A Great President and Campaign Finance Reform

Speaking of the role of money in Presidential campaigns today, let's examine a quote from a monumentally great American President:

"I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the
campaign expenses of any party. Such a bill has already past one House of
Congress. Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in
effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political
purpose, directly or indirectly."

It's a simple rule. Could it work?

Or have we all resigned ourselves to a government of the CEOs, by the CEOs, for the CEOs?

---

Flat Tax, Isn't it Time?

Tax filing time is finally over! But how painful was it? How many people went crossed-eyed trying to read complex and confusing tax instructions? What is up with Alternative Minimum Tax worksheets for all? How many people had to deal with tax preparation software that had problems with installation, or problems filing tax returns electronically? How many people are positive they did everything 100% correctly?

It's time to scrap the tax code! It is beyond shameful.

We need a simple flat tax now. A relatively low (say 10%) flat tax on all types of income. A flat tax for individuals, corporations, and all entities that tax evaders might hide behind. No deductions. No write-offs. No tax shelters. No loopholes. No exceptions. It can be written on a single sheet of paper. The time is now.

It is very likely that government revenue from taxes would increase, due to greater compliance with a simple, low rate plan, and due to the fact that the massive loop-holes would be closed. Let's do the right thing.

Flat Tax now!

---

Presidential Selection by Piggy Bank

Let us assume for an instant that most Americans believe that money should not play a role in elections. That in a perfect democracy, the issues and the candidates will be the deciding factors. Previous outrage over campaign fundraising, the McCain-Feingold Act, and proposals of government funding for campaigns stand as evidence that the desired intent is to limit the role of money in elections.

But what is the current reality?

For the last several weeks, the mainstream media has reported about nothing but the amounts of money the favored Presidential candidates have raised. They have portrayed the election as nothing but a money gathering exercise, with the election obviously going to the highest bidder. The election is over before it has begun, decided by money.

The media limits the number of candidates they will discuss or acknowledge, and then talk about the only issue that seems to be important, the amount of money in each candidate’s campaign fund.

To add insult to injury, the mainstream media provides 24x7 coverage to the candidates with the most money. These candidates already have all of the money, so why provide them with continuous free advertising?

The Solution

If we agree that campaign financing is an issue, and that money should not play such a big role, we all need to foster that idea. New laws won't help. We need help from the media.

We should give time to all Presidential Candidates. And let's give some time to candidates from parties other than the Democrats and Republicans. And even within the major parties, let's not dismiss the lesser financed candidates. It's a novel concept, but it would be more in line with the spirit of Democracy, and the principals our government was founded upon.

If we want money to be the only deciding factor in elections, we can continue talking about nothing but the money.

But if we truly want more diverse or innovative ideas, we must open the door to more candidates, and stop obsessing about the size of campaign piggy banks.

Let the bidding begin!

Recent headlines have overwhelmed us with the news that the annual quota of H1-B visas were reserved in one day. This was cause for celebration by the US Chamber of Commerce, Bill Gates, and the entire "cheap labor" propaganda machine. They say that it is proof that we need unlimited immigration of cheap laborers into the US.

These people claim to be Capitalists, and with that in mind, there is an obvious solution to the current H1-B issue: Let the market decide who gets the H1-B visas. Auction off the annual quota to the highest bidders. Do this four times a year to spread it out. How could you be more market oriented than that?

They claim that they can't hire the "best and brightest". An auction would certainly allow them to prioritize that vague requirement. If they have candidates that they can't do business without, they will bid to get a visa for that person. It's simple supply and demand. It's true Capitalism.

Of course those in search of cheap labor don't want real Capitalism. They only want it when it is convenient to them. They are more than happy to pretend that they are standing in a Communist bread line, and claim "we couldn't get our fair helping of free cheap labor".

The Heart of the Matter

Any desirable product that is given away for free in limited quantities (like the visas) will have too much demand. If the US Government offered 65,000 free Plasma TVs to the public, how many days would it take for that quota to be taken? The line would be longer, and go faster than the H1-B visas!

But who deserves free Plasma TVs from the government? No one, and certainly not Bill Gates. He can afford to pay for his own Plasma TVs, just like he can afford to pay for his so called "indispensable" best and brightest foreign workers.

Let the free, competitive market decide.

Another Red Herring: Minimum Wage

American workers rejoice! The Federal Minimum Wage has been increased for the first time since 1996 (passed by the House of Representatives at this point).

In that same time-frame, corporate CEO pay has sky-rocketed, while many American workers have seen their wages drop, sometimes dramatically.

Minimum wage is a red herring, a diversion from the truth. Lawmakers can say that they are doing something, when in fact they are doing nothing at all. Liberty and McJobs for all, at minimum wage. Thank you Congress.

And let’s forget for a minute that some employers of illegal aliens don’t even pay minimum wage. They have illegal workers, so why worry about minimum wage laws?

While the major corporate and political powers profess to believe in "Capitalism", they truly only believe in manipulating it to their own advantage. Capitalism only works to the advantage of all when there is COMPETITION. They do everything they can to avoid competition. They don’t want to compete in the marketplace, and they don’t want to compete for your labor.

Notice the halleluiahs every time there is a corporate merger, which means less competition, and probably the formation of an Oligopoly. Who benefits from that? Not the employees. Not the consumers. Not the common shareholders. Only the top executives and the Wall Street financial and legal entities that charge (skim) millions of dollars during these mergers.

Once again last week, an American Oil company has posted historic, record profits. The Emperor has no clothes, and the American people and the US Government pretend that no illegal collusion is occurring, while oil company executives prance around in their naked greed and profits.

In terms of individual workers, employers don't want to compete for your labor. They want to hold the monopoly of jobs.

This is simple supply and demand. Increase the labor pool, and they don't have to compete for employees. They lower the wages for all (except those at the top).

And how do they increase the labor pool?

There are two major ways: rampant illegal and legal immigration, and by decreasing the number of US jobs via outsourcing and sending industries out of the US.

Both of these techniques have been put to great use in the past several decades, and they have been fully supported by the government and both political Parties. The result is an ever increasing labor pool, and stagnant and lowering wages in the US.

Its simple economics: goods and services, labor and jobs, manipulated by the few for their own advantage. Its faux Capitalism, with competition removed from the equation.

Bill and Melinda Gates: Some Americans need not apply

In the age of corporate royalty, where corporate executives wield absolute power, the ultimate Queen has been crowned: Melinda Gates. The top two titans of corporate power, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, have consolidated into a single superpower, and the new Queen is Melinda Gates. She will exert dominion that will rival any nation, yet there was no election, just a coronation.

In the future, it will be interesting to watch how she uses this new found power. Let’s take a look at how that muscle is currently being used.

