
If you are thinking, "Why...no...I couldn't possibly live that way," you are probably right. But if I were doing it now, I would have staggering amounts of pirated music on today's monstrous memory sticks, a set of very decent speakers for a few hundred doomed green ones, a Kindle or the free computer version for reading books from Amazon if I had the money or Project Gutenberg if I didn't, and a fairly large flat screen for watching movies donated by uTorrent. Net cost: Under a grand.
Circumstances differ, yes. But you get the idea: Comfort, quiet, music, books, barbecue, undefined dog, storms, friends, for practically nothing. Mutatis mutandis, the principle applies almost everywhere.
It also fits well with Fred's Bifurcate Law of Economic Independence: If you can't pay for it, don't buy it; and if you don't need it, don't buy it. Therein lie the seeds of the utter destruction of America, but I'm not Wall Street's mother.
To labor the point a tad, where I live, near Guadalajara in Mexico, at least two friends are living quite comfortably on a thousand a month, to include beer, internet, and in one case substances crucial to the bloated salaries of DEA. Each has a tired truck, but no granite counter-tops or riding mower.
Another step toward independence is to disengage to the extent possible from the maintenance cycle. You are much better off in bad times if you can do the kind of plumbing, wiring, and auto maintenance that used to be commonly understood. This is easy to say, I know. Yet, if done, it gets you farther off the grid.
Again, circumstances differ and details vary. The principle remains: Disengage, cut your expenses, seek the interstices, and don't believe in anything unless you are sure it was your idea to believe in it. What is coming looks to be ugly. If so, it will be every man for himself, his family, his friends, and what principles he believes. The government doesn't give a wan, eitolated damn about you.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Disengagement.shtml
Here's another obligation you didn't sign up for
by Simon Black
July 20, 2011
Split, Croatia
Bruce Lee, a long-time hero of mine, died 38-years ago today, and in tribute to his intellect and philosophy, I wanted to blow the dust off an old quote of his that seems quite prescient:
"Those who are unaware they are walking in darkness will never seek the light."
Each day it becomes increasingly obvious that there are essentially two kinds of people in this world– those who are unaware that they walk in the darkness, completely oblivious to the real dangers in the world, versus those who understand reality and seek the truth.
The former group comprises the vast majority of society. This is your voting electorate and mainstream media audience, and they'll buy every bit of propaganda that's sent their way… whether it's support for the war(s), ruinous economic programs, child molesting TSA policies, or just plain old fear and hate.
In its latest effort to spread fear and hate, the Ministry of Love, also known as the Department of Homeland Security, has produced an Orwellian new video intended to encourage Americans to rat each other out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7q3bWEvl7o&feature=player_embedded
If you're not in a place to watch the video right now, I'll summarize briefly.
First of all, it's one of the most pathetic attempts at filmmaking in the history of motion picture; the average shampoo commercial has better acting and production quality… and is much more subtle in its message.
In the world of Homeland Security, terrorists all drive unmarked full-size vans, wear hooded sweatshirts, and deposit backpacks in conspicuous public places. They might as well have had a cackling James Bond villain twirling his moustache in the corner.
At its core, the video is filled with scenes of ordinary citizens spying on each other and alerting the authorities to their compatriots' suspicious deeds. In my favorite scene, a woman calls the police after snooping over the shoulder of a young man typing away on his smartphone.
Naturally, it's all for the common good… for everyone's safety and security. In fact, everyone shares in this responsibility according to DHS, so we should all be on our toes to rat each other out at the first sign of suspicious activity. Apparently this is yet another obligation that comes with citizenship.
For the majority of people who watch this video, their chests will swell with pride in the knowledge that they now have a role to play in their country's security. These are the folks walking around in the darkness, unaware.
You can't talk to them about things like personal liberty as they'll just regurgitate the propaganda they've been spoon fed since birth. These are the same folks who take their shoes off at the airport and proclaim, "Whatever it takes to keep us safe," or "I have nothing to hide!"
Truthfully, real criminals aren't back alley types, but rather the policymakers who spread fear and paranoia in the name of justice. They cloak their crimes in good deeds while building a brainwashed class of future Thought Police.
