Bush's Final Pillage

excerpt from new Naomi Klein article:
"...How else to make sense of the bizarre decisions that have governed the allocation of the bailout money? When the Bush administration announced it would be injecting $250 billion into America’s banks in exchange for equity, the plan was widely referred to as “partial nationalization”—a radical measure required to get the banks lending again. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had seen the light, we were told, and was now following the lead of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In fact, there has been no nationalization, partial or otherwise. American taxpayers have gained no meaningful control over the banks, which is why the banks are free to spend the new money as they wish. At Morgan Stanley, it looks like much of the windfall will cover this year’s bonus pool. Citigroup has been hinting it will use its newfound $25 billion buying other banks, while John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch, told analysts that “At least for the next quarter, it’s just going to be a cushion.” The U.S. government, meanwhile, is reduced to pleading with the banks that they at least spend a portion of the taxpayer windfall for loans – officially, the reason for the entire program.

What, then, is the real purpose of the bailout? My fear is this rush of deal making is something much more ambitious than a one-off gift to big business; that the Bush version of “partial nationalization” is rigged to turn the U.S. Treasury into a bottomless cash machine for the banks for years to come. Remember, the main concern among big market players, particularly banks, is not the lack of credit but their battered share prices. Investors have lost confidence in the honesty of the big financial players, and with good reason...."

Um, Is That A Threat?

"North Korea's military threatened on Tuesday to use everything in its arsenal to reduce South Korea to rubble unless Seoul stops civic groups from sending anti-Pyongyang leaflets into the communist state.

The North has lashed out at the South's president who took office in February for his pledges to get tough with his neighbor and has been enraged by a fresh wave of propaganda leaflets sent by balloons launched in the South in recent months.

"We clarify our stand that should the South Korean puppet authorities continue scattering leaflets and conducting a smear campaign with sheer fabrications, our army will take a resolute practical action as we have already warned," the official KCNA news agency quoted the military spokesman as saying.

At a rare round of military talks on Monday, North Korea complained about the leaflets while South Korean activists sent a new batch of 100,000, despite warnings from Seoul not to do so.

"The puppet authorities had better bear in mind that the advanced pre-emptive strike of our own style will reduce everything opposed to the nation and reunification to debris, not just setting them on fire," the spokesman said.

South Korean groups have been sending the leaflets into the North for years. Analysts said the recent wave appeared to have touched a nerve because they mentioned a taboo subject in the North -- the health of leader Kim Jong-il.

U.S. and South Korean officials have said Kim may have suffered a stroke in August, raising questions about who was running Asia's only communist dynasty and making decisions concerning its nuclear arms program.

North Korea mostly refrained from threatening the South when it was receiving a steady stream of unconditional aide under liberal presidents who ruled for 10 years before President Lee Myung-bak. "

I'm sorry but I can only hear Team America's Kim Jong Il saying "Puppet authorities" with that terrible puppet accent:

Fair Food

Taste This is the best article I've found concerning North Carolina State Fair food. I was only disappointed that I didn't find this article before I went on the last day of the Fair.
Greg Cox is the local N&O's food critic.

"I don't care what new thing they've come up with to deep-fry at the State Fair this year. I won't be trying it. I lost interest in that annual fad the year a deep-fried Snickers bar darn near sent me into sugar shock.

I wouldn't have room for it anyway. My list of "must have" State Fair foods has grown so long over the years that I'm too full by the end of the day to try more than one or two new foods. It's admittedly a quirky list, but these foods define the experience for me just as much as corn dogs and funnel cakes do for others. Without them, it just wouldn't be the State Fair..."

Women In Media and Advertising

A number of companies have removed offensive ads in response to your feedback. Contact information is listed for the advertisers.

Commercial airing in India for Unilever, the same company that owns Dove. Email comments@unilever.com




Cooper's Beer ad
Ads for Cooper's Beer that won a bronze medal at the Canes Lioins 2008 Advertising Festival. Write iBrew, Blk 411, Commonwealth Ave. West #04-3065 , Singapore 120411; sales@brew.com.sg


Korean Air ad
Ad appearing in Time magazine for Korean Air. Write Korean Air Customer Relations Department, 1813 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300, Los Angeles, CA 90057; (310) 646-3033


Equinox Fitness ad
Ad appearing in The New York Times for Equinox Fitness. Write Equinox, 895 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, (212) 677-0180

President Chisholm

Ms. magazine article by Gloria Steinem in 1973 after campaigning and serving as a delegate for Shirley Chisholm to become the first black and female President:

"I am a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I make that statement proudly, in the full knowledge that, as a black person and as a female person, I do not have a chance of actually gaining that office in this election year. I make that statement seriously, knowing that my candidacy itself can change the face and future of American politics — that it will be important to the needs and hopes of every one of you — even though, in the conventional sense, I will not win."
— June 4, 1972

The election is over, and there will be a familiar face, a familiar white and male face, in the White House for four more years. The months of feverish work and hard-earned dollars that went into the Presidential candidacy of Shirley Chisholm are only memories now. Sometimes it seems that they are discussed seriously only when veterans of her campaign happen to get together and reminisce.

In fact, there is some uncertainty and even disappointment in those discussions, too. What effect did the Chisholm campaign have on the country? On the excluded groups it was meant to help and encourage? What ideas did it launch or lives did it change? And finally, the heart of all the questions: was it all worth it?