The Gates Millennium Scholars Foundation is a starting point. Apparently, anyone can qualify for this program, except for Americans of European heritage. It’s a fact. On the Gates website, the criteria are outlined. There is a list of ethnic and racial groups that are allowed to apply, with the notable exception of persons who are of white or European heritage.

The criteria for Candidates are as follows: candidate “is African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American.”

Further details on what constitutes Asian Pacific Islander: “Asian Pacific Islander American ethnic groups include persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, but not limited to: Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Hmong, Indian, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Laotian (including Khmu, Lahu, Mien, ThaiDam and other ethnic groups from Laos), Malaysian, Nepalese, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Thai and Vietnamese (including Montagnards and Khemer Khong). The Pacific Islander.”

Apparently, the “idea” (as espoused by Bill Gates) that persons of Indian and Chinese heritage are superior in Math and the Sciences does not effect their eligibility for this generous scholarship program. As groups, they are also some of the more financially successful in the United States.

So why is there a targeted Gates scholarship that includes these groups that already tend to have ability and access to education, and also tend to have adequate financial resources? Does the poverty in India or China somehow effect the qualifications of those who have already become successful U.S. citizens, many for multiple generations, far removed from any circumstances in a far away country?

We are all Americans, no matter where our forefathers came from. Aren't there some Americans in need of scholarships, no matter what their heritage?

So why exclude Americans of some mixed European descent? Have poverty and access to education been eradicated for all white Americans, therefore they don't need to be included? Are all Americans as educated as they need to be? Has Bill Gates ever left his cocoon and seen poverty in the United States?

Bill Gates keeps saying that education is the key to the future, but apparently not for financially strapped Americans of any European descent.

One can only ask a simple question: Are Bill and Melinda Gates discriminatory against white Americans? Why the special racial or ethnic criteria for the Gates Millennium Scholars Foundation? What is their agenda?

Time will tell.

Heard on the Street

Bill Gates and friends say that education is the key to American success in the workplace. They say the reason that they are outsourcing and importing foreign labor is due to lack of qualified Americans. Most of us know that this is just a front for a scam to get labor as cheap as possible. And this does affect Americans, both in their education choices, and their employment opportunities. Some anecdotes heard on the street:

A college student: "I am taking XYZ as a major. I figure they can't outsource that."

A web developer: "(Large Networking Company) XYZ has me work as a temporary worker, but I would like to be permanent. It is frustrating that during the time I have worked as a temp, I have seen many people hired as permanent workers; people from India on visas. They just won't hire me as a perm employee, even though I already do the work."

A software engineer: "(Large Search Engine Company) XYZ always says that they need tech people, but when I give them my resume, they respond and say that they don't have any positions available that match my background. They say they need software engineers, but now I hear they are outsourcing and hiring all of their programmers in China."

Immigration March to Reverse Worker's Rights

May 1st, 2006, International Worker's Day:

As hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and persons with mixed loyalties march in the streets of the U.S., a quote from President Teddy Roosevelt said it best: for U.S. citizens, born or naturalized, there should be no divided allegiance, and a standard language (English).

Of course the absolute irony of a march of illegal immigrants on May 1st, a worker's holiday, should not be overlooked. For what interests are they marching? To reverse the years of hard fought worker's rights? To reverse the work of Cesar Chavez and others? The right to work for little pay, under slave-like conditions? The right for the children of the last generation of immigrants (who are U.S. citizens) to be replaced by cheaper imported labor? How ironic! How misled!

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

The Same Old Swindle

“The price and supply is set by the market.”
“This is simply supply and demand in the free market.”
“It’s purely cyclical, and the energy companies have done no wrong.”
“Capitalism, free markets, blah, blah, blah.”

Many talking heads have repeated the above mantras and catch-phrases, over and over again.

But they were not talking about the current gasoline price escalation.

They said these things while there were rolling electrical black-outs due to Enron’s illegal market manipulations. And now they repeat the same jargon.

While traders at Enron were requesting the shutdown of electric generation plants, and laughed about ripping off “Grandma Millie”, Enron and other power companies were defended with the same clichés. But they were as guilty as sin.

How many times must this happen?

Now President Bush says that he will “investigate” the Gasoline companies for signs of price gouging. That’s a novel idea. Fortunately, this has been investigated in the past, and the results should be the same:

Gasoline refiners have conspired for years to constrain gasoline refining, just like Enron conspired to constrain electricity generation. It’s the exact same swindle.

Crude Oil inventories in the U.S. are at highs right now; it’s the refining capacity that is the choke point, and the money maker.

Of course the refiners will claim that “government regulation” and “environmental rules” cause the problems. That may contribute, but the fact that they intentionally shut down refining plants and refuse to let anyone re-open those plants tells the real story.

President Bush would do well to review a previous anti-trust lawsuit prepared by the Federal Trade Commission. All of the answers are held there. The seeds were sown for today’s gasoline crisis long ago. As the Big Oil CEO’s say, they plan for the long term, and this market manipulation has been long in the making. They are reaping the harvest now, and the public will pay dearly.

The solution is a true, competitive market: Break up the Oil Companies, make each gasoline refinery an independent company. Allow new refineries to open. That creates a funtional, competitive market, where supply and demand can truly work.

-----

Links:

Capitalism Gone Wild
http://johnfames.blogspot.com/2005/07/capitalism-gone-wild.html

How Gas Companies Manipulate Prices
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm

The Big Squeeze by Big Oil
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/nw/?postId=4685&pageTitle=THE+BIG+SQUEEZE+BY+BIG+OIL%3B

Excerpt from "The Big Squeeze by Big Oil" by Steve Everly, The Kansas City Star:

Two 1970s oil crises orchestrated by OPEC left consumers with indelible images of long lines at gas stations and high prices at the pump. But they also marked a turning point for Big Oil that set a course for today's higher refinery profits.

A detailed portrayal of that turnabout is contained in a previously undisclosed 393-page document, assembled by Federal Trade Commission lawyers as part of an antitrust suit that was pending before an administrative law judge that was later dismissed.

As countries around the globe nationalized their oil industries, the domestic oil industry increasingly looked to refining for profits. In some instances, according to the FTC document, the oil companies cooperated among themselves to reduce refinery capacity.

"It's not happenstance that we're short of refining capacity," said David Haberman, a retired former antitrust lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. "I really thought it could end up like it is today."

Haberman was one of 19 lawyers who spent nearly a decade compiling a case which has been largely forgotten. The case, which was before an administrative law judge within the FTC, was dismissed in the early days of the Reagan administration. But it created a treasure trove of more than 500,000 pages of documents within the FTC archives that offer a rare glimpse inside the industry.

The FTC, replying to requests by The Kansas City Star, so far has refused to release most of those documents after initially saying they could not be located. The federal agency now says that it is required to get the approval of the oil companies that authored the memorandums and other documents before they can be released.

