Today I received an email from a friend. It said something about sending this link on to any of your loved ones and so on. I clicked on the attached link and there was a video of all those drunk driving commercials from the last few years. You know... The ones where the guys car is full of vodka and olives floating around? Awesome idea that commercial was for some ad man somewhere. It's a good thing I didn't see a commercial like that in 1983 because I'm sure I would have ran down to the hardware store and bought 20 tubes of caulk for my car doors.
So I sat, thinking about this video. The guy who had sent it on to me was an ex drinker. He'd been in Alcoholics Anonymous for about 15 years. Should I tell him what I thought of it? Hmmm.... I finally started typing. Yes, I believe I have to tell him what I think. --"zoom zoom"
Yeah, now that we've increased our police force so that the entire country resembles Russia, we can call it a day. These commercials are propaganda at it's worst.
Freedom kills, and Freedom is NOT SAFE.
That statement might not seem to make sense, but it's as true as it gets. You can't have both "safety" and "freedom".
I drank a half a beer one night about six years ago, and a cop pulled me over by the motel. POINT ZERO SIX!!!??? A fuckin' half a beer? So he could have legally arrested me for "impaired" and if I had drank the full beer, I would have probably paid about $3,000 bucks when it was all said and done, not to mention all the crap I would have had to go through. All for HALF of one beer. The thing that saved me was that I never admitted to drinking a drop of anything. If I had admitted, the judge would have said, "You were drinking?"
"Yep".
"And you were driving?"
"Yep"
"GUILTY MUTHER$%$%R!"
...because that's the way it works. Not everyone is an alcoholic. Some of us merely drink a beer from time to time. That's the problem with DUI's in America today... Most of the people getting arrested aren't even intoxicated. They are just "over the limit" and the limit IS NOT high. Drinking alcohol in America is legal. Driving "drunk" should be illegal, but when you get government involved with ANYTHING they are going to screw it up royal of course. Now, it's all about the money. It's not about safety. It's about getting two new cop cars per year, and two new officers every year, and HUNDREDS, yes hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars per year nationwide.
What people SHOULD be looking for is tougher laws for drunk drivers. Not "over the limit" drivers, but actual drunken drivers. Right now it's all about money. You get a DUI, you pay the fine, pay the counselor, pay the jail, pay pay pay.... How about 10 years for someone who runs into someone and LIFE if you kill someone? All the studies I've seen in countries where this type of punishment is doled out shows that it is MORE effective than what we are doing here.
Effective is what I'm after. Not showy. Right now, we are just politically correct. When I moved to Wyoming in 1977, my dad used to tip his Coors at the officer in the police car next to him while stopped at the light! No open container law? Can anyone imagine that? That was before the Feds FORCED states into passing laws.
I just talked to a friend of mine named Jason. He was walking home from the Hopscotch bar in little ol Ft. Pierre with two friends when three weird-o meth head types jumped out of the bushes and beat his two friends over the head with pieces of asphalt. Once they got them down, they began kicking them in the head with their boots. One guy has to have facial reconstruction surgery. Jason was lucky, in that he was 30 yards behind his friends when they were attacked, and so he avoided getting the crap beaten out of himself too. When the cops showed up, Jason told them where the kids had went, but the cops would not go after them. He said they seemed fairly unconcerned with it all. "We just need information at this point" they kept telling him. In the end, ONE kid is getting two counts of agravated assault. This typically carries little or no jail time. The other two kids were never caught because the cops never went after them.
Why am I telling this story?
Because the reason, which is plain to me, that the police in Ft Pierre never went after the kids is because THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT. That and to follow after the kids might have been somewhat dangerous, (something a REAL cop would do, and not a tax collector) and would have taken the cops away from their REAL purpose, which is to pull people over and smell their breath. Cops used to actually serve the public and protect the public. Now they just make fuckin money. It's bullshit. I can see that and I don't even DRINK!
As far as I'm concerned they can take these commercials and file them in their ass. ha. I've been pulled over 15 times in Pierre when I had that old car. SEVEN of the times I was pulled over I had to take a breathalizer, even though I hadn't even had ANYTHING to drink. Another time, I had half a beer, ate a few pieces of pizza and decided I better dive over to my business and cover up my boat and blew POINT ZERO SIX when the legal limit is point zero eight. The funny part about it is that once I got a 20 thousand dollar pickup, and now a 30 thousand dollar one, I've NEVER been pulled over. So this would basically tell a person that poor people are getting the shaft, and it also says that they pull people over for no reason, to make money. People with 30 thousand dollar trucks can AFFORD lawyers. Of the 15 times I've been pulled over, all of them were "you swerved" or "crossed the center line" or some bogus bullshit. One cop actually told me "We just gotta check everyone" and didn't even say why he'd pulled me over. I don't know about anyone else, but that is Russia. That's not the USA.