If Orwell had written a prequel to 1984, this would all be part of it.
http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/another-obligation-you-didnt-sign-up-for
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
End America's Role as a Military Empire
by Jacob G. Hornberger
During our panel discussion at the recent FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, which was entitled "The War on Terrorism Is a War on Freedom," an attendee pointed out that there were lots of instances of terrorism around the world and asked, "If terrorism is motivated by anger and rage arising out of U.S. foreign policy, how do you explain terrorism in Spain or other parts of the world in which the U.S. government has played no role?"
Libertarians have never suggested that U.S. foreign policy is responsible for all terrorism in the world. What we have said is that the U.S. government's actions in foreign affairs have incited so much anger and rage that they have motivated some people to retaliate with terrorist strikes against the United States. That certainly does not preclude the possibility that people in other parts of the world are similarly motivated to commit terrorist attacks against other regimes.
Consider, for example, the Basque separatists in Spain. They have their own grievances against the Spanish government. Those grievances have driven them to commit acts of terrorism against the Spanish government and Spanish people. Those acts of terrorism have nothing to do with the anything the U.S. government has done. It would be irrational for the Basque separatists to commit terrorist attacks against the United States or the American people for matters arising out of the Basque dispute with the Spanish government.
But the fact that the Basque separatists have their own reasons for committing acts of terrorism in Spain does not preclude the possibility that there are going to be people who get angry when the U.S. Empire goes abroad and wrongfully kills and injures people, tortures and abuses people, humiliates people, supports brutal dictatorships who torture, abuse, rape, and kill dissidents, or provides foreign aid to other regimes. In that case, the survivors, as well as friends and relatives of the victims, are likely to become angry at the U.S. government that has done these things.
Does that mean that every person who becomes angry is going to retaliate with a terrorist attack? Of course not. Most people aren't going to go down that road. But there usually will be a certain percentage of people whose anger and rage will motivate them in that direction.
Consider, for example, the federal attack on Waco, which killed dozens of people, including innocent children. Many Americans, especially libertarians, were horribly angry over the massacre. But we channeled that anger into articles, speeches, and films that raised people's consciousness and conscience to such a point that today most people recognize what a horrible thing the feds did at Waco. The result? There have been no more Waco-type massacres since then.
There was one person, Timothy McVeigh, who could not control his anger. His rage motivated him to retaliate with a terrorist strike on the federal building in Oklahoma City.
Notice something important: No more Waco massacres since then and no more terrorist strikes on U.S. federal buildings. But if the government commits another massacre, there is a good possibility that another Timothy McVeigh will surface and retaliate in the same way that McVeigh retaliated.
What all too many Americans are unable to do is to put themselves into the places of foreigners who have experienced the heavy, oppressive hand of the U.S. Empire. As bad as Waco was, what the U.S. government has done to people in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world is a thousands times worse.
Consider, as just one example, the fact that the U.S. government killed hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq with its 11 years of brutal sanctions. If the killing of a few children at Waco would engender anger and rage here at home, why wouldn't we expect that the killing of hundreds of thousands of children would have the same effect among people over there?
Consider the 9/11 attacks. Didn't lots of Americans get angry? Why wouldn't we expect foreigners to have the same reaction when that sort of thing happens to them? Isn't human nature human nature?
Consider when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright declared that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it." Why wouldn't we expect that sort of thing to make people angry? Wouldn't Americans become angry if, say, the ambassador from Iran were to declare that the deaths on 9/11 were "worth it"?
In order to get our nation back on the right road, it's necessary for Americans to be willing to acknowledge and confront the wrongdoing of their own government, not only here at home but also abroad.
It's also necessary to end America's role as an international military empire by bringing all the troops home from everywhere and discharging them, abandoning all U.S. military bases on foreign soil, and ending all foreign aid not only to dictatorships but to every other foreign regime. Restoring a limited-government constitutional republic to our land is an essential precondition for getting our nation on the road to freedom, peace, prosperity, harmony.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-07-21.asp
Rupert Murdoch and Freedom of the Press
by Wendy McElroy, July 21, 2011
A scandal rocking the British Isles is slopping onto American shores.
In its zeal to scoop the news, a British paper within Rupert Murdoch's global media empire engaged in illegal and immoral activities. Specifically, the News of the World (the News) bribed police officers for confidential information and hacked into private phone messages. The well-founded accusations are currently confined to the UK but American journalists and lawmakers are avidly pursuing the possibility of Murdochian wrongdoing on U.S. soil.