But the FTC's "Complaint Counsel's First Statement of Issues, Factual Contentions and Proof" obtained by The Star offers some details of the government's investigation of eight major oil companies. The FTC has confirmed that the document, which is dated Oct. 31, 1980, and summarizes the FTC's case, is legitimate -- even as it refuses to release other supporting documents covered under the newspaper's request.

The FTC's lawyers found that Big Oil was turned on its ear by the nationalization of Mideast oil. The industry had relied on the vast supplies of Mideast oil for much of its profits and plenty of refinery capacity was crucial in being able to process it all.

But the loss of control of Mideast oil, according to the FTC report, meant the end of the old system. The major oil companies increasingly viewed refineries as having a new role -- a stand-alone business that needed to be profitable.

The FTC document said the industry turned its attention to making that happen, alleging: Competitors were kept out by refusing to sell refineries to them.

In other instances, if an independent company was looking at land to build a refinery, the site was purchased to prevent it from being built. If there was still investment interest, oil companies would temporarily reduce wholesale gasoline prices in that territory to convince the would-be buyer that it would be unprofitable. In addition, refining capacity among the companies was controlled by sharing information on gasoline production. One company's memorandum to another company that discussed plans to shut down a refinery included instructions to destroy the document after it was read. At one point, according to the FTC report, the companies thought demand would increase significantly. But the companies "contrary to their individual business interests, did not expand refining capacity or take other actions to meet anticipated demand" -- delaying or canceling refinery projects.

The companies also sought to keep from dumping too much gasoline on the market by following the "leading firm" in each market regarding how much gas to refine to sell to that market.

"The system worked in firming up prices," concluded the FTC document.

Better than Slaves

President Bush, Bill Gates and friends are at it again…their “cure” for outsourcing and importation of cheap high-tech labor in the U.S. is education. In the purest sense, education, learning and enlightenment are always a good thing. But for the average college freshman deciding upon a major, the job prospects after achieving that major are the primary concern. And as much as education is a great thing, reality is even more important.

The truth is this: college freshman are more than aware of the rush for cheap labor, and the greed that permeates the current corporate leaders and their political allies. They know that a degree in math or science will land them in a dead-end, where Bill Gates will always be trying to replace them with someone who will work for less pay, and probably someone with a constant fear of visa retribution, or deportation. The slave owners of the past could never hope for a less expensive or more obedient workforce. Slaves required food, housing, and health care. The low-cost laborers of the modern one-world economy come much cheaper…

Beating the Odds?

How much is enough? When will Bill Gates have enough money? When will William McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, feel he has fleeced the American public and shareholders enough, often during their most dire times of need and vulnerability? The escalation of health care costs is a travesty, matched only by the exorbitant compensation that some CEOs have structured for themselves. But what goes into that compensation? Perhaps this needs a closer examination.

The Wall Street Journal has reported on some very strange coincidences. How about convenient stock option dates that defy the odds? The stock price on the day that stock options are granted greatly effects how valuable those options will be. What if options are granted on the lowest stock price day of the year? That would be great timing. How many times could our CEO Mr. McGuire hit that lottery? Apparently, he can hit it over and over, as can many other CEOs. Perhaps some CEOs are retroactively setting the option date at the end of the year, after they already know the low price for the year. But they wouldn't do that, because it's illegal. Even before Mr. McGuire's most recent exorbitant compensation story, there were questions:

“The Journal's analysis raises questions about one of the most lucrative stock-option grants ever. On Oct. 13, 1999, William W. McGuire, CEO of giant insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc., got an enormous grant in three parts that -- after adjustment for later stock splits -- came to 14.6 million options. So far, he has exercised about 5% of them, for a profit of about $39 million. As of late February he had 13.87 million unexercised options left from the October 1999 tranche. His profit on those, if he exercised them today, would be about $717 million more.

The 1999 grant was dated the very day UnitedHealth stock hit its low for the year. Grants to Dr. McGuire in 1997 and 2000 were also dated on the day with those years' single lowest closing price. A grant in 2001 came near the bottom of a sharp stock dip. In all, the odds of such a favorable pattern occurring by chance would be one in 200 million or greater. Odds such as those are "astronomical," said David Yermack, an associate professor of finance at New York University, who reviewed the Journal's methodology and has studied options-timing issues.”

Mr. McQuire is not alone in his spectacular market timing. It seems that many other executives have been able to “predict” the low point of their respective stocks. It’s uncanny. As they say, "Odds such as those are "astronomical". For more examples, see the chart at the end of this Wall Street Journal story.

Wall Street Journal Story in PDF.

Opinions

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." – Marcus Aurelius

"The opinion of 10,000 men is downright dangerous if they know only misinformation, after being spoon-fed disinformation." - John Forest Fames

The Road to Hell…

...Is paved with good intentions.

No one can deny that tracking terrorists is a good idea. And any Court that would not issue a warrant to track communications of a suspected terrorist should come under close scrutiny or review. We have already witnessed bureaucratic and legal incompetence that allowed the 9/11 highjackers to slip through, despite information that should have lead to the prevention of the attack.

And now we are hearing many justifications for new executive powers. Mainly, the acute needs of war…but what war? Where is the enemy army? What country do they represent? Where is the frontline? Where can we counter-attack? The United States is in control of Iraq, which makes the situation there a post-war police action.

No, this is not a traditional war, but a war on “terrorism”. And when does this abstract concept of “war” end? Probably at the same time as the “war on drugs”, the “war on crime”, the “war on poverty”, “the war on insanity” or the “war on global warming”. It’s a war on an idea, with no defined boundaries and no end. Any powers granted due to this “emergency” are permanent. Comparisons to real wars of the past are not valid.

And would uncontrolled executive power solve our problems, and defeat this abstract idea? Hardly. Intelligence gathered prior to 9/11 did not prevent the attacks, and there is no reason or evidence to believe that a universe of eavesdropped information would result in any better results. This type of intelligence gathering is always desired by the powerful, but it ends up being used for political and personal gain. Richard Nixon is turning over in his grave to think that he could have listened to any and all conversations, under the guise of wartime Commander in Chief. He could have simply granted himself the powers. No need for old-fashioned burglaries and bumbling at the Watergate Hotel. Just grab the power, and wage a public relations campaign to keep it. Let us not forget, the Vietnam conflict was a thousand times more a real war than the current Iraq situation, which is a post-war police action. If Bush can wield these new powers, then Nixon was even more deserving.

Republican partisans seem very happy to give unlimited power to George Bush, Commander in Chief. But what happens when the Commander in Chief is a Democrat? Or a Socialist? Or a Fascist? Will unlimited Executive Power be such a good idea then?

----

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fiscally Responsible Few

Is there anyone in Congress that is fiscally responsible?