My wife got pulled over by a cop for no reason and I was right in front of her. I turned around and asked him why he'd pulled her over and he said she had crossed the center line, which she had not. I called and bitched at the city and threatened to sue, and a few weeks later he was fired, partly because of it. The guy in the $500 dollar car wouldn't have been able to do what I did. The $500 dollar guy doesn't play golf with the cheif of police. Right? It's total bullshit.
When I was a kid, I hung out in Spearfish. We were all big drinkers. Of the three hundred or so kids I partied with, (my Prom Queen AND Homecoming Queen girlfriend drank a fifth of bacardi EVERY weekend) none of them ever got in a car wreck while drinking, and what's more, none of them that I've ever heard of have ever gotten killed in the last 30 years! A great number of them are like me, in that they do not drink except on special occasions. Numbers are only as good as the people writing them down. Just in the last ten years in Pierre, I have heard of MORE drunken driving deaths than I had ever heard of in 25 years over in Wyoming and the Black Hills before they started this anti drinking campaign. There are kids dropping like flies now, because they have to drive, since the cops have cracked down on drinking parties so much they can't do it in the open anymore. They can't go to so and so's parents house and drink, so they drive way way out in the middle of nowhere and do it. And then they drive.
Freedom kills. Freedom is not SAFE.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Outrage Of The Week
Friday, April 02, 2010
This week's Outrage concerns a legal case that comes to us from New Jersey, where a well-meaning firearm owner, through a series of events that were no fault of his own, inadvertently ran afoul of the law (or, rather, an interpretation of the law).
Gun owner Gregg C. Revell was flying from Salt Lake City, UT, to Allentown, PA, by way of Minneapolis, MN, and Newark, NJ. Revell had an unloaded firearm that was legally checked in his luggage, which he was to pick up upon his arrival in Allentown.
That was the plan, but things soon went awry. Revell's flight into Newark was delayed, causing him to miss his connecting flight to Allentown. He was able to book a seat on the next flight, but that course of action was changed by the airline. He then tried to take a bus, but his luggage didn't make it to the bus on time. He retrieved his luggage, but missed the bus. With no more connections to Allentown until the following morning, Revell went (with his luggage, of course) directly to, and stayed the night at, the Airport Sheraton Hotel. By this time, Revell had been through a lot, but his real trouble was just beginning.
The next morning, Revell returned with his luggage directly to the airport. He checked his luggage and, as he was supposed to, told the agent that he had an unloaded firearm stored in a locked case in his luggage. It was at this point that Revell's destination changed from Allentown to a Newark jail cell. He was arrested on the spot because New Jersey law requires a permit to possess a handgun (and also bans the hollow-point ammunition that Revell also had in a separate locked container in his luggage), and as soon as Revell's luggage became "readily accessible" to him (in this case, when he took possession of his luggage to go to the hotel) he violated state law.
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states that, "Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."
After spending four days in a Newark jail cell, Revell was released on bail. Revell was eventually cleared of all charges, but he didn't get his firearm and other property back until almost three years later.
With help from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, Revell sued for damages related to his unjust arrest and detention (as a violation of his civil rights), but lost, with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit's finding that Revell was not covered under FOPA's narrowly defined safe harbor provision.
So we have a case where a firearm owner does everything he can to obey the law and ensure that he safely transports his firearm. Through no fault of his own, he is accused of violating the law. He is arrested, then thrown in the Newark jail for four days, and loses possession of his personal property for almost three years. That is outrageous!
This case is not as unusual as you may think. NRA presently has two similar cases awaiting rulings by the U.S. Second Circuit.
NRA members would be well advised to use caution when traveling with a firearm—especially by plane, and especially in the states of New York and New Jersey—if a planned, or unplanned stop in "hostile territory" is necessary.
Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
This week's Outrage concerns a legal case that comes to us from New Jersey, where a well-meaning firearm owner, through a series of events that were no fault of his own, inadvertently ran afoul of the law (or, rather, an interpretation of the law).
Gun owner Gregg C. Revell was flying from Salt Lake City, UT, to Allentown, PA, by way of Minneapolis, MN, and Newark, NJ. Revell had an unloaded firearm that was legally checked in his luggage, which he was to pick up upon his arrival in Allentown.
That was the plan, but things soon went awry. Revell's flight into Newark was delayed, causing him to miss his connecting flight to Allentown. He was able to book a seat on the next flight, but that course of action was changed by the airline. He then tried to take a bus, but his luggage didn't make it to the bus on time. He retrieved his luggage, but missed the bus. With no more connections to Allentown until the following morning, Revell went (with his luggage, of course) directly to, and stayed the night at, the Airport Sheraton Hotel. By this time, Revell had been through a lot, but his real trouble was just beginning.