From reading the post-Convention and postelection reporting, it's impossible to tell. The Chisholm candidacy was rarely analyzed while it was going on, and even less so in traditional postmortems. Before and after the primaries, there were occasional tantalizing hints of Chisholm's significance. The Harris poll of last February, for instance, found the Congresswoman getting 35 percent of the vote among black Independents and black Democrats, and a support among woman of all races that was three times greater than her support among men. (From this, the Harris summary concluded, "Ms. Chisholm must now be considered a distinct threat to Mayor Lindsay, Senator McGovern, and former Senator Eugene McCarthy in vying for the liberal and left-of-center vote.")

Of course, Chisholm herself had stated her intention of "keeping the other candidates honest," of being one of the few forces pushing them to the left, not becoming a devisive [sic] force or a threat. But traditional analyses deal only with winning or losing in the traditional sense. Even Senator Hubert Humphrey was amazed by the showing Chisholm made in the Florida primary, and said often that, with a little money and organization, "she might have defeated us all." But neither of these clues to the significance or strength of the Chisholm campaign was pursued in deeper reports, or taken very seriously in the press. (In fact, air time for the major pre-primary speech quoted above was made available by court order under equal time provisions of the Federal Communications Commission, because of clear network failure to fairly cover the Chisholm candidacy.)

Perhaps the best indicator of her campaign's impact is the effect it had on individual lives. All over the country, there are people who will never be quite the same: farm women in Michigan who were inspired to work in a political campaign for the first time; Black Panthers in California who registered to vote, and encouraged other members of the black community to vote, too; children changed by the sight of a black woman saying, "I want to be President"; radical feminists who found this campaign, like that of Linda Jenness in the Socialist Workers' Party, a possible way of changing the patriarchal system; and student or professional or "blue-collar" men who were simply impressed with a political figure who told the truth as she say it, no matter what the cost.

The Chisholm candidacy didn't forge a solid coalition of those people working for social change; that will take a long time. But it began one. If you listen to personal testimony from very diverse sources, it seems that the Chisholm candidacy was not in vain. In fact, the truth is that the American political scene may never quite be the same again.

Carolyn Reed, household worker, New York City:
"In the beginning, I thought her candidacy was a joke. When I discussed it with a group of friends — some other black women who meet pretty regularly just to talk things over — a few of them were upset because Shirley hadn't let a black man run for Presidency first, or because she didn't go to the Black Political Convention in Gary, Indiana to get their endorsement.

"But then we started to notice the total indifference of some black male leaders at the convention, and the kind of childish reaction of others who seemed to be whining, 'But why couldn't I be first?" We began to see the sense of what she was trying to do; to admire her for doing it as a black and as a woman; and to say to ourselves, 'Well, why shouldn't she be first?' The more we hashed it over, the more it made sense.

"If Shirley Chisholm had made it to the ballot in November, I would have voted for her."

More poignant quotes about her campaign.

Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm, 1972

Op-ed piece by Steinem on Palin:

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

• 

  Photos: Sarah Palin, north star
  

• Sarah Palin as Alaska

  National Guard commander

• Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

The Chemical Equator

Air streams known as Trade winds converge at the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), it is a belt of low pressure that circles the Earth roughly at the equator and is thought to form a meteorological barrier between the two hemispheres.

"The trade winds act as the steering flow for tropical storms that form over the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans that make landfall in North America, Southeast Asia, and India, respectively."

In cloudless skies in the Western Pacific, researchers have found an atmospheric chemical line about 30 miles wide, an additional barrier high up above the Western Pacific that prevents the pollution from forest fires in countries such as Thailand and Sumatra contaminating the pristine skies above the Southern Ocean. Levels of carbon monoxide – a by-product of burning – were four times higher on the northern side. To the south, cyclones above Australia bring in clean maritime air. "The two systems do not mix, creating an invisible chemical barrier." Powerful storms may be lifting highly polluted air from the surface to high in the atmosphere where pollutants will remain longer with potential global affects.

At the time, the ITCZ lay much further south, over Central Australia. So the researchers concluded that they must have come across another "hidden" barrier. The shallow waters of the Western Pacific may help form the barrier.

Naomi Wolf and The End Of America

“My sense of alarm comes from the clear lessons from history that, once certain checks and balances are destroyed, and once certain institutions have been intimidated, the pressures that can turn an open society into a closed one turn into direct assaults; at that point events tend to occur very rapidly, and a point comes at which there is no easy turning back to the way it used to be.”
Naomi Wolf,
The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot




Based on her books Give Me Liberty
and The End of America
and the organization My America Project


Fascist America In 10 Easy Steps


First video in a 12 Part Series:



The End Of America movie trailer

THIS Explains It All

Palin on SNL

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Best ECW Wrestling Video

John Cleese on Sarah Palin

Obama Brings Out St. Louis Yesterday and Roasted McCain Thursday

AIG Has Some 'Splainin' To Do

In a Washington Post article, AIG has been noted that after being one of the companies to be 'bailed out' by US taxpayers, they sent executives to a luxury spa!

AIG lost more than $5 billion in the last quarter of 2007 because of its risky financial products division.

Yet in March 2008 when the company's compensation committee met to award bonuses, Sullivan urged the committee to ignore those losses, which should have slashed bonuses.

But the board agreed to ignore the losses from the financial products division and gave Sullivan a cash bonus of more than $5 million.

The board also approved a new contract for Sullivan that gave him a golden parachute of $15 million.

As for Cassano, the executive in charge of the company's troubled financial products division, he received more than $280 million over the past eight years. Even after he was terminated in February as his investments turned sour, the company allowed him to keep as much as $34 million in unvested bonuses and put him on a $1 million-a-month retainer.

He continues to receive $1 million a month.