The stories of wasted money in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are already starting to come out. Was the 60 billion dollars in “relief” money that was authorized by Congress in the days after the hurricane really necessary? No doubt companies and contractors of all types were ecstatic, ready to climb aboard the windfall gravy train.

There's only a few in Congress who can be applauded for not loosing their heads in an emergency, or at least not using taxpayers money just to appear compassionate.

The roll call vote on the additional 50 billion dollars in FEMA funds shows us that eleven members of Congress voted against the uncontrolled flow of public funds. They are the only truly responsible members of Congress:

Barton (TX), Flake, Foxx, Garrett (NJ), Hostettler, King (IA), Otter, Paul, Sensenbrenner, Tancredo, and Westmoreland.

Perhaps the budget of the United States would not be broken if there were more members of Congress like this group.

Some of the stories of waste in the news:

Roofing Firms Make a Killing

NEW ORLEANS - Across the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, thousands upon thousands of blue tarps are being nailed to wind-damaged roofs, a visible sign of government assistance. The blue sheeting - a godsend to residents whose homes are threatened by rain - is rapidly becoming the largest roofing project in the nation's history.

It isn't coming cheap.

Knight Ridder has found that a lack of oversight, generous contracting deals and poor planning mean that government agencies are shelling out as much as 10 times what the temporary fix would normally cost.

The government is paying contractors an average of $2,480 for less than two hours of work to cover each damaged roof - even though it's also giving them endless supplies of blue sheeting for free.

"This is absolute highway robbery, and it really does show that the agency doesn't have a clue in getting real value of contracts," said Keith Ashdown, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense, noting that he recently paid $3,500 for a new permanent roof. "I've done the math in my head 100 times, and I don't know how they computed this cost."

Expensive Cruise Ships

Washington Democratic Rep. Jay Inslee criticized a $192 million, six-month contract with Carnival Cruise Lines to use three luxury ships to house evacuees from the region. The ships are now being occupied by a relatively small number of relief workers.

"We need to ask some pretty hard questions about that," he said. "Is it economical to continue this contract to house relief workers?"

Inslee said questions were raised about the contract just days after it was signed and noted the per person cost was $1,275 a week, far above the typical cost of a week-long cruise for a normal passenger.

U.S. Paying When Free Ships Were Offered

As scrutiny intensifies on how the government has spent money in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, two senators on Thursday questioned a $236 million deal with Carnival Cruise Lines to house evacuees on ships when Greece offered to provide vessels for free.

Ice Bought and Trucked in Circles

Washington -- When the definitive story of the confrontation between Hurricane Katrina and the U.S. government is finally told, one long and tragicomic chapter will have to be reserved for the odyssey of the ice.

That would be the 91,000 tons of ice cubes intended to cool food, medicine and sweltering victims of the storm. It would cost taxpayers more than $100 million, and most of it would never be delivered.

Outrage in New Orleans

Was the Constitution Suspended?

You survived Hurricane Katrina. You survived the looters and criminals. But you probably will not hold out against the misdirected authorities. The same authorities who failed so miserably in Hurricane preparation, such as New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, are now ordering that all arms be confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Apparently the Second Amendment has been repealed, and we were not told. It's not just that the illegal confiscation of arms is a crime; it's plain stupid. How will these people defend themselves from the real criminals, as they have had to do for the past week? If your right to own a gun does not apply during emergencies and looting, when does it apply? Remember, many areas of New Orleans were not flooded. Some even have electricity and running (non-potable) water. And now the authorities are kicking in the doors and confiscating weapons. It's an illegal outrage.

Barney Fife (aka P. Edwin Compass III) summed up the annulment of the 2nd Amendment:

"No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

(Of course this new order does not apply to the wealthy, who can hire armed guards.)

And let’s say that you had evacuated and securely locked your house. Well, it’s not going to be locked when they are done kicking in the door. It will be open house, with free goods for anyone.

But who can forget the “Ragin' Cajun”? When the entire bureaucracy failed to respond properly to the hurricane aftermath (with the notable exception of some remaining brave New Orleans police, and of course, the always reliable Coast Guard), a no-nonsense Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honore led the first National Guard troops and supplies into New Orleans. A take-action, common sense kind of guy, he was featured telling military and police officers to refrain from constantly pointing weapons at civilians:

"Put those [expletive] weapons down," Gen. Honore screamed, as reported by the Associated Press. The press agency also said he reminded soldiers, and sometimes local police, that they were "not in Iraq."

Would his approach include saying "hello" to the survivors by pointing an assault weapon through their front door? Perhaps his common sense was just too uncommon for the fools in charge, so he was told to change his tune, and get in line with more aggressive civilian population control techniques. It’s a shame. The incompetent and glacial bureaucracies from the Mayor to the President may be slow, but they never fail to grab more power, and wield it in the least effective manner possible.

Communism vs. Competitive Markets

If gasoline was controlled by a monopoly, how high would that monopoly set gasoline prices?

No doubt, the price would be as high as possible. And as high as possible would mean until it hurt the consumers so much that they couldn’t pay anymore. But when would the consumer be hurt? In the age of unending debt, the consumer might take a very large hit in their expenses, without crying “Uncle”.

In addition to the ability to pay higher prices, another key factor would be the consumer’s perception of when the price was too high. So the best action for an Oil Trust would be to set the consumer’s expectations as high as possible.

And how would one set the consumer’s expectations higher? Well, that would take a propaganda campaign. Let’s outline some good propaganda points an Oil Monopoly might try to push on the consumers, and then the appropriate media outlets could repeat it until it becomes the defacto fact. It will be so good that most Americans will repeat the mantra as if they had thought of it themselves:

- “Adjusted for inflation, gasoline and crude oil prices have been higher in the past”. Simple, easy, even a child can remember and repeat. Who told me that again? I forgot. Never mind, it’s a great excuse to raise prices.

- “Prices are so much higher in Europe than in America, American gasoline is cheap”. Another good one, and let’s remember that dumbfounded Americans will never take into account that the tax alone in Britain is over $3.35 per gallon.

- “Refineries are down for repair, so gasoline and oil prices must go up”. Let’s hear it for supply and demand! Or the lack of understanding of supply and demand. We can understand that gasoline will go up as capacity is restricted, but what about oil? How are oil prices and refineries connected again? If refineries are down, that means crude oil must be going unused. How does the price of crude oil and gasoline both go up at the same time when refineries can’t take anymore crude oil? Wouldn’t the price of crude go down, as there would be less demand for crude? We certainly know that automobile traffic backs up when it can’t get through. Oh well, let’s not question the oracles of gas and oil propaganda, or the fact that Oil companies have been shutting down and restricting gasoline refinery capacity for decades.

- "There's a storm in the Caribbean, and gasoline prices must go up because of that". Ok, if you say so. Standard propaganda from the Pirates of the Caribbean.

