Candidates for The Hall of Shame

There appears to be a need for a Hall of Shame to bring recognition to public figures who stray from the bounds of commmon decency in pursuit of their agendas. The currently unfolding horrendous disaster in Haiti seems to have brought out the worst in some people. Topping the list is erstwhile evangelist Pat Robertson, ever a reliable source of ludicrous gaffes, who has outdone himself once again.

Seems that each time disaster strikes in some unfortunate part of the word, Roberston feels the need to link events with The Wrathful Almighty God. By his twisted logic, hurricane Katrina was a logical response by God to the "sinful" reputation of New Orleans. So, with Haiti undergoing unimaginable horrors, Roberston links it to a "Pact made with the Devil" by slaves during French colonial rule. One wonders how much credibility he retains with Christians of any stripe anywhere, so he should be a shoo-in to the Hall of Shame on the first ballot.

The next Hall of Shame candidate is far more popular and should certainly know better: Rush Limbaugh. His quick reaction to scenes of devastation and misery in Haiti was to accuse Obama of planning to use it for political gain. He blasted the idea of rushing aid to Haiti, suggesting that paying income taxes was already enough sacrifice. This was too much for even some of his conservative listeners, and those who called in to disagree were dismissed on the air as "blockheads".

Limbaugh's arrogant stupidity may cost him some listeners, but there is probably a segment of his audience that applauds notoriety and resonates well with the lowest gutter nonsense that spews into the microphone. Many of these people still have not accepted the notion of an African-American in the White House, and gleefully latch on to attack phrases such as "socialist agenda" as code words for racial bigotry. On this wavelength, Obama is sure to be attacked no matter how successful he is. Not surprising, since Rush has already told us how he "hopes Obama fails". Apparently, if nothing is done to halt the downward spiral in this country, Rush and his listeners will be overjoyed.

- Darkwave

Thanks to the "Senator from Tel Aviv"

Normally, I would be disgusted at Mr. Lieberman selling out to the right wing on yet another crucial issue. However, the emerging health care "reform" legislation has become such cave-in to greedy corporate interests, that it deserves to die on the vine. The average citizen will be much better served by having congress reboot and try again from scratch next year.

Thank you Mr. Lieberman for your opposition to the pending health care legislation, however misplaced your reasoning might be! Now if you would just rethink your warmongering policies just a bit...

-Darkwave

Health Care Reform Turning into Debacle

Back when Mr. O introduced his health care reform proposals, a commonly-heard tidbit went something like "anything that passes will be better than doing nothing". Indeed, that rationale boosted support among many in congress.

However, the gist of current versions being debated in the senate increases the appeal of doing nothing. Big Pharma and Big Insurance have spent millions to craft legislation they are happy with, and their happiness is a worrisome sign. The system that results could be more costly and complex than ever.

The fundamental problem is simple enough, and should lend itself to simple solutions. Since everyone potentially needs health care, a universal system of spreading costs makes sense. The current distortions in health care funding, along with the numbers of uninsured are the driving force behind reform efforts. Still, it's hard to see how the present legislation will bring about any improvement. We may end up with insurance companies barred from excluding pre-existing conditions or charging more for them, but at a cost that threatens to push even further out of reach of the average citizen.

Obama has pushed hard for "cost containment", but which players are going to line up for the haircut? Not big Pharma. Not Big Blue and the other insurers - they have lined the pockets of enough senators and congressmen to see to that. So the soft targets for cuts are Medicare and Medicaid, and just how will that be accomplished? Doctors and hospitals get the haircut, just as they are struggling with increasing amounts of uninsured care. Not much sense in that; "cost containment" is just a PR slogan to sell the delusion that expanded care can be achieved at no extra cost.

Republicans have helped stir passionate opposition to "socialized medicine" by invoking rhetoric such as "rationing", "government takeover" and "death panels" to "pull the plug on Grandma". For those currently well-covered, this may have its appeal, but who would really stand to lose if the present insurance system were replaced by a single-payer entity? If you guessed "insurance companies", then you understand why they spent so much to manipulate the ongoing debate.

Why do we keep hearing that polls show support for a "public option", yet the chances of it passing dwindle with each passing day? The answer is obvious; big money talks much louder than individual voters.