As for Cassano, the executive in charge of the company's troubled financial products division, he received more than $280 million over the past eight years. Even after he was terminated in February as his investments turned sour, the company allowed him to keep as much as $34 million in unvested bonuses and put him on a $1 million-a-month retainer.

He continues to receive $1 million a month, Waxman said.

Asked why they didn't fire Cassano, Sullivan said they needed to "retain the 20-year knowledge of the transactions."

"What would he have had to have done for you to fire him?" Waxman said.

Just last week, about 70 of the company's top performers were rewarded with a week-long stay at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., where they ran up a tab of $440,000.

At a House committee hearing yesterday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) showed a photograph of the resort and reported expenses for AIG personnel including $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa.

"Less than a week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation," Waxman said in kicking off an angry hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"They were getting their manicures, their pedicures, massages, their facials while the American people were paying their bills," thundered Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.).

"We will ask whether any of this makes sense."

Former chief executive Martin J. Sullivan, whose three-year tenure coincided with much of the company's ill-fated risk-taking, is receiving a $5 million performance bonus. Robert B. Willumstad served as chief executive from June until September, and before that was chairman of the board.

"Shame on you, Mr. Sullivan," said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), noting that Sullivan was not giving up any of his $5 million performance bonus.

Over and over, the committee members vented outrage at having the federal government bail out the company, referring frequently to their angry constituents.

But neither Sullivan nor Willumstad acknowledged making any mistakes.

The committee members, barely concealing their frustration, seemed stunned by the duo's refusal to find fault with their own performances.

"Don't you think the management has some responsibility for what went on there?" Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) said at one point, his voice incredulous.

As if one trip to a luxury spa resort wasn't enough for American International Group (AIG) following its taxpayer-funded bailout, the company had plans to do it all over again.

50 AIG managers were scheduled to do a deluxe retreat at the Ritz-Carlton resort in Half Moon Bay. The company said it was going to host 150 top-producing agents for educational purposes.

The cost of this "educational opportunity?" Ritz Carlton rooms go for $300 to $1,200 a night, plus high costs for meals, drinks, and entertainment. If the earlier trip is any indication, this whole extravaganza could cost the company around $500,000.

Outrage from taxpayers has led management to cancel this outing, and lawmakers are relieved.

Gas Prices Dip Below $3 in Roxboro!

Gas prices continued to fall Tuesday across the state with the average for a gallon of regular unleaded at $3.45, according to AAA.

But in Roxboro, motorists on Durham Road are seeing prices that have fallen to $2.99 a gallon, including the Kenaco station on the corner of Durham Road and Patterson Drive.

North Carolina has the third highest fuel costs in the nation, partly because of the limited supply of gasoline coming from one pipeline that serves at least eight other states.

That, coupled with retailers' hesitance to lower prices until they recover their gas supply, put the state behind Hawaii and Alaska as the most expensive states to buy gas.

But industry experts say the statewide average should continue to drop each day as the state's inventory continues to build over the next few weeks and retailers – who rely on a gas supply to draw customers inside their stores -- begin to feel comfortable.

Statewide, prices are down 5 cents from Monday and 52 cents from a month ago, according to AAA.

In the Triangle, a gallon of regular unleaded gas in the Triangle on Tuesday was $3.56, down 6 cents from Monday. A gallon in Fayetteville was down 8 cents from Monday at $3.42 a gallon.

Top Censored Stories

So Far In 2008

• #1 No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”
• #2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
• # 3 AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa’s Resources
• # 4 Frenzy of Increasingly Destructive Trade Agreements
• #5 Human Traffic Builds US Embassy in Iraq
• #6 Operation FALCON Raids
• #7 Behind Blackwater Inc.
• #8 KIA: The US Neoliberal Invasion of India
• #9 Privatization of America’s Infrastructure
• # 10 Vulture Funds Threaten Poor Nations’ Debt Relief
• # 11 The Scam of “Reconstruction” in Afghanistan
• # 12 Another Massacre in Haiti by UN Troops
• # 13 Immigrant Roundups to Gain Cheap Labor for US Corporate Giants
• # 14 Impunity for US War Criminals
• # 15 Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations on a “Second Genetic Code”
• #16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
• # 17 Drinking Water Contaminated by Military and Corporations
• # 18 Mexico’s Stolen Election
• # 19 People’s Movement Challenges Neoliberal Agenda
• # 20 Terror Act Against Animal Activists
• # 21 US Seeks WTO Immunity for Illegal Farm Payments
• # 22 North Invades Mexico
• # 23 Feinstein’s Conflict of Interest in Iraq
• # 24 Media Misquotes Threat From Iran’s President
• # 25 Who Will Profit from Native Energy?

Previous Years:
2007
2006

Economic Crisis + Election Predictions

Psychic insights by Michelle Whitedove:

Obama will be sworn in and we will all live happily ever after! NO, this is just another fairytale that some America’s are buying into. It’s NOT going to happen; psychically I see that America is headed for an unprecedented upset.

Unfortunately during the last eight years of the Bush regime, greed and power has overtaken our government. Our President has no accountability, not to the senate, not to the congress, the Press, nor the people. George Bush is not going to go quietly into retirement. In fact he loves his position of world power so much that his corrupt plan has been revealed to me. Here are my unpleasant insights regarding our leader and his strategy of undoing our mighty nation. Bush has sold us out.

I predict:

-Purposely the wealth of the nation is being wiped away. The 700 Billion Dollar rescue package is a deception. The 700 billion will disappear and make no impact on the US economy. Ultimately the funds will not be accounted for, they are vanishing assets.