On both sides of the Atlantic, the reasons are largely political. In America, Murdoch is the driving force behind FOX News and other conservative media outlets that many liberals detest. The latest issue of Newsmax magazine features a cover article entitled "Obama hates FOX News" and recent White House email revelations reveal how the Obama administration tried to blackball FOX News, shutting it out of important news stories.
No wonder West Virginia Senator and prominent Democrat Jay Rockefeller publicly called for an official investigation into whether another one of Murdoch's UK papers, The Sun, had targeted the families of 9/11 victims. His call for investigation was based on a report by The Mirror a harsh rival of The Sun which cited unnamed sources who claim an unnamed police officer had allegedly rejected The Sun's requests for information. The Mirror's report was sufficiently documented, however, for Rockefeller to publicly claim that, if phone hacking of 9/11 victims or any Americans had occurred, then "the consequences will be severe."
Without defending the man or the reprehensible actions of the News, it is important to realize that much more than Murdoch's money or reputation are at stake. Freedom of the press is poised to take a fall as well.
Consider events in the UK. On July 8, perhaps in order to distance himself from the scandal, Prime Minister David Cameron announced an official governmental inquiry into "the culture, the practices, and the ethics of the press" because the press could no longer be trusted to regulate itself.
American free-speech advocate Wendy Kaminer responded, "I cringe....The press is supposed to investigate the government." Kaminer shared "the widespread desire to see Rupert Murdoch and his minions held accountable for any crimes they have allegedly committed" but cautioned that:
- [C]oncerns about the chilling effect of the press inquiry Cameron proposes are ... easily dismissed as mere caterwauling about censorship from civil libertarians....This perspective is not entirely unfamiliar or unwelcome in America; it reigns on many of our college and university campuses that severely restrict student speech. So while an American politician might hesitate to issue a forthright call for an inquiry into press ethics and culture, significant segments of the American public might favour one.... If the News of the World phone-hacking scandal is a morality play about renegade journalists, the official response to it is a cautionary tale about subtler forms of press censorship.
- At least three British investigations into phone-hacking and payments to police and others by the now-shuttered News of the World tabloid [established in 1834] are underway, with 10 arrests so far. News Corp. and its executives have apologized profusely and are cooperating with authorities.
What actually happened in Britain
The bare bones are as follows. In 2003, Andy Coulson became the general editor of the News which, until its recent demise, was the widest selling English language newspaper in the world. Coulson replaced Rebekah Brooks, who moved to edit the popular daily tabloid The Sun a sister publication of the News. Rumors soon emerged that the News was bending journalistic ethics into the criminal realm. In 2006, a section editor was arrested and later imprisoned for hacking into the phone messages of the Royal family. Coulson disclaimed all knowledge but resigned in 2007. A few months later, he became director of communications for the Conservative Party under David Cameron, now PM of Britain.
In 2009, it emerged that News reporters illegally accessed a wide range of phone messages from 2003 to 2007 with the knowledge of senior staff. Coulson disavowed all knowledge. When a coalition government swept into power in 2010, Coulson assumed leadership of media operations. Soon thereafter, there was a fresh investigation into his possible participation in the News' illegal activities. No charges were brought. The now-PM Cameron defended Coulson against continuing suspicions.
Then the police reported new evidence of extensive hacking, including prominent politicians (e.g. former Prime Minister Gordon Brown), a police commander and major celebrities; private lawsuits are filed against the News; more editors and journalists are arrested, the News sets up a compensation fund for "justifiable claims." Hundreds of emails purportedly show that Coulson had authorized illegal payments to police officers; Coulson resigned.
Then two revelations whipped public opinion into a frenzy. First: in September 2002, the remains of a kidnapped 13-year-old girl were found. The murder occurred during Brooks' editorship of the News, which she used to launch a vigorous campaign to "name and shame" accused pedophiles. The murdered girl's family phone had been hacked. Second: the family phones of soldiers killed in Afghanistan were hacked as well.