Then we hear of nonsense such as annual and lifetime benefit caps reappearing in amendments with titles like "ending benefit caps". This is exactly the type of legislation that would be worse than doing nothing - a thousand page monstrosity that passes without anyone knowing for sure what the contents are (except for the lobbyists that crafted the details). If it ends up mandating expensive coverage that few can afford, the system will be further destabilized.

The simple solution? Why not simply expand the present Medicare/Medicaid system and fund it with the existing payroll tax. The tax rate could slide progressively according to income, with middle class workers and their employers paying no more than the amount now spent on insurance. This solution would require no increase in bureaucracy and still maintain the potential for "cost containment". With near-universal participation, costs would be spread among the largest possible base. Unfortunately, it would mean the end of the line for insurance companies, and that's why you won't see anything like this proposed.

And why is "rationing" such a bad idea? There is a cost-effectiveness curve that means most improvement in public health comes from the bottom 50% of expenditures, with further improvements diminishing as expenditures increase. With an open-ended approach to new therapies and technologies, costs can ultimately approach infinity. Some therapies provide questionable benefit or even prolong suffering. Should we bankrupt ourselves to extend the average life a few extra months? With the proper balance, we could be healthier and spend less.

This discussion inevitably leads to the choice between allopathic and integrative medicine. If alternative therapies could compete on cost-effectiveness with the accepted mainstream on a level playing field, everyone would win (except for those invested in the present high-cost system). Don't look for reform legislation to favor integrative medicine, since the big money will be lined up against it.

Perhaps our best hope is to wait for the present system to collapse completely, while adopting healthier lifestyles and learning what we can do to enhance our own health.

It's Official - Obama is a Warmonger

It's really no surprise - he made his intentions clear during the campaign. Many of his supporters focused on the "withdraw from Iraq" promises and tuned out the "get tough" rhetoric on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus, when Obama announced a major escalation of troop levels in Afghanistan, it caused some surprise and dismay among his supporters.

Sure, this isn't Bush's war. Despite Al-Qaeda’s acknowledged presence in Afghanistan, Bush chose to wage war against Saddam and the people of Iraq. However, war is war, and American bombs are inflicting hell on Afghan people just as surely they did under Bush in Iraq. After suffering so long with Bush fatigue, many of us thought we were voting for change.

So why the warmongering stance from the guy we expected to reverse Bush's policies? Why indeed. What geopolitical strategy or national security interest could possibly be served by chasing Taliban fighters through the mountains and valleys of this country? Obama has been hard-pressed to deliver a cogent answer. His fig leaf invokes "regional stability" and carrying on the so-called "war on terror". So what are the real reasons our soldiers are being sent- besides protecting the opium trade from undue disruption?

In search of clues, let's review a little recent history in that part of the world.

We must recall that the Taliban were considered US allies and intelligence assets during the Soviet Union's ill-fated intervention. Bin Laden was a CIA asset with handlers assigned to him.

During the Clinton administration, a major push was undertaken by a consortium of oil interests to negotiate approval for a gas pipeline across Afghanistan and surrounding territories. In one infamous photo-op, Bin Laden sat with a delegation of Taliban in the presence of Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney was involved in negotiations as chief of Haliburton.

The Taliban ultimately turned thumbs down the deal, which is the primary reason they became candidates for "regime change". Added to this was the fact that they eradicated the poppy trade and put a crimp in the flow of narcotics from the region - don't forget that the "war on drugs" is a phony ruse to maintain control of the drug trade by criminal elements within the PTB. All that was needed was the "new Pearl Harbor" that Cheney wrote hopefully about in 2000 to provide a pretext to take out the Taliban and replace them with trusted CIA asset Harmid Karzai. The pipeline still gets blown up regularly, but the poppy crop is doing rather well now.

OK, so Obama's not stupid, so he must be aware of the real policy objectives in Afghanistan. So why doesn't he just take a stand against that nonsense, as his liberal supporters hoped and expected? Bottom line: The sad fact is that American presidents are not granted much autonomy for decision making. Oh sure, they are allowed enough latitude around the margins of policy decisions to make it look like they are in charge. The press reported that Obama mulled and chewed on the Afghan escalation for weeks, but the only question at stake was how much escalation and for how long. General McChrystal defined terms of the debate by proposing an 80,000 troop increase, so the president could appear to take the "moderate" course of only increasing by 30,000. You can be sure that immediate withdrawal was not on his list of options.