- "War, explosions, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, mix and match, they cause the price of gasoline to go up". While these can cause crude oil supply problems in time, any excuse is good to get some more profit the very same day at a gas station near you.

And if it were a fact that Oil Companies and Gasoline refiners had become monopolies in the United States, what would be the reaction, and what would be the cure?

If we were Communists, the solution would be for the State to take over pricing and production.

If we were believers in Competitive Markets, we would break up the monopolies, as was done with the Standard Oil monopoly in the past. We would foster competitive markets.

The first action to take place in this dilemma has recently occurred in the State of Hawaii. Price controls have been put in place on the wholesale price of gasoline. This is the first step in the State taking over the industry. While this is anti-market in nature, it is also an admission that, “yes, the gasoline industry is a monopoly, and our cure is full government control”. Ironically, this communist-style solution is probably the first solution that comes to the mind of most politicians and concerned citizens in the home-land of capitalism. How ironic!

Of course as is the nature of powerful monopolies, Hawaii has been subtly threatened with an interruption of gasoline supply.

The true capitalist solution would be to break up the monopolies and trusts; to create as many real competitors as possible, and to drive the prices down to the true market value. Of course caution is always in order, as these efforts can be highjacked by special interests, and a new and even worse trust could be formed, ala Enron's manipulation of energy prices.

The real question will remain: is America truly the home of Competitive Capitalism, or a Pseudo-Communist System of State Controlled Monopolies? The answer may be too disturbing for many Americans to accept…only the future will reveal which path we are on.

America Lost to a Theory

Paul Craig Roberts, an economist who was a member of the Reagan administration, wrote a clear and concise summary of the state of US economic affairs. Essentially, it's another chapter of Capitalism Gone Wild. It's the story of America's decline due to unbridled greed and the corruption of an economic theory. Here's an excerpt from America's Lost Hegemony:

"The historian who chronicles America’s decline will lay the blame on free market ideology.
...
This development is taking a huge toll on America’s human resources in manufacturing skills, engineering and science. The first American victims were blue collar workers. Millions of them lost their jobs and experienced sharp declines in the quality of their lives. But as research, engineering, design, and innovation followed manufacturing abroad, now it is white collar workers in information technology and university graduates in engineering and physics who are being displaced.

American university enrollments in science and engineering are declining because there are no jobs for graduates. It is pointless to invest money, sweat and toil in an education that has no payoff. Markets do work. Markets are working to shrink the demand for, and supply of, American engineers and scientists.

The next impact is going to be on project manager jobs, practically the sole remaining source of career related employment for many engineers and technical people. Project management jobs require people experienced with the technology of the job. The loss of technical and engineering jobs empties the pipeline of people who have the experience to assume management positions. Far from being able to innovate, the US will even lack the human resources to manage technical and scientific projects.

Many uninformed people believe the problem is that America doesn’t produce enough scientists and engineers. Manufacturing & Technology News reports that “a group of 15 US business organizations has launched a national campaign aimed at doubling within 10 years the number of bachelor’s degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.”

What is the point of this when there is a huge supply of unemployed engineers and technical people who have been displaced by offshore outsourcing and by H-1b and L-1 work visas for foreigners? I know an American software engineer in his thirties whose job was outsourced. After searching fruitlessly for a job for four years, he took a job in Thailand writing software programs for $850 per month.

The anecdotal stories are legion. Yesterday, a friend reported to me that the service technician who repaired his garage door opener said his company was flooded with resumes from college graduates and engineers who cannot find work and are willing to take jobs installing garage doors.

US executives, with an eye to quarterly earnings and their bonuses, continue to spend considerable resources lobbying for increases in work visas that enable them to replace their American engineers, scientists, and technical people with lower cost foreigners. These executives lie through their teeth when they assert the lack of qualified Americans for the jobs. The fact of the matter is, the executives force their American employees to train their foreign replacements and then fire their American workers.

In a word, American capitalism is destroying itself by dismantling the ladders of upward mobility that have made large income inequalities acceptable. By rewarding themselves for destroying American jobs and manufacturing, engineering and scientific capabilities, US executives are sowing a whirlwind. American political stability will not survive the turning of an American university degree into a worthless sheet of paper. Libertarians and free market ideologues who rejoice in freedom should open their eyes to freedom’s destruction."

Help Wanted – No Americans Need Apply

How has it come to pass that in the American high-tech industry, especially Information Technology (IT) that Americans need not apply?

It started with the desire for cheap labor. Through a massive disinformation campaign, high-tech corporate lobbyists were able to persuade politicians, the media, and the public that foreign labor was required. Both the Democrat and Republican parties jumped on the bandwagon, perhaps with different interests, but supporting massive importation of foreign labor just the same.

Once again, we are hearing fabrications from high-tech companies such as they are “seeking a number of highly educated computer engineers and others and can't find them in this country." This has been the mantra of the high-tech industry for almost 20 years, while at the same time it has been trying to expand the amount of cheap foreign high-tech labor that they can import into the US.

From a different perspective, government economists with an interest in keeping inflation statistics under control found that limiting wage growth via the importation of cheap foreign labor was an opportune way to keep inflation numbers down. Wage inflation was a convenient and dominant parameter in the total inflation equation to allow to stagnate, while concealing inflation in other areas. There would be no criticism of the massive importation of labor from these economists.

From the American standpoint, this was the reasoning for importing cheap labor, and later, exporting jobs via outsourcing. It was all about labor cost control.

But wait, there is more to the story. While the government and corporations would like to view employees as plug in numbers and head counts, this is far from the case. Employees are people, who are members of other groups, with their own motivations, ambitions, goals and agendas.

Enter The Indian Mafia

India is a country that is a rapidly growing democracy. We hear this praise over and over again. But it is also a country with a rigid and ancient class system, which is rampant with discrimination, corruption, nepotism, and favoritism

It is a somewhat inside term, both serious and humorous, for Indian high-tech workers and entrepreneurs to loosely call themselves the “Indian Mafia.” For instance, a group of smiling, fun-loving, young Indians might caption a picture of themselves with the tongue in cheek label of “Indian Mafia/Hindu Pride/Brown Power”. Or another example is the organization of Indian Entrepreneurs in the US (TiE), which is sometimes referred to as the Indian Mafia.

So what does this mean in terms of American high-tech jobs? It means that while American companies wanted cheap labor, the cheap labor that they chose to import had an agenda of their own. And it has been very successful.

The first part of that agenda was fairly innocent and common; it was group-promotion. Once an Indian worker was imported into the US, they would aggressively promote the abilities, availability, and cost effectiveness of more Indian workers, usually friends and family. The result was the importation of more Indian high-tech employees. But this widespread and understandable practice was just the start. A less politically correct practice was to follow, which may be more usual in Indian culture than in the modern American culture of diversity and equal opportunity.