On July 17, Brooks now CEO of Murdoch's News International was arrested for corruption and suspicion of phone hacking. The next day, the Metropolitan Assistant Commissioner resigned rather than face suspension for his connections with the News. Shortly thereafter, a key whistle blower is found dead of apparent suicide; nevertheless, the police are investigating it as a "suspicious death."
In short, the UK scandal has all the elements of high melodrama and low politics: murdered children, aggrieved celebrities, a violation of the Royal family, a former P.M. accusing a current one of shielding a criminal, suicide, the wronged families of dead soldiers, the fall of mighty, corrupt police commanders.... No wonder Cameron is trying to redeem his reputation by shifting blame on a wholesale basis onto an unregulated press.
Will the scandal ignite in America?
No similar furor exists in the United States, although the suggestion that journalists working for Murdoch hacked the phones of American 9/11 victims and their families has the potential of stirring one up. If the 9/11 connection is not proven, however, authorities may have to proceed on the basis of comparatively trivial offenses. For example, it appears as though the News hacked into actor Jude Law's phone while Law was in New York's JFK airport; if so, then, the hacking took place on American soil and under American jurisdiction.
The main impetus for an American prosecution, however, seems to be a wellspring of animosity toward conservative mogul Murdoch. Australian-born Murdoch became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1985, and moved his anchor corporation, News Corp., to America. Through his massive media holdings, Murdoch exerts considerable influence over American politics and culture. It is an influence that many wish to diminish or destroy.
Thus, the FBI is investigating whether News Corp. attempted to hack the phones of 9/11 survivors and families even though no complaints have been received. As Paul Browne, spokesman for the New York Police Department, stated, "Right now we don't have a basis" to open an investigation because "no one has come forward to us with any information." Thus, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department is investigating News Corp.
What are the implications for freedom of the press? There are several.
First, even if News Corp. has committed no crime on American soil, Murdoch may well be prosecuted under a 1977 law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits American companies from bribing officials overseas. The Wall Street Journal observed,
- The political mob has been quick to call for a criminal probe into whether News Corp. executives violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with payments to British security or government officials in return for information used in news stories. Attorney General Eric Holder quickly obliged last week, without so much as a fare-thee-well to the First Amendment.
Second, whether or not it has committed a crime in the United States, News Corp. may have to explain to the Federal Communications Commission how its unethical behavior in the UK does not violate the FCC rule requiring those who license TV stations to be of solid moral character. This could be a back door to silencing conservative FOX News.
Third, as in the UK, the American public and the mainstream media seem to be adopting a disdain for the "press culture" expressed by the News and other tabloids. In America, unlike the UK, it is largely the left-leaning media that is calling for a "media prosecutor." This call is, at the least, naive. British journalist Mick Hume commented on the naivety of suggesting "you can 'clean up' and regulate the tabloid press while miraculously leaving 'good journalism' untouched. In reality, the more influence that ministers, judges, policemen, commissions and crusaders are able to exercise over the media, the less freedom of expression there is going to be for all. Freedom of the press, like any freedom, is not divisible. You cannot have more controls on the 'bad' and let the 'good' (whatever that might be) run free...."
The Wall Street Journal offered an example of the indivisibility of press freedom, "The last time the liberal press demanded a media prosecutor, it was to probe the late conservative columnist Robert Novak in pursuit of White House aide Scooter Libby. But the effort soon engulfed a reporter for the New York Times, which had led the posse to hang Novak and his sources. Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?"
Conclusion
Hacking into private phone messages is not an act of journalism; it is the commission of a crime. In forging a faux link between freedom of the press and crime, authorities have provided themselves with a public justification for cobbling the press. In the UK, authorities in general are annoyed by tabloids that leak political scandals, especially sexual ones. In America, the liberal elite are irate over the right-wing coverage and commentary that has become so popular. Public outrage over the contemptible behavior of the News and a seething rage toward Murdoch are giving authorities on both sides of the Atlantic permission to stifle a free press. Or what is left of one.