-The US economy will crash before the next presidential inauguration. Intentionally the personal wealth of the people is being wiped away so the government will gain more control over its citizens. (As of yesterday, 8.3 Trillion dollars of wealth have evaporated. LINK )

-Glen Beck has predicted this depression for two years; I’ve predicted it for seven years LINK LINK. The US economy drives the world markets, so this depression will affect two thirds of the world. Least effected economies over the next three years: Australia, India, some of South America, China, & Dubai.

- With every fiber of my being, I know that there is a major event looming either:

A) A US government plot which will be 911-like, with Bush claiming a state of emergency thus suspending and postponing the election and self imposing his dictatorship.

B) Another stolen election.

C) Some other huge upset like the stock market collapse.

D) An assassination.

E) All of the above.

This major event will be the catalyst for our government to instate military personnel for martial law. The ball is in motion, I clearly see that riots are already expected surrounding the elections. I have predicted Martial Law being enforced in the US since 2002 now look at the PROOF that it’s coming: LINK VIDEO ORDERS

-Hilary (for all of those that keep emailing)

She cut a deal with the shadow government; I still see her in play for the postponed election.

-Our democracy is now an illusion, social equality is dead. A new order of government has been formed within the government, one that will control the people and their finances. Disregard what the government leaders are saying, they will say anything, watch their actions. An American Revolution is needed. But most people are too preoccupied with their personal crisis, (distraction, which is the plan) so they are unable to cope with joining a revolt against the government. Americans are being divided into two groups: the Ultra Wealthy, and the Poverty Stricken.

-The Distant Future: As I have previously predicted, eventually Canada, Mexico, will join with the USA to become The North American Union and we will move towards a cashless system. A credit/debit system will be standard and all transactions monitored. Those people that refuse the new system will be considered enemies of the state. There will be many groups which will choose compound living. Self sufficient communities will increase, rebel groups living remotely under harsh conditions. Government permission will be needed to leave the country.

A Spiritual Prospective

WHY is “Spirit” allowing this to happen? To wake humanity and bring us together, this corrupt system must fall away. An undoing must happen before a reconstruction can occur.

What You Can Do:

Don’t watch the TV News, its fear based. The fear mentality is not where you need to dwell. During these times you will be forced to step outside of your comfort zone. Instead of focusing on your personal troubles, reach out to those less fortunate. The gift of giving will lift your spirits, help another and raise the vibration of the planet. Random acts of kindness are important aspect of humanitarianism. Keep your spirit centered through consistent prayer and meditation.

We each create our future, what you THINK brings about your future. So keep the blinders ON…just keep striving towards your goals. Horses wear blinders to keep them focused and moving forward in a straight manner. Their peripheral vision is blocked from all the distractions on the road and that’s what we need to do.

Cut back on spending, buy only necessities. Stock up on your essentials before the prices rise again due to inflation. Trading and bartering services will be important for the next few years. Give it some thought: What is your specialty? Invest in gold, copper, silver, gems and necessities that you can trade. LINK

Reverting to the close knit family unit and living arrangements of indigenous tribes is the best way to live. Multi generation family groups and communal living where everyone works together for the good of all… will be beneficial. Keep your loved ones close and work together. Self sufficiency will be important: growing gardens, chickens for eggs, and yes even cows for milk and meat…we have to get back to the basics.

This economic depression will affect everyone differently, depending on your belief system, your strong will, your actions, and your karma.

Learn from our Elders:

If you talk to people who lived through the great depression…they all have their own perspective. One lady said “Yes we were poor but everyone that we knew was in the same boat. We grew food, sewed dresses, and traded goods for services that we needed. The people in the big cities, suffered worse with soup lines and people committing suicide because they lost their fortunes in the stock markets. We didn’t have great wealth so we viewed it as a very hard time, which we would eventually get through.

Rednecks For Obama

Buy McKenzeez tees!

Yahoo! article on the Movement
Rednecks For Obama website

"Escape From Berkeley..By Any Non-Petroleum Means Necessary"

On Saturday,11th, five teams began the Escape From Berkeley race, an eco-friendly contest to go from Berkeley to Las Vegas by "driving all manner of alternative-fuel-burning jalopies, roadsters, and even a frying oil-fueled Mercedes-Benz, with a single goal: to complete the race using no petroleum.

“Gentlemen, start your whatever they are,” the M.C. shouted to begin the race, which offers the winner $5,000.

"The final catch of the race is that participants — artists, environmentalists and even a cattle farmer from Alabama — have to find or scavenge their go-go juice, whether it is used vegetable oil from restaurants or twigs and sticks from the side of the road. All the vehicles, which had to be street legal, were allowed to start with a single gallon of whatever fuel they used.

The race’s route also presented some challenges, running from the relatively mild terrain of the Bay Area, across the Sierra Nevada via the Tioga Pass (elevation 9,943 feet) and through the deserts outside Las Vegas.

One of the racers, Wayne Keith, 59, is a cattleman from Alabama, who decided five years ago that he wanted to be independent from gas.

“When gasoline hit $1.75, I bailed out,” Mr. Keith said. “I’m a hostage to no one.”

His adapted pickup burns wood in a pair of burners in the pickup bed and uses the gases created by the combustion — primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide — to drive the engine. He said the ready availability of scrap wood on his farm made his energy expenses almost nil."

Along with the call to make the most eco-friendly vehicle, there's also a race to make the first 100mpg vehicle, The Automotive X Prize. Progressive Automotive is giving $10 Million to the winner. They must "design, build, and sell super-efficient cars that people want to buy." The X Prize Foundation has been established to encourage competition and innovation, the 100mpg challenge is only one of the prizes given.