To be sure, the Afghan war is becoming unpopular, and people are beginning to ask and wonder why they voted against warmongering and still got more warmongering anyway. Obama may eventually pay the political price for this, but he must understand that this is how the system works. JFK will forever serve as the example of what happens to presidents that have delusions of actually being in charge of anything beyond choosing drapes for the oval office.

It's vital that Americans wake out of their delusion that they choose our leaders and influence policy. The Right-Left, Liberal-Conservative polemic must be exposed as a fraud. Blowhards such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly may claim to defend our constitutional liberties, but never tackle issues of substance, such as the myriad unconstitutional actions taken under Bush. Instead, they acted as shills for the Republican National Committee and now attack anything Obama. Only true conservatives such as Ron Paul take principled stands of any kind, and of course he is marginalized as a result.

The Left is in sorry shape as well, and now their integrity is tested as Obama ramps up his warmongering, forgets about abolishing the Guantanamo Bay, and generally defends the sanctity of Bush’s dirty secrets. Will they meekly parrot the party line the way Republicans do?

One bright spot is talk show host Thom Hartman. It’s no coincidence that he co-authored a recent book on JFK assassination research. One you understand the fact that powerful forces exist within our governmental corptocracy that can take down a president at will, your view of the system will never be the same.

Let’s face it: The intervention in Afghanistan is just as illegal and based on lies as the Iraq campaign. There is no legitimate reason to send troops into harm’s way and have them return with missing limbs or worse. The so-called terrorist threat is trumped up and fabricated, and 911 was a false-flag operation perpetrated by the PTB to manipulate public opinion. The use of depleted uranium ordinance is contaminating vast areas of Afghanistan and Iraq and sentencing millions (including our troops) to premature deaths from cancer. The mainstream media (MSM) will not report on the DU issue for obvious reasons.

Hopefully, the truth is beginning to emerge.

-Darkwave

To Tell the Truth

Van Jones, White House "Green" advisor, was forced out following allegations that he had signed several petitions circulated by the 9/11 "truth movement".

Jones quickly became the target of ridicule from both ends of the political spectrum. Pundits gasped in mock bewilderment and outrage.

Charles Krauthammer summed up the pundit reaction with "...this is no trivial matter. It's beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It's dangerous. In America, movements and parties are required to police their extremes. Bill Buckley did that with Birchers. Liberals need to do that with “truthers”."

This is really getting interesting. You would think we was referring to the Unabomber or something. Up until recently, the MSM scarcely even acknowledged the existence of the 9/11 Truth Movement, or that a sizeable percentage of citizens told pollsters that they doubted the official version of 9/11 events. The fact that a number of respected academics had banded together to form “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” certainly was not covered.

Now that the truth movement has broken through the news blackout, tactics are switching to ridicule and open attack. Van Jones was, by all accounts, a great guy and was much sought after for the position, but now he's viewed as an embarrassing pariah. Could the PTB possibly be getting nervous?

My take on this is simple: We need an independent, credible investigation. We simply don’t know who was responsible, but the official account of 9/11 events reads like a whackjob conspiracy theory that the Internet is infamous for circulating. The only thing going for it is the “official” label.

The leading members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth generally don’t speculate as to what happened. Rather, they focus on the flaws and lapses of reason found in the official account and in the Keane commission report. They cite credible technical analysis that steel beams cannot be melted like putty by burning jet fuel. There are many other points well covered by their books and articles. Authors like David Ray Griffin provide a great starting point for those who are curious.



Whoever pulled off 9/11 had high level access to the national air defense system, and was able to influence key supervisors in the FBI to quash investigation into activities by the alleged terrorists. Large passenger jets were piloted through intricate maneuvers that experienced pilots have said would have greatly challenged their own abilities. The people behind this most assuredly were not bearded Muslim extremists huddling in a cave in Afghanistan, and those who piloted the planes into buildings were not among the 19 dim-witted Saudis that crashed their flight simulators.