The Brown Wall

We have all heard of the famous term “glass ceiling”, where some people were excluded from promotion for discriminatory reasons. A new term has been coined for the exclusion of American workers from Information technology jobs: it is called “The Brown Wall”.

The initial success of imported Indian workers led to the next step in the domination of the Information Technology business, which was the hiring of more Indian workers at the exclusion of all others. This was accomplished in a couple of ways. Once an Indian worker became a hiring manager, it was very simple for them to justify and hire many more Indian employees. This led to entire IT departments that consisted of only imported Indian labor. Even if the final hiring decision is not in the hands of an Indian manager, simply being included in the interviewing and input process allows someone to give a thumbs up to potential Indian employees, and a thumbs down to all others. The end result is the same, which is that future workers are part of the Indian high-tech labor force (the Indian Mafia), and all others are excluded. It is now common for an IT department to be staffed by nothing but Indian workers, at almost any company. For an American attempting to get one of those jobs, there will be no getting around the “Brown Wall”. No Americans need apply.

The New Old Paradigm

So here we are, where imported workers dominate an entire industry within the US, and Americans are excluded from even getting a chance at those jobs. Some may say that this is part of the American Dream, and that to even point this out is politically incorrect or racist.

It is ironic that political correctness and the American Dream are used to defend the growth of the opposite of that: a culture of racism, discrimination and favoritism.

It is a sad day in America, when issues such as these cannot be discussed because of political correctness, and where reality must be ignored. A day when young Americans are labeled less capable, and discouraged from entering high-tech, because they know there will not be a job for them. Where laid off American high-tech workers are replaced by imported labor, and must then look outside their areas of expertise for jobs, for instance at Home Depot, Wal-Mart, McDonalds or a cyclical job as a real estate agent.

Perhaps it is time to pull our heads out of the sand, and take a look around, before the America of equal opportunity, diversity and justice is lost.


--------

Note: This article contains many generalizations. As we all know, generalizations are often useful, but should never be applied to an individual, or to all members of a group. Just as gross generalizations are globally used about America or France, they are also followed by the caveat that most Americans and French are good people. Thus, this note follows the above story. This is not an indictment of the hard working Indian or imported high-tech professionals, just an interpretation of a current situation. It does not change the crux of the story though, which can be verified by an unannounced walk through the IT department of any US company.

House of Corporate Representatives

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times…

It was the best of times for the lucrative and (and monopolizing) energy corporations.

It was the worst of times for the American taxpayers, who have been forced to indirectly donate even more money to these companies that already take huge chunks of our money at the gas pump and in a variety of other energy costs.

How did this happen? The US Taxpayer has been burdened with an Energy Bill (to be signed into law next week) which gives out billions of taxpayer dollars in Corporate Welfare to the already highly profitable energy corporations. It was the best Bill that corporate money could buy.

This Energy Bill passed both the House and Senate last week. So who do the House of Representatives actually represent? It seems as though they mostly represent corporate entities, not the people. Perhaps we need to end the charade and open up the Congress for direct corporate sponsorship. Each seat can be purchased by the highest bidder. It would be similar to the sports stadiums that now carry corporate names. All that would be required is some simple changes to Congressional titles. For example, instead of the Representative from District 101, we could have the Representative from Chevron, or perhaps Senator Paimehoff from Citibank.

And if the Congress is not completely controlled by special interests, who is next in the chain of command? For the Party that has the Whitehouse, does it mean that the current administration makes all decisions, with everyone in the party towing the presidential party line? If that is the case, the new Energy Bill should come as no surprise.

When the Bush administration first took office in 2001, former Representative Spencer Abraham was tasked as the Secretary of Energy. For anyone who knew the past of Rep. Abraham, an agenda of corporate sponsorship was to be expected. The reason that Mr. Abraham was a former representative was due to the fact that he did not represent his home district in Michigan, but instead worked hard for his various corporate interests. He was thrown out by his constituents at the very first opportunity.

One of Rep. Abraham’s accomplishments included working hard for high-tech companies to bring foreign workers into the US to replace domestic workers. He was also the No. 1 recipient of campaign contributions from the automotive industry. No doubt his background was a perfect fit for the Bush Administration’s future Energy Policy.

In the final analysis, the individual players don’t matter as much as the fact that government is for sale, and only the vigilance of the citizens can prevent that abuse. Unfortunately, the latest Energy Bill is the worst of times when it comes to the vigilance of the taxpayers.

What Would Ben Say?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Who in our government today would speak for Benjamin Franklin, especially under the pressure of ongoing terrorist attacks? Not many, but Representative Ron Paul makes the effort more than most. Here's a excerpt from a recent article by Rep. Paul:

"Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.

The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that."

The full text of this article can be found here:

The Patriot Act Four Years Later

The Fog of Media Nonsense

Has anyone noticed that the media continues to emphasize and elaborate on the fact that the Brazilian immigrant who was accidentally killed by London Police was suspicious because he was wearing a bulky jacket on a “hot” day?

On the other hand, did anyone notice that all of the live camera views after the shooting on the major networks like CNN showed the police wearing yellow jackets, with shirts and vests on underneath? Is that a little strange for a hot day?

Or did anyone take note that most of the pedestrian passers-by on live television were also wearing long sleeve shirts, sweaters, coats and leather jackets, and only the occasional person was even wearing a short sleeve shirt?

Or did anyone consider that the temperature in London that day ranged from 55 to 69 degrees F (12 to 20 degrees C)? Since when is 55 F (12 C) in the morning considered “hot”, especially to a Brazilian?

Let’s not blame this on the London Police. We don’t know that they emphasized or originated the “hot” part of the story. The simple fact that a large jacket could conceal something is more pertinent, and is probably closer to the actual truth.

But we can blame the people in the media, who like to add their own spin, spin their desired yarns, and continue to report gossip, hearsay, and exaggerations.

What is even more ironic is that several radio show hosts in San Francisco have continued to push this particular “hot” angle of the story, while at the same time they probably wear their own jackets while out in the cold, foggy summer mornings of San Francisco.

A couple of quotes widely attributed to Mark Twain are appropriate for this situation, as well as the weather in both London and San Francisco:

The coldest winter I ever spent was summer in San Francisco. - Mark Twain

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. - Mark Twain

The Violence Continues

Terrorist murderers kill 88 and wound 119, mostly Egyptians.

London Police kill innocent man.

It’s been a busy couple of days in the cycle of violence, and no good has been done for anyone. Of course lines can be drawn between mistakes, collateral damage and intentional massacre, but the bottom line is that innocent people have died, for no purpose, and to no ends, except an escalation of violence.