The Woman Who Tried To Save Wall Street

NY Times article
relates how Brooksley Born tried to get the derivatives market regulated over 10 years ago, warning that Wall Street would set itself up for what exactly happened.


Warren E. Buffett presciently observed five years ago that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”

The derivatives market is $531 trillion, up from $106 trillion in 2002 and a relative pittance just two decades ago. Theoretically intended to limit risk and ward off financial problems, the contracts instead have stoked uncertainty and actually spread risk amid doubts about how companies value them.

In 1997, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading, began exploring derivatives regulation. The commission, then led by a lawyer named Brooksley E. Born, invited comments about how best to oversee certain derivatives.

Ms. Born was concerned that unfettered, opaque trading could “threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it,” she said in Congressional testimony. She called for greater disclosure of trades and reserves to cushion against losses.

Ms. Born’s views incited fierce opposition from Mr. Greenspan and Robert E. Rubin, the Treasury secretary then. Treasury lawyers concluded that merely discussing new rules threatened the derivatives market. Mr. Greenspan warned that too many rules would damage Wall Street, prompting traders to take their business overseas.

“Greenspan told Brooksley that she essentially didn’t know what she was doing and she’d cause a financial crisis,” said Michael Greenberger, who was a senior director at the commission. “Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.”

Ms. Born soon gained a potent example. In the fall of 1998, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management nearly collapsed, dragged down by disastrous bets on, among other things, derivatives. More than a dozen banks pooled $3.6 billion for a private rescue to prevent the fund from slipping into bankruptcy and endangering other firms.

Despite that event, Congress froze the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulatory authority for six months. The following year, Ms. Born departed.

In November 1999, senior regulators — including Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin — recommended that Congress permanently strip the C.F.T.C. of regulatory authority over derivatives."

Freudian Slip?

October Surprise

Update: The Endorsement From Hell

Will Bin Laden Strike Again?

picked this up from a great stats site - 538.com

by Rany Jazayerli

If it’s October, that means it’s the month of surprises, and I’m not talking about the Tampa Bay Rays making the playoffs. (Besides, that wouldn’t be much of a surprise if you trusted Nate’s baseball projections in the spring.)

No, this is the month where dramatic late-breaking news can tip an election. In fact, given the sizable lead that Barack Obama has now opened up – roughly six points in the national polls, with a favorable electoral map – and the crystallizing of opinions among the electorate, it may be that only dramatic late-breaking news can tip this election.

Historically, a six-point lead with four weeks to go is almost impregnable barring unforeseen circumstances. Given that, it’s possible that John McCain is just waiting for the perfect time to drop a bomb on the election process. (Maybe Tucker Bounds is hiding the “kill whitey” tape in a secure vault somewhere.) But realistically, if McCain had any bullets left in his gun, he would have shot them by now. He’s already emptied his nominate-a-woman-for-VP clip and his suspend-the-campaign-for-the-sake-of-the-economy clip, not to mention an entire stockade’s worth of POW ammo. (And now he’s passed on his emergency stash of Reverend Wright and William Ayres cartridges to Lieutenant Palin.) In all of these instances, McCain’s approach to his presidential rival has been of the “ready, fire, aim” variety. Holding on to some incriminating evidence until the final weeks of the campaign requires a level of discipline that McCain doesn’t seem to have.

If there is to be a true October Surprise – a pre-meditated attempt to use unexpected news to alter the course of the election in the 11^th hour – it’s unlikely to come from the McCain campaign. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has its prevent defense on the field right now. The only surprise they’d welcome at this point would be a sudden change in the laws that moved up the election to tomorrow.

That leaves just one obvious person unaccounted for who has both the motivation to alter the course of the election and the means to do so at the last moment: Osama bin Laden.

We know bin Laden would like to influence the election, because he’s done it before. On October 29, 2004 – four days before America went to the polls – Al-Jazeera broadcast excerpts of a video of bin Laden in which he attacked and openly mocked the Bush administration, and vowed to strike again.

Bin Laden did not overtly support John Kerry, at one point saying, “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.” But most of his comments were directed at the sitting president, such as, “It never occurred to us that the Commander-in-Chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important.”

The predominant reaction, then, was to assume that bin Laden was rooting for a Kerry victory. Not surprisingly, following the release of his video, the needle moved a point or two – towards Bush. Voters certainly had every reason to give bin Laden the ink-stained finger, and bin Laden’s re-appearance on their TV screens was a not-so-subtle reminder of Bush’s most reassuring trait as president: his uncompromising stance towards terrorism (notwithstanding his ineptitude at implementing a strategy to combat it).

Bush won the popular vote by 2.5%, and won Ohio – whose electoral votes would have given Kerry the presidency – by only 2.1%. Correlation is not causation, but it is at least arguable that the release of the bin Laden video altered the outcome of the election. Presented with a video in which the embodiment of evil and our sworn enemy openly mocked our leader, Americans did what we did after 9/11: we closed ranks around that leader, and voted him to a second term.

Which is exactly what bin Laden wanted.

The immediate reaction of most Americans was predictable, and bin Laden used that predictability to his advantage. There is no doubt that he timed the release of the video in order to influence the election, and any appearance by bin Laden, by placing the issue of terrorism and national security in the front of voters’ minds, was likely to give a boost to the incumbent. If bin Laden truly wanted Kerry to win the election, his best move would have been no move at all. (There are two constituencies who can best help their preferred candidate by publicly supporting his opponent: terrorists and Hollywood celebrities.)