The next morning, Revell returned with his luggage directly to the airport. He checked his luggage and, as he was supposed to, told the agent that he had an unloaded firearm stored in a locked case in his luggage. It was at this point that Revell's destination changed from Allentown to a Newark jail cell. He was arrested on the spot because New Jersey law requires a permit to possess a handgun (and also bans the hollow-point ammunition that Revell also had in a separate locked container in his luggage), and as soon as Revell's luggage became "readily accessible" to him (in this case, when he took possession of his luggage to go to the hotel) he violated state law.
The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states that, "Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."
After spending four days in a Newark jail cell, Revell was released on bail. Revell was eventually cleared of all charges, but he didn't get his firearm and other property back until almost three years later.
With help from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, Revell sued for damages related to his unjust arrest and detention (as a violation of his civil rights), but lost, with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit's finding that Revell was not covered under FOPA's narrowly defined safe harbor provision.
So we have a case where a firearm owner does everything he can to obey the law and ensure that he safely transports his firearm. Through no fault of his own, he is accused of violating the law. He is arrested, then thrown in the Newark jail for four days, and loses possession of his personal property for almost three years. That is outrageous!
This case is not as unusual as you may think. NRA presently has two similar cases awaiting rulings by the U.S. Second Circuit.
NRA members would be well advised to use caution when traveling with a firearm—especially by plane, and especially in the states of New York and New Jersey—if a planned, or unplanned stop in "hostile territory" is necessary.
Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
.jpg)
Why More Immigrants Are An Answer to the Coming Boomer Entitlement Mess
By: Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor
Friday, April 9, 2010
I was born in 1946, just when the boomer wave began. Bill Clinton was born that year, too. So was George W. So was Laura Bush. And Ken Starr (remember him?) And then, the next year, Hillary Clinton. And soon Newt Gingrich (known as “Newty” as a boy). And Cher. Why so many of us begin getting born in 1946? Simple. My father was in World War II. He came home. My mother was waiting. Ditto for the others.
Sixty years later, we boomers have a lot to be worried about because most of us plan to retire in a few years and Social Security and Medicare are on the way to going bust. I should know because I used to be a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Those of you who are younger than we early boomers have even more to be worried about because if those funds go bust they won’t be there when you’re ready to retire.
It’s already starting to happen. This year Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. The tipping point came sooner than anyone expected because the recession has kicked so many people off payrolls. But it was coming anyway. And it adds new urgency to reforming Social Security — a task the president’s commission on the nation’s debt is focusing on.
So what’s the answer?
Fed Chair Ben Bernanke this week listed the choices. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits,” he said in a speech on Wednesday, “the nation must choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”
Bernanke is almost certainly right about “some combination,” but he leaves out one other possible remedy that should be included in that combination: Immigration.
You see, the biggest reason Social Security is in trouble, and Medicare as well, is because America is aging so fast. It’s not just that so many boomers are retiring. It’s also that seniors are living longer. And families are having fewer children.
Add it all up and the number of people who are working relative to the number who are retired keeps shrinking.
Forty years ago there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are three. Within a couple of decades, there will be only two workers per retiree. There’s no way just two workers will be able or willing to pay enough payroll taxes to keep benefits flowing to every retiree.
This is where immigration comes in. Most immigrants are young because the impoverished countries they come from are demographically the opposite of rich countries. Rather than aging populations, their populations are bursting with young people.
Yes, I know: There aren’t enough jobs right now even for Americans who want and need them. But once the American economy recovers, there will be. Take a long-term view and most new immigrants to the U.S. will be working for many decades.
Get it? One logical way to deal with the crisis of funding Social Security and Medicare is to have more workers per retiree, and the simplest way to do that is to allow more immigrants into the United States.
Immigration reform and entitlement reform have a lot to do with one another.
Friday, April 9, 2010
I was born in 1946, just when the boomer wave began. Bill Clinton was born that year, too. So was George W. So was Laura Bush. And Ken Starr (remember him?) And then, the next year, Hillary Clinton. And soon Newt Gingrich (known as “Newty” as a boy). And Cher. Why so many of us begin getting born in 1946? Simple. My father was in World War II. He came home. My mother was waiting. Ditto for the others.
Sixty years later, we boomers have a lot to be worried about because most of us plan to retire in a few years and Social Security and Medicare are on the way to going bust. I should know because I used to be a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Those of you who are younger than we early boomers have even more to be worried about because if those funds go bust they won’t be there when you’re ready to retire.
It’s already starting to happen. This year Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. The tipping point came sooner than anyone expected because the recession has kicked so many people off payrolls. But it was coming anyway. And it adds new urgency to reforming Social Security — a task the president’s commission on the nation’s debt is focusing on.