Personally, I intend to hold my nose as I stand up on both feet to defend freedom of the press.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107p.asp
Sound like a good plan to me.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Berry <stephenberry99@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Subject: [LibertarianAllianceForum] Keynes v Hayek LSE and BBC Radio 4 public debate
To: LibertarianAllianceForum <LibertarianAllianceForum@yahoogroups.com>
![Yahoo! Groups]()
![]()
From: Stephen Berry <stephenberry99@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Subject: [LibertarianAllianceForum] Keynes v Hayek LSE and BBC Radio 4 public debate
To: LibertarianAllianceForum <LibertarianAllianceForum@yahoogroups.com>
Keynes v Hayek
Page contents > Podcasts | Twitter | CPD | Accessibility
LSE and BBC Radio 4 public debate
Date: Tuesday 26 July 2011
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building
Speakers: Professor George Selgin, Professor Lord Skidelsky, Duncan Weldon, Dr Jamie Whyte
Chair: Paul Mason
How do we get out of the financial mess we're in? Two of the great economic thinkers of the 20th century had sharply contrasting views: John Maynard Keynes believed that governments could create sustainable employment and growth. His contemporary and rival Friedrich Hayek believed that investments have to be based on real savings rather than fiscal stimulus or artificially low interest rates. BBC Radio 4 will be recording a debate between modern day followers of Keynes and Hayek.
George Selgin is Professor of Economics at The Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. Selgin is one of the founders of the Modern Free Banking School, which draws its inspiration from the writings of Hayek on the denationalization of money and choice in currency. He has written extensively on free banking, the private supply of money and deflation. George Selgin is the author of The Theory of Free Banking: Money Supply under Competitive Note Issue (1988), Less Than Zero: The Case for a Falling Price Level in a Growing Economy (1997), and Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage (2008).
Robert Skidelsky is Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick. His three-volume biography of the economist John Maynard Keynes (1983, 1992, 2000) received numerous prizes, including the Lionel Gelber Prize for International Relations and the Council on Foreign Relations Prize for International Relations. He is the author of The World After Communism (1995) (American edition called The Road from Serfdom). He was made a life peer in 1991, and was elected Fellow of the British Academy in 1994. His latest book is Keynes: The Return of the Master|.
Duncan Weldon is a former Bank of England economist and currently works as an economics adviser to an international trade union federation. He has a long standing interest in and admiration for Keynes but also a respect for Hayek. He blogs at Duncan's Economic Blog|.
Jamie Whyte was born in New Zealand and educated at the University of Auckland and then the University of Cambridge in England, where he gained a Ph.D. in philosophy. Jamie remained at Cambridge for a further three years, as a fellow of Corpus Christi College and a lecturer in the Philosophy Faculty. During this time he published a number of academic articles on the nature of truth, belief and desire, and won the Analysis Essay Competition for the best article by a philosopher under the age of 30.
Jamie then joined Oliver Wyman & Company, a London-based strategy consulting firm specialising in the financial services industry, for which he still works, as the Head of Research and Publications. Jamie has published two books: Crimes Against Logic (McGraw Hill, Chicago, 2004) and A Load of Blair (Corvo, London, 2005). Jamie is a regular contributor of opinion articles to The Times (of London), the Financial Times and Standpoint magazine. In 2006 he won the Bastiat Prize for journalism.
He is on the advisory board of The Cobden Centre.
The debate will be chaired by Paul Mason, economics editor of BBC 2's Newsnight and author of Meltdown: The End of the Age of Greed.
Transmission date of programme: Wednesday 3rd August, 8pm (repeated on Saturday 6th August at 10.15pm) on BBC Radio 4.
Suggested hashtag for this event for Twitter users: #lsehvk
This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. For any queries email events@lse.ac.uk| or call 020 7955 6043.
Media queries: please contact the Press Office if you would like to reserve a press seat or have a media query about this event, email pressoffice@lse.ac.uk|.
From time to time there are changes to event details so we strongly recommend that if you plan to attend this event you check back on this listing on the day of the event.
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Can pecans be next?
 | Walnuts Are Drugs, Says FDAHarold | July 22, 2011 at 7:04 am | Categories: Corruption, Criminal Activity, Executive, FDA, Food/Water, Government, Progressives, Propaganda, Sovereignty, U.S. Constitution | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-6hv |
Michael Tennant, The New American 7/21/2011 Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didn't approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, "Your [...]
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
|
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Yep....them job creators are unemployment creators! Doncha love gop
talking points? They sound like aryan parrots! Whaoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
talking points? They sound like aryan parrots! Whaoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Alaska
More
than half of the coastline of the entire
United States is in
Alaska
.