While bin Laden is many things, he is not hopelessly unintelligent. He knew that his video would help Bush’s bid for re-election, even if – or precisely because – the immediate reaction from voters (and far too many pundits) was that his intentions were the exact opposite. Somehow, we as a nation took the statements of the world’s most heinous and duplicitous man at face value.

In Ron Suskind’s book “The One Percent Doctrine”, published in 2006, he noted that the CIA concluded that “bin Laden’s message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reelection.” The fact that so many people initially thought otherwise reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what it was that bin Laden was trying to accomplish on 9/11.

I make no claims that I can comprehend the mind of a terrorist, but as a Muslim I think I have a handle on bin Laden’s twisted view of Islamic eschatology. Bin Laden wasn’t simply trying to hurt America on 9/11: he was trying to start World War III. He neither expected nor hoped that after ramming planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and maybe the Capitol, that Al-Qaeda could slink off into some caves along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border until Americans forgot all about 9/11, and then they could strike again.

When bin Laden declared war on the United States, it was in the hope that the United States would declare war in return – not just on him, but on the entire Muslim world. He wanted war, the bigger and more protracted the better. He wanted the Clash of Civilizations. He wanted, in a very literal sense, The End of Days. He didn’t have the firepower or resources to trigger the apocalypse himself, so he baited someone who did – the United States of America.

I can’t stress this point enough: bin Laden and his followers don’t fear war because they don’t fear death – they welcome it. They believe, without reservation, that death brings martyrdom and eternal salvation. Until the very moment that the planes hit the towers, the hijackers on 9/11 were certain they had a one-way ticket to paradise. (The moment after the planes hit the towers is a different story.)

That he might get killed after 9/11 was a far lesser concern to bin Laden than the possibility that his murderous attack might not provoke a suitable response. And in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when world opinion – including Muslim world opinion – was overwhelmingly in America’s corner, and when our military forces initially targeted only Al-Qaeda and their Taliban enablers in Afghanistan, he might have thought he miscalculated.

And then came the drumbeat to war with Iraq, opening up a new front against a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. I can only imagine bin Laden rubbing his hands together with glee upon the news that the United States had declared war on Iraq, telling his men, “You see? Our plan is working.”

So when it came to the 2004 election, bin Laden was neither pro-Bush nor pro-Kerry. He was pro-war. And whichever candidate was most likely to sustain, or even escalate, that war was his man. That candidate was clearly George W. Bush, which meant it was time to turn on the cameras and burn a DVD.

This time around, we have one candidate who advocates a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq and divert those resources to Afghanistan in order to root out the people who actually attacked us seven years ago – bin Laden and his band of terrorists. And then we have a candidate who talks about maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, and sings songs in public about pre-emptively bombing Iran, which would set yet another gear turning in bin Laden’s scheme to bring about global war. Once again it appears that bin Laden would prefer the Republican candidate, and once again it appears that since any appearance by bin Laden is likely to tip voters towards favoring the decorated Vietnam War veteran, bin Laden’s best move is to show up with another October Surprise.

The McCain campaign has already attempted to label Obama as the preferred choice of Muslim terrorists everywhere. Back in April, McCain seized on favorable comments about Obama by a member of Hamas, stating, “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.” There’s no doubt the McCain campaign will pounce if bin Laden pops up with similar remarks. (It would hardly be a surprise if Hamas truly favors Obama, given that the Muslim world – and the rest of the world, for that matter – overwhelmingly favors him.)

With McCain lagging in the polls, bin Laden might even try a Hail Mary – with Sarah Palin on the ballot, I’d imagine that he’ll throw in some misogynistic comments about how a woman’s place is inside the home and that a nation led by a woman is sure to be cursed by God. (Which would be particularly rich if he goes that route, given that he’s probably holed up somewhere in Pakistan, where they’ve already had a female chief executive.) And then there’s the worst-case scenario: while Obama’s lead is substantial enough that he probably could weather a bin Laden appearance, the real game-changer would be if – God forbid – bin Laden is able to launch another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

I hope I’m wrong, and that bin Laden stays quiet for the next month. I hope that the reason why no one can find bin Laden – not George Bush, not the US military, not even Morgan Spurlock – is because he’s dead. But if he’s not, then we can expect to see his ugly mug on TV in the next few weeks, and we can expect at least a few voters to be swayed by his appearance. Please, don’t be one of them.

Name That Economy

We don't just need to recapitalize the banks. We need to reconceptualize capitalism.

By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Oct. 4, 2008, at 7:51 AM ET


At the beginning of the century, when the United States briefly contemplated the prospect of paying off its national debt, Alan Greenspan raised an unexpected concern. A government surplus would end up being invested in private assets, which would violate free-market principle and could deliver socialism through the back door.

Greenspan smothered that dangerous surplus in its crib by endorsing the Bush tax cuts, but his benign view of derivatives and his nonchalance about the unregulated "shadow banking system" helped bring about the outcome he feared anyhow. Authorizing the Treasury Department to take stakes in financial firms is merely the Paulson plan's most dramatic departure from textbook capitalism. The legislation—which the Senate had enough sense of irony to attach to a mental health bill—implicitly recognizes that major financial institutions have become too interwoven with the global economy to be allowed to fail.

What should we call the economic model emerging from this crisis of capitalism? Despite the collectivization of losses and risk, it doesn't qualify as even reluctant socialism. Government ownership of private assets is being presented as a last-ditch expedient, not a policy goal. Yet it's inaccurate to describe our economy, either pre- or post-Paulson, as simply laissez faire. A system in which government must frequently intervene to protect the world from the results of private financial misjudgment is modified capitalism—part invisible hand, part helping hand. This leaves us with a pressing problem of both conceptualization and nomenclature.