So who did it? Theories abound, but the primary point is that we need a credible investigation, which we have not had. Recall that Bush was loathe to consider any investigation, and then reluctantly went along with the idea and mentioned Henry Kissinger as potential chairman! This is the same disgraced former Secretary of State who cannot even set foot in several countries due to pending criminal indictments against him! Tom Keane got the job done, however, and thus the official coverup is in place.

The unassailable fact is that the government has taken numerous actions to thwart meaningful investigation, to destroy evidence, to intimidate those who might be able to challenge official claims, and we’re supposed to believe they have nothing to conceal?

Another regrettable fact is that the MSM operates under unspoken rules that blacklists certain topics from receiving balanced coverage; 9/11 is clearly one of those topics, and the extreme words penned against Jones by Krauthammer and others is no accident. This is comparable to the ridicule that JFK assassination investigators have long been subjected to, and the fact that the Warren Commission “magic bullet theory” is held as an article of faith by virtually all MSM journalists. Polls indicate that the vast majority view “magic bullet” as ridiculous, but the MSM operates in a different world.

The official 9/11 coverup could be poised for trouble. The linguistics analysis by Cliff High at www.halfpasthuman.com has picked up persistent memes floating about of “secrets revealed” that eventually lead to a breakdown of governmental authority. The town hall protests and “tea party” demonstrations could be early signals of what could evolve. If nasty secrets truly start to get revealed in convincing manner, the conditions could be ripe for serious trouble. With unemployment and homelessness approaching depression levels, the populace will be in no mood for swallowing the government line any further.

The only (faint) hope is that Obama could perceive the threat and risk martyrdom by getting ahead of the “secrets revealed” curve. If the government suddenly began to tell the truth on a number of hideous topics we have been lied to about, and did it in a responsible manner, then perhaps the worst outcome could be avoided.

Faint hope, that.

-Darkwave

The buzzards are circling

Things are getting really rancorous in the halls of government, with conservative pundits attempting to demonize Obama after barely 6 months in office. Health care reform is one flash point, but morons like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are employing thinly-veiled references to race in an attempt to stir up passions among the minions that still harbor prejudice. The “birther” issue, while not actually embraced by mainstream pundits, is allowed enough coverage to do damage at little political cost to same pundits.

As predicted, reminiscent of Hilary’s reform effort 15 years ago, the Big Money is pouring into the fray in staggering proportions. Soulless operatives like Dick Morris are spearheading media campaigns to frighten seniors with claims that Obama will want to cut off their life support systems when they are in intensive care. Would anyone care to guess at who is bankrolling him?

Obama now says he is willing to stake everything on health care reform, even if it means being a single-term president. This is rather curious, considering that the major issue everyone should be dealing with is the nation’s continued slippage into a major economic depression. The “green shoots” of recovery are about to wither big time.

Could this be but a diversionary tactic? Guess it’s better than starting a war, but even that may be on the agenda before long.

In case you missed it, retail sales dropped in July, despite the “cash for clunkers” spending. The expectation has been for a decent gain, so the markets retreated and gloom is on the rise again. More bad news is likely to follow in coming weeks, in employment, foreclosures, and bank failures. All the health care reform in the world will do no good if no one can afford insurance and government can’t afford to fund the program.

At some point, people will realize what is really going down and start to get quite angry. The town meeting protests thus far may have been instigated by right-wing groups, but eventually people won’t need any encouragement to stir their passions. What we see now could be just a beginning.

The predictive linguistics work at www.halfpasthuman.com foresees a revolutionary meme taking hold before long, with tragic violence a possibility. This coincides with a “secrets revealed” meme wherein the PTB could be caught with their proverbial pants down. Once the truth is openly exposed concerning how badly ordinary citizens have been screwed by the Elite PTB, it will probably be too late for rational discourse. This is why I have been promoting the concept of understanding and embracing the already-started Paradigm Shift. Civilizations are notoriously difficult to restart once they collapse - it would sure be nice if we could have a soft landing and try to preserve the better aspects of the present system. It’s much preferable to have an informed, positive outlook rather than be drawn into mass insanity fueled by fear, anger, and a lack of information.

-Darkwave

The scam of the century

As the bankster crisis broke last fall, I recall commenting in this blog about how Hank Paulson should be investigated for conflict of interest at least, if not outright criminal activity for his relationship with Goldman Sachs. Now, suddenly, this idea is

gaining traction in the MSM. Even the NY Times has run an investigative piece, focusing on the ethics (or lack thereof) exhibited by Paulson during the bailouts.