Amazon
The Amazon rainforest produces more than 20%
of the world's oxygen supply.
The Amazon River pushes so
much water into the Atlantic Ocean
that, more than one hundred miles at sea off the mouth of
the river, one can dip fresh water out of the ocean.
The volume of water in the Amazon river is greater than the
next eight largest rivers in the world combined and three
times the flow of all rivers in the
United States .
Antarctica
Antarctica is the only land on our
planet that is not owned by any country.
Ninety percent of the world's ice covers Antarctica
.
This ice also represents seventy percent of all the fresh
water in the world.
As strange as it sounds, however, Antarctica
is essentially a desert;
the average yearly total precipitation is about two inches.
Although covered with ice (all but 0.4% of it, ice.),
Antarctica is the driest place on the planet,
with an absolute humidity lower than the Gobi
desert.
Brazil
Brazil got its name from the
nut, not the other way around.
Canada
Canada has more lakes than the
rest of the world combined. Canada
is an Indian word meaning '
Big Village
'.
Chicago
Next
to Warsaw ,
Chicago
has the largest Polish population
in the world.
Detroit
Woodward
Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, carries the designation M-1,
so named because it was the first paved road anywhere.
Damascus, Syria
Damascus,
Syria, was flourishing a couple of thousand years
before Rome
was founded in 753 BC,
making it the oldest continuously inhabited city in
existence.
Istanbul, Turkey
Istanbul,
Turkey, is the only city in the world
located on two continents.
Los
Angeles
Los Angeles' full name is:
El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de
Los Angeles de
Porciuncula
-- and can be abbreviated to 3.63% of its size:
L.A.
New
York City
The
term 'The Big Apple' was coined
by touring jazz musicians of the 1930s
who used the slang expression 'apple' for any town or city.
Therefore, to play New
York City
is to play the big time - The Big Apple.
There are more Irish in
New York City
than in Dublin
, Ireland
;
more Italians in New
York City
than in Rome
, Italy
;
and more Jews in New
York City
than in Tel Aviv
, Israel
.
Ohio
There
are no natural lakes in the state of
Ohio , every one is
manmade.
Pitcairn Island
The
smallest island with country status is Pitcairn
in Polynesia , at just
1.75 sq. miles/4,53 sq. km.
Rome
The
first city to reach a population of 1 million people
was Rome
, Italy
in 133 B.C.
There is a city called
Rome on every continent.
Siberia
Siberia contains more than 25%
of the world's forests.
S.M.O.M.
The
actual smallest sovereign entity in the world
is the Sovereign Military Order of
Malta
(S.M.O.M).
It is located in the city of Rome
, Italy
,
has an area of two tennis courts
and, as of 2001, has a population of 80
-- 20 less people than the
Vatican .
It is a sovereign entity under international law,
just as the Vatican
is.
Sahara Desert
In
the Sahara
Desert , there is a town named
Tidikelt ,
Algeria ,
which did not receive a drop of rain for ten years.
Technically though, the driest place on Earth
is in the valleys of the Antarctic near
Ross Island
..
There has been no rainfall there for two million years.
Spain
Spain literally means 'the
land of rabbits'.
St.
Paul, Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota, was originally called Pig's
Eye
after a man named Pierre
'Pig's Eye' Parrant
who set up the first business there.
Roads
Chances
that a road is unpaved:
in the U.S.A.
= 1%;
in Canada
= 75%
Russia
The
deepest hole ever drilled by man is the
Kola Superdeep Borehole, in
Russia .
It reached a depth of 12,261 meters
(about 40,226 feet or 7.62 miles).
It was drilled for scientific research
and gave up some unexpected discoveries,
one of which was a huge deposit of hydrogen
- so massive that the mud coming from the hole
was boiling with it.
United
States
The
Eisenhower interstate system requires
that one mile in every five must be straight.
These straight sections are usable as airstrips
in times of war or other emergencies.
Waterfalls
The
water of Angel Falls (the world's highest) in
Venezuela
drops 3,212 feet (979 meters).
They are 15 times higher than
Niagara Falls .
I have always said, you should learn
something new every day. Unfortunately, many
of us are at that age where what we learn today, we
forget tomorrow.
But, give it a shot
anyway.
=
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