Where right-wing critics denounce the Paulson plan as socialism, those on the left see it as a form of corporatism. This was the economic philosophy of fascist Italy, which Mussolini defined as a merger of state and corporate power. Under such a system, the largest industries function as adjuncts to the regime. There are many contemporary variations on this theme, such as the Asian and Latin American styles of crony capitalism, oil-state plutocracy, and kleptocracy on several continents. Vladimir Putin's authoritarian capitalism is yet another version. But despite the closer ties that can be expected between government and a consolidated financial sector composed of superbanks like J.P. Morgan Chase-Bank One-Bear-WaMu; Bank of America-LaSalle-U.S. Trust-MBNA-Countrywide-Merrill; and Citi-Smith Barney-Wachovia, corporatism doesn't accurately describe a system in which favoritism toward specific companies is roundly decried and concern about moral hazard nearly sank the economy.

Perhaps, then, we're at another of the midpoints between public and private ownership usually described as a mixed economy. The New Deal welfare state that arose in response to the Great Depression is one example of this compromise. The most durable version is the Western European model of social democracy, with its larger, more interventionist state, wider social safety nets, more extensive regulation, and higher taxes. Socialized health care would represent a step in this direction, but bailing out bondholders to protect the financial system doesn't. Our new order also can't be described as trending toward dirigisme, the economic approach of Charles de Gaulle, where government directs the allocation of resources toward chosen technologies—in the French case, nuclear power, high-speed rail, Le Minitel. Nor are we moving toward the Chinese system, a modern form of mercantilism, in which government-owed enterprises serve the power of a philosophically bankrupt state.

The system that's emerging from this crisis has less to do with the eternal liberal project of finding a humane Third Way between socialism and capitalism than it does with containing the fallout from private risk-taking. It might be described as regulatory capitalism, since stringent capital requirements, thoroughly enforced, are probably the most obvious preventive measure for the future. But regulation, which is inherently backward-looking, seems an insufficient answer to the current crisis. What got us into trouble wasn't merely a failure of oversight. It was something we previously thought of as a strength of the Anglo-American system, namely aggressive financial innovation. Even a supervisor with broad authority, like Britain's Financial Services Authority, is challenged to keep pace with the inventiveness of investment bankers. To prevent crisis, we need something more akin to a financial-preemption doctrine, to address systemic risks before they materialize.

A better name for our new system might be life jacket capitalism. The role of the watchdogs isn't just to enforce seat-belt and helmet laws for the financial sector. Market misjudgments have produced systemic risk with growing intensity and alarming frequency, requiring rescues in 1988 (the savings-and-loan crisis), 1994 (the Mexican collapse), 1997 (the Asian meltdown), 1998 (the Long Term Capital Management debacle), and 2008 (the subprime catastrophe). In an age of globalization, threats to the financial system can arise unexpectedly from almost any place. What's scary about such an arrangement is how much power it vests in our economic guardians and how vigilant, wise, and adroit those guardians need to be. One dud call like letting Lehman go and the whole world can blow up.

Or perhaps we should say that we've entered the Marxist stage of Rube Goldberg capitalism. Bill Gates coined the term creative capitalism earlier this year to describe a market approach to alleviating poverty. In a broader context, his phrase gets at the reality that private enterprise on its own won't address global ills such as climate change, economic inequality, or systemic financial risk. Put a different way, when capitalism stops working, it's time to start looking for a good adjective.

Marc's Photo Gallery

My nephew has been taking fantastic photos and I wanted to share his online gallery.
He recently won for "First Kiss" !

"When times get tough, you need Champagne."

Savoring a rustic lunch of tuna salad, veal stew, and red wine, Benoit Gouez, chief vintner at Champagne house Moet & Chandon, took a long view of the financial crisis rocking the global economy.

"We are more than two centuries old and crisis and wars and problems, we have known them all in the past, and we are still here," he said as pickers outside harvested the latest crop of Champagne grapes.

Moet & Chandon survived even tougher times during the French Revolution, when the aristocracy stopped buying Champagne, and the house learned to turn adversity into success by discovering how to prosper through exports.

As fortunes evaporate overnight in the maelstrom hitting world markets, it is the high end of the retail market - sports cars, haute couture, fine wines, Swiss watches, yachts - that might be expected to take the hardest and most immediate hit. But many people in luxury goods are confident that the highest echelons of wealth will always have disposable cash.

"In our opinion it's probably when the times are hard that people really like or need to dream more and luxury products are never more necessary as in the tough periods," Gouez said.

In fact, the Champagne house's unofficial motto - trotted out by staff on many occasions during a recent visit - is: "When times get tough, you need Champagne."

Recent numbers may belie the optimism.

Champagne sales fell 2.6 percent in the first eight months of the year to 165 million bottles, according to figures from Champagne winegrowers committee CIVC. Domestic sales were down 4.2 percent to 89 million bottles, while exports fell 0.67 percent to 76 million bottles.

Exports to the U.S. have been hit particularly hard, plunging 22 percent to 6.5 million bottles in the first six months of the year, the most recent period for which detailed export statistics are available.

There are abundant signs, however, that the luxury goods market is holding up, at least for now.

Ferrari expects 2008 to be another record year, with "more or less constant" sales in U.S. and Europe topped up by growth in countries such as Russia, China and the United Arab Emirates, CEO Amedeo Felisa told The Associated Press.

Despite the financial crisis, some 6,000 people have expressed interest in buying Ferrari's new California, a coupe-cabriolet with a retractable hard top, which retails for around euro179,000 (US$247,000) in Europe - even before Ferrari opened its book for orders.