In the case of the terrorists who struck the Egyptian resort area, and killed mostly Egyptians, what is the desired outcome? To kill innocent people just for fun? To hurt the economy and rulers of Egypt? Perhaps the later is the desired outcome, but it won’t work. It is a flawed theory. Certainly there will be passing fear and a drop in tourism, but in the end, it certainly won’t be the oligarchs and powerful of Egypt who will suffer, it will be the common people.

Once again, the philosophy of violence requires the absence of reasoning. They have adopted violence as their tactic and their strategy; their belief is in violence; it is their philosophy. And this particular philosophy never works; simple reasoning and historical example shows this to be true.

In the case of the London Police mistakenly killing an innocent man, it is an entirely different situation, yet perhaps it is an acute example of the philosophy of violence, in that violence was the option taken. It was excessive, and it was somewhat random. There certainly wasn’t any hard evidence that the person posed a threat, either immediate or in the future.

In an earlier post calling for tighter containment of a few extreme examples of well known advocates of violent jihad, this caveat was included: “containing those who preach violence should be done in a civilized, controlled and rational manner”. While the circumstances of the killing of the innocent suspect were understandable and regrettable on all sides, the question remains as to whether it was controlled or rational. There is no doubt that the undercover officers believed that the person was a potential suicide bomber, and not just a preacher, but for that one person, it turned out to be a fatal misunderstanding. This kind of mistake will occur occasionally in day to day law enforcement, but under the glare of the current situation, let us hope that it does not provide fuel to the continuing fire. Unfortunately, the odds are slim that those who preach violence and terrorism will be understanding and sympathetic of the circumstances of this accident. No one expects them to be.

Too Much Tolerance in London

When is religion not really religion? Where does the freedom of religion end, and criminal activity begin?

These questions are relevant today, as we examine the aftermath of recent terrorist events in London. The British have been surprisingly tolerant of extreme and radical teachings in their midst, disguised as religious views. Perhaps it is not wise to allow extremist views on violence and terrorism to be publicized, praised or advocated. Such views are no longer religious, and those individuals should not be considered part of any religion. When they advocate violence, terrorism and murder of innocents, they engage in conspiracy to commit murder. This is simply a crime against society.

One would think that after September 11, persons who advocated this type of violence would have been stopped, and that they would not be given any venues for their extremist views. Apparently this was not the case, and especially in Britain, they were allowed to continue.

For example, a particular cleric in London, Sheik Omar Bakri, has continued to preach his brand of hatred and violence for many years. After the first set of London subway bombings, he blamed the British government for the attacks, and said that more would come. He was correct.

To add insult to injury for the British people, he is on the public dole in Britain, so in essence, he is paid by the British government to preach jihad against the West. This situation is more than ironic, it is just plain stupid. There has been talk about deporting Sheik Bakri; perhaps they should jail him instead.

The jailing of persons who advocate violence is uncommon in societies where the freedom of speech and differing points of view are highly valued, but it has occurred in the past, long before the current rise of terrorism. In these extreme situations, such preachers of terrorism and global jihad need to be shut down. It is only common sense in a civilized society.

Schools and religious institutions have often taken on the role of teaching societies’ values. These values universally include teaching children not to murder or steal. To end this cycle of violence, the world needs to ensure that no one is indoctrinating children or adults into violence, terrorism and hate, and that the classic, universal moral values are taught instead.

And of course, in keeping with those universal values, containing those who preach violence should be done in a civilized, controlled and rational manner. Using excessive or random violence to curb violence has been proven time and again not to work. Violence begets more violence, and it certainly doesn’t set a good example for children, when the whole point is to teach them moral values.

Insanity in Baghdad

Once again, there is no justification. Senseless violence on children, perpetrated by mindless murderers. In both a secular and religious sense, they serve evil, and nothing else:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide car bomb exploded next to U.S. troops handing out candy and toys, killing 18 children and teenagers Wednesday. Parents heard the shattering explosion and raced out to discover the worst — children's mangled, bloodied bodies strewn on the street.

Up to 27 people were killed by the blast in the Shiite Muslim neighborhood, including an American soldier.

What more can be said? A recent statement by Marie Fatayi-Williams, the mother of a terrorist victim in London, is appropriate for this recent attack, as well as the attack that took her son:

"There has been widespread slaughter of innocent people. There have been streams of tears, innocent tears. There have been rivers of blood, innocent blood. Death in the morning, people going to find their livelihood, death in the noontime on the highways and streets.

They are not warriors. Which cause has been served? Certainly not the cause of God, not the cause of Allah because God Almighty only gives life and is full of mercy.

Anyone who has been misled, or is being misled to believe that by killing innocent people that he or she is serving God should think again because it’s not true.

Terrorism is not the way, terrorism is not the way. It doesn’t beget peace. We can’t deliver peace by terrorism, never can we deliver peace by killing people.

Throughout history those people who have changed the world have done so without violence, they have won people to their cause through peaceful protest. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, their discipline, their self-sacrifice, their conviction made people turn towards them, to follow them. What inspiration can senseless slaughter provide? Death and destruction of young people in their prime as well as old and helpless can never be the foundations for building society."

WorldClass Criminal

Can charity buy lenience?

Bernard Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years in prison today. What makes this criminal different is that he was the CEO of WorldCom, the company that had a spectacular collapse. In essence, he stole billions of dollars from investors, and also hurt a large number of employees. Usually, white-collar criminals like this get off with a slap on the wrist and a fine. Perhaps when the money runs out, so does the goodwill of the criminal justice system. We will see if this sentence sticks, or if it is overturned some time in the future, when the story is somewhat forgotten, and the “point” has been made.

Perhaps this leniency will be based on Ebbers' charitable donations:

"Defense lawyer Reid Weingarten had asked for leniency, mentioning Ebbers' heart condition and his charitable works, cited repeatedly in 169 letters sent to the judge. He described Ebbers as "a modest man" and an angel to many desperate charitable causes."

What is interesting here is that almost all mega-business titans are big charitable givers. Is this a way to buy public goodwill? An absolution of guilt? A way to buy oneself a ticket to heaven? A favorable footnote in history?

Let’s look at a quote from Andrew Carnegie, the classic rags to riches industrialist, who may be one of the greatest philanthropists of all time:

"the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself"

Is the big corporation like a socialist government, where the dictator at the top is in charge of the administration of wealth, for the benefit of all society? Is Castro simply the CEO of Cuba?

While Carnegie seemed to be sincere in his interest in helping the poor, and his charity is not in question, he created a mold for modern day oligarchs: become rich, and then give back to the community.

Benevolent contributions and endowments today carry a certain amount of skepticism in the case of some huge corporate titans: how genuine are those who have followed in Carnegie’s footsteps? Are some of these contributions just marketing expenditures? An inexpensive insurance policy to protect against bad publicity?