In a somewhat humorous twist, the Times reports that Paulson requested and received an “ethics waiver” so he and Goldman CEO Blankfein could spend more quality time together. WTF – since when do government officials need prior approval for “ethical waiver”? Apparently the topic of discussion was having the Treasury funnel billions of bailout funds to Goldman, and helping to off a couple of major competitors (Bear Stearns and Lehman). As we know, mission was accomplished on all counts.

Well, the bailouts did their job, and today Goldman is solidly in the black. Actually, they are so successful that it raises some interesting questions about just how they are generating such impressive profits while the rest of the financial industry struggles.

A recent

news item surfaced, concerning a former Goldman Sachs programmer that was arrested for stealing proprietary stock trading software. Goldman made a nearly hysterical plea for authorities to hold him without bail, implying the software theft represented a threat to the entire financial system, though he was later released on $750,000 bail. Didn’t the judge think of asking what the nature of the threat could be?

Just what does this stolen software do? According to reports, it allows traders at Goldman Sachs to monitor stock trades in real time. Since most trades are now funneled through the computer network that Goldman controls, the program can analyze transactions during a split-second window while still pending but not finalized. And, it can execute programmed buy or sell orders based on the pending transactions, and conceivably profit from market trends that are about to happen. Thus, the stolen software is the ultimate insider trading tool. So now we know why Goldman’s stock brokerage operation has become so profitable, and why they are so desperate to keep the stolen copy out of play.

For some reason, this story has not gained much traction in the MSM. Wouldn't you think people ought to be asking questions about this software? Such as, just what legitimate use could there be for it? Perhaps the recent uptick of scrutiny on Paulson is a signal that the spotlight will be placed on Goldman, so this story could become really huge.

Of course, if the “green shoots” of recovery were real, folks might be more apt to forgive and forget the criminal activity surrounding the bankster crisis of ’08. Alack and alas, such fortune was not meant to be. Recall that nothing has changed regarding the vast derivative bubble that precipitated the crisis – the 700 billion TARP certainly was inadequate in the face of trillions in toxic debt.

The outlook that I foresee includes another major banking crisis by the end of the year, as the toxic derivative monster makes its presence unmistakably felt. This and other factors will converge for the perfect economic storm.

The federal annual deficit reached a trillion with 3 months left in the fiscal year. Tax revenues are diving, while spending is escalating. Keynesian economic theory normally would call for this scenario, except that this might finally be our day of reckoning. The rest of the world will likely cut off the flow of credit now. When the Treasury attempts to auction hundreds of billions in bonds, as they must do several times per year now, and nobody bids – then what?

No matter how you slice it, the model we have been pursuing is just not sustainable. It would have crashed sooner, except for the bubbles that were inflated to forestall the inevitable. Even in good years, the nation ran many billions of monthly deficit in balance of payments. With most productive jobs moved offshore, this means that we relied on borrowing from the rest of the world to keep our consumer lifestyle humming. Most jobs in recent years were created in the services sector, which meant that we simply pretended we were creating more wealth. The tangible goods we need have been produced by virtual slave labor in China, and we just added the bill to our growing tab. Now what happens if our credit gets cut off?

The home foreclosure situation is worse than reported, because banks have been reluctant to move troubled mortgages off their balance sheet. This will catch up at some point and the news will not sound upbeat any longer.

The unemployment statistics are distorted because those who ran out of unemployment benefits are not longer counted – keep that in mind when the pundits engage in happy talk over this. The stories circulating of skilled workers competing with thousands of others for each open position tells the tale. When widespread hiring actually resumes, rather than just the rate of reported lob loss declining, then I will be willing to believe in "green shoots of recovery".

A year from now we will definitely be looking at greatly changed scenery. Inflation may kick up to accelerated levels, especially on imported goods. The feds will either fund the deficit by printing vast amounts of money (and abandoning the pretense of "borrowing"), or else government operations will begin to fail. People may begin to measure wealth in terms of food and tangible goods rather than money.

Therefore, it behooves everyone to understand the nature of Paradigm Shift, for this is what we are witnesssing. Understand what it is and where it is leading us, for all is not necessarily doom and gloom.

-Darkwave