No Lamborghini orders have been canceled. Giorgio Armani is going ahead with a fashion hotel in Milan. And even as Wall Street imploded, LVMH - maker of fancy luggage and fine liqueurs - bought Dutch mega-yacht builder Royal van Lent.

"It is true that for sure we have some signals of crisis in some specific markets and in some specific niches," said Bain & Co. luxury analyst Claudia D'Arpizio. "But overall if we take the world ... as a complete marketplace, the situation is still good."

She added that the crisis has left unscathed the "absolute consumer" whose super wealth will remain remarkably stable in good times and bad. And emerging economic powers like China and India, while vulnerable to the financial turmoil, remain growth markets for the luxury sector.

"Even if some people are hit by the crisis, there are still more people drinking Champagne than 10 years ago," said Moet & Chandon's Gouez. "The world has never before seen so many people being able to afford so many luxury products."

While sales have slipped at Italy's high-end Damiani jeweler, CEO Guido Damiani is confident the dip won't be too deep.

"It's just enough for the winds to change a little, and the well to do will start buying again," said Damiani CEO Guido Damiani.

Still, it appears the financial chaos has taken some of the froth out of fashion - even if it doesn't show in the price tag.

Stressed times call for relaxed looks, and that's what the top fashion houses presented during recent womens wear shows in Milan and Paris for their spring/summer 2009.

Designers went for bolder color palettes to portray a sense of optimism, and stuck to more practical styles that could better weather uncertain buying habits.

Mario Boselli, head of Milan's Fashion Chamber, said that while there were fears buyers might skip the shows, more than 2,000 globe-trotting buyers showed up alongside more than 1,200 journalists from 40 countries.

One of those buyers, Saks Fifth Avenue chief merchandising officer Ron Frasch, acknowledged in Paris that it was an unpredictable moment.

"This is a tough one, this is maybe the worst I've ever seen," Frasch said.

"Clearly, the ones who are in the best position are the ones who have the strongest brand names. The ones who have the most difficulty are the ones who are either beginning to develop or trying to get their goods onto the market. It's really tough to add new brands right now."

The bottom line is that no one knows how long the crisis will last.

While the world's luxury makers say they have the stuff to weather this crisis, they also acknowledge it is like none they have witnessed it the past.

The consumer crash after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was a one-time event that wasn't repeated, and consumers slowly returned to their old ways.

The current financial meltdown, on the other hand, has been advancing in stages since last year's subprime crisis.

Large-scale buyers of high-end fashion won't admit they are buying less. But a sign of the times: more promotions of designer wear in department stores, creating a conflict with designers who sell their creations at full price sometimes just a few doors down.

Lamborghini's one-year waiting period makes it unlikely that its customers are buying on a whim of momentary well-being. CEO Stephan Winkelmann said during a recent interview at the carmaker's Sant'Agata headquarters that no orders have been canceled - and they weren't expecting any to be.

"So far we are managing quite well. We always produce below demand, so you have a buffer, an alert system," Winkelmann said.

Letter To The Editor

Found this when in Naples, Florida this week:


This Proves It

Letter To The Editor, Naples Daily News:

John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as running mate to me tells the truth about who he really is.

As a woman I respect Palin. As a woman I respect all women, even those with different beliefs and ideas.

But as a woman I detest the behavior of McCain in choosing Palin. In his choice of her, he has manipulated, abused and disrespected her as a human being. His choice was made not for the good of this country or the world; it was done so he could try to win. The sacrifice of any woman is unacceptable and very much old paradigm.

Palin was and is not ready for this great responsibility. She is a woman of many facets and attributes on a great journey toward all the goals she has or will set for herself. At this time, as we have all seen and heard, she is not ready to be vice president, much less president. This is so beyond her capacities. My compassion pours out to her because she has been wrongfully chosen way before her time!

As a woman, I understand and feel the injustice that has been brought upon this Palin by the Republican Party in its manipulative desire to win.

The media and every American has a right to know everything about a candidate and to be informed of her strengths and also her inadequacies. In this vetting, to my great sadness, Palin has been exposed, and who truly can be blamed for such an abuse but John McCain.

And that could only come from a man who has no regard or respect for women.

Michele Buonocore, Naples

SNL's VP Debate

Shock Doctrine and Disaster Capitalism

"How We Respond To Crisis Really Is A Choice"

Naomi Klein presents her new book Shock Doctrine on Colbert Nation:


Link

When asked where this is going? Privatization of The Government - private companies rebuilding our infrastructure, using prison labor ("Prison Industrial Complex") - a monied machine in itself.

"The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.

"What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."



Note the doctrine of Shock And Awe as proposed by the economist Milton Friedman

"The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant."


We may not remember Argentina's economic crisis - it occurred as 9/11 was the crisis the US was handling - but "History Is Our Shock Resistance" and maybe we can learn from the Argentinian's response to economic failure.

Argentina had been the model of the IMF, they had privatized everything, deregulated, embraced free trade, imported rather than manufactured, decimating their manufacturing sector, cut everything that helped people - education, healthcare, social services - and still the economy "imploded". The middle class lost access to their bank accounts, people rioted and looted, setting bonfires in the street. They responded, not by abdicating power, but instead by completely losing faith in their political leadership. They took on a policy of "everyone must go!" throwing out 5 presidents in 3 weeks. And one great example was, where people were laid off or fired, did the opposite of a strike and WENT TO WORK ANYWAY. This is profiled in the movie The Take. It was a revolt against the ideological model of deregulation, privatization, and cuts to government spending.

.