There are situations now where captains of industry engage in practices that could be seen as anti-social, or even criminal. Does throwing a few dollars to charity make any modus operandi acceptable? Is it really moral for powerful individuals or corporations to:

• Form monopolies and trusts?
• Put competitors out of business under questionable circumstances?
• Prevent competitors from even getting started?
• Go through convoluted processes to pay some employees as little as possible?
• Sell the future of a corporation to make a quick dollar right now for the executives?
• Import cheap labor into the US without any concern about the effect on quality of life issues such as the environment, housing, traffic, pollution, natural resources and overpopulation?
• Export the entire business out of the country via outsourcing, leaving only a select few here at the top in the US to reap the profits?
• Export key industries completely out of the US that could have an effect on national security?

The process by which extraordinary profits are created can have a bad effect on a nation or a society, and to give a little back after the fact does not change the circumstances.

Bernard Ebbers is now going to pay the price. Of course the crime of which he is convicted is not those listed above, it is simply the crime of failing, and once there is a failure of this magnitude, the fraud that created that failure could not be ignored.

What remains to be seen is if his charity will buy him an early exit from the criminal justice system.

Senseless Violence

Once again, there has been a random and senseless act of terrorist violence, making headlines and creating momentary fear. It has happened many times in recent history, perpetrated in many ways, and this time it was an attack upon people in the subways of London.

What reasoning is there for this? Violence does not help a cause, and it only makes matters worse. It is purely an emotional outburst, by the impotent, by the frustrated, by the misguided, by those with an erroneous belief that raw savagery is the answer to an issue. There is no reasoning.

The philosophy of violence requires the absence of reasoning.

While the opposition to violence often comes from religion, or from people with an emotional distaste for violence, the same conclusion can come purely from logic: that violence is counter-productive, and creates more problems than it solves.

Here are some relevant quotes from the past and present:

"Nothing good ever comes of violence." - Martin Luther

"Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself." - Lao Tzu

"Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create." - Pope John Paul II

"Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence." - Mohandas Gandhi

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood, not enmity; peace, and not violence." - Pervez Musharraf

Capitalism Gone Wild

Should the purchase of Unocal by a mostly Chinese government owned company go through? Putting aside the issue of US national security interests, perhaps the bigger question is whether Unocal should be allowed to merge with anyone at all. Have there been too many mergers in the Oil industry already?

The basis for capitalism, open markets and free trade is competition. Once competition has been removed from the equation, what do we have? Does Capitalism turned into Communism?

A totalitarian communist government has complete control over manufacturing and supply. Is this the model for the ultimate corporation, where a single entity or trust has control over all manufacturing and the supply of products?

Obviously, we have not progressed to that point where all corporations and government merge into a single, super-conglomerate, similar to the old Soviet government. But in certain industries, the manufacturing and supply are controlled, via endless mergers and collusion. In these cases, the consumer suffers, and is at the mercy of huge entities, that are not elected or controlled in any way, and corporate change only occurs when there is an internal political battle among the elite who run the companies. Average shareholders and employees have no say in the operation or direction of these government-sized entities. They are not democracies.

In the gasoline industry, a recent newspaper article is enlightening. It sites many examples of how the gasoline refiners have colluded to control prices and production, in a series of internal memos:

"In a 1995 internal memo obtained by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, whose office has investigated the industry in recent years, Chevron discussed an industry meeting at which an analyst warned that if capacity wasn't reduced further, there would be no substantial increase in refining margins."

"In a 1996 internal memo, Mobil officials called for a "full court press" to stop an independent company from restarting a refinery in California that might reduce gas prices by 3 cents per gallon. The effort was successful."

"And a Texaco memorandum, also in 1996, stated too much capacity was hurting refinery profits. “Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing demand for gasoline," according to the document."

The key to this problem is enforcement of existing anti-trust law. Oil companies were broken up in the past, but in the last 25 years of "pro-business" government, we have gone from simply being pro-business, to encouraging mega-mergers and monopolistic practices.

The Federal Trade Commission was compiling one of its biggest antitrust suits ever against the gasoline industry, but with the rise of "big business can do no wrong" politics, the case was dropped:

"A detailed portrayal of that turnabout is contained in a previously undisclosed 393-page document, assembled by Federal Trade Commission lawyers as part of an antitrust suit that was pending before an administrative law judge that was later dismissed.

As countries around the globe nationalized their oil industries, the domestic oil industry increasingly looked to refining for profits. In some instances, according to the FTC document, the oil companies cooperated among themselves to reduce refinery capacity. "

In the final analysis, perhaps it is not the merger of Unocal with the Chinese government that is the biggest issue, but the commitment to competitive capitalism. It is time to take a look at industries that have engaged in trusts, monopolization or collusion, and enforce those anti-trust laws that were boldly created in the past, in times very similar to these.

And in this light, the purchase of Unocal by another oil corporation is a bad idea, no matter who the buyer may be.

Independence Day

In addition to fireworks and BBQ's, let us not forget what Independence Day is all about, and what our founding fathers wrote...a blog from the past, for America today.

Declaration Of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.


--------

The Bill of Rights

The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III - Quartering of soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Souter Hotel

It seems that someone is proposing a new hotel for "public use". A humorous (?) press release can be found here:

The Lost Liberty Hotel

----------------

Another note on Eminent Domain:

Upon further consideration, it seems that the most important aspect of the recent Supreme Court decision is that it has moved us further down a slippery slope. At first, eminent domain and "public use" was used for public projects like roads. Later, it was applied to blighted areas in need of redevelopment. Now, it is being used to take "desirable" property. The end result is redistribution of desirable property, from those with less power, to those with more power. Why does this sound like a mugging?

Inflation Fabrication

Is there inflation in the US? It seems that the price of everything has gone up over the years, especially the essentials. Many homes have more than doubled in price, the price of gasoline is going through the roof, and even the price of groceries seem to be going up.

What does it cost for a person to go to the movies? Is that the cable bill or a car payment?

Well, speaking of movies, the media, and make believe, the big disconnect for quite a while has been the official inflation rate (CPI). It is always announced by the media, with the full authority of the business reporter, and based on official government statistics. We certainly feel better when we hear that the inflation rate is somewhere between 0 and 3 percent. But somehow, it doesn’t make sense.

Of course if we take into account that many of the government’s costs are adjusted based on the inflation rate, there is no doubt that there is an incentive for the official government inflation rate to stay as low as possible. The cost of entitlements such as social security and government borrowing in the form of inflation–indexed bonds would go up if the official inflation rate goes up. It’s not in the government’s interest to let that number go up.

So on the surface, if it keeps government costs down, this artificial inflation number seems like a good thing. The problem arises when that number is passed on and used for other purposes, such as reality.

On this topic, here’s an article that goes into far more detail. It’s worth a read:

THE CORE RATE