So what’s the answer?
Fed Chair Ben Bernanke this week listed the choices. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits,” he said in a speech on Wednesday, “the nation must choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”
Bernanke is almost certainly right about “some combination,” but he leaves out one other possible remedy that should be included in that combination: Immigration.
You see, the biggest reason Social Security is in trouble, and Medicare as well, is because America is aging so fast. It’s not just that so many boomers are retiring. It’s also that seniors are living longer. And families are having fewer children.
Add it all up and the number of people who are working relative to the number who are retired keeps shrinking.
Forty years ago there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are three. Within a couple of decades, there will be only two workers per retiree. There’s no way just two workers will be able or willing to pay enough payroll taxes to keep benefits flowing to every retiree.
This is where immigration comes in. Most immigrants are young because the impoverished countries they come from are demographically the opposite of rich countries. Rather than aging populations, their populations are bursting with young people.
Yes, I know: There aren’t enough jobs right now even for Americans who want and need them. But once the American economy recovers, there will be. Take a long-term view and most new immigrants to the U.S. will be working for many decades.
Get it? One logical way to deal with the crisis of funding Social Security and Medicare is to have more workers per retiree, and the simplest way to do that is to allow more immigrants into the United States.
Immigration reform and entitlement reform have a lot to do with one another.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Healthcare Reform
March 25, 2010
There is way too much "spin" surrounding the issue of healthcare reform and not enough rational thought and civil dialogue.
On the Right, we have talk radio and Fox News appealing to that sector of the population that favors Saturday night bar brawls. You know the type….the slogan spewing, prone to violence Tea Baggers.
Then there are the bleeders from the Left. All they do is whine that the bill President Obama signed didn't go far enough. Yet their Liberal brethern cut deals with the health insurance industry that guarantee higher insurance premiums, income tax increases, and ballooning budget deficits.
Know this: Neither the Left or the Right “won” with the passage of the healthcare legislation. The insurance industry is the only winner. You, me, Left, Right….we’re all losers.
The insurance lobby successfully put up a furious defense of their "turf" and spent millions buying the votes of our Congressional whores. However, it was money well spent, because their return on investment over the coming years is huge.
Now let's get above all the political "noise" and see what we really have.
The fundamental question is whether a "civilized society” should provide healthcare to all its citizens as a social benefit.
The Right maintains that our citizens should "earn" their healthcare access and not be given it by merely being members of our society. They say being given access to healthcare as a right of citizenship is "socialism"….. and that socialism is a bad thing. But somehow they totally miss the fact that the Medicare program is socialism.
The objectors to healthcare reform have fallen prey to the propaganda campaign promulgated by the insurance industry. Consequently, they are promoting that industry's best interests on the political battleground. Further, what they are really doing is shooting themselves in the foot. What dumbasses! They’ve unwittingly played into the hands of the insurance industry.
The insurance lobby has cleverly diverted the argument from what should be a "social benefit" as a member of society to an argument of “It is the American Way to have profit seeking insurance companies handling access to healthcare”. They say that any other plan is socialism, playing the name-calling card by using a “hot button” term.
Look who ends up on the short end of this. Doctors and hospitals do. So do you, your family and just about everyone you know.
The US is the ONLY industrialized country that does NOT provide healthcare access to its citizens as a social benefit.
Examine who benefits from this lack of healthcare access: duhhhhh....Corporate America, that’s who!
How do you like seeing insurance company executives making millions of dollars in compensation because they squeeze hospitals and doctors of their honest due and deny sick people access to healthcare treatments?
Look what happened at the first session on Wall Street after the new bill was signed....all health insurance company stocks advanced big time. There's a reason they did. The expectations of continued profits – and even increasing profits – are virtually guaranteed by this bill.
And you know how healthcare insurance companies make money….doesn’t take an economist to tell you that by squeezing healthcare providers and by denying care to those who need it allows them to keep for profit more of the insurance premium dollars they collect.
The only real way to achieve healthcare reform is to take the profit away from the insurance industry. They do not belong in the system. They never really did, if you believe that healthcare should be a social benefit of a civilized society. The system should be free from the profit motive. Other countries having healthcare as a social benefit spend less per capita as a society than the US and yet have a healthier population.
The US healthcare delivery model provides nothing better than Third World results. If you can’t believe this statement, then look it up at the World Health Organization’s web site.
If we truly want healthcare reform, then we’ll drive those leeches who've been profiting from the misery of millions out of the system and keep them out.
But....our country is soooooooo corrupt that it'll never happen. The lobbyists and whores in Congress will see to that.
The Constitutionality aspect of the currently passed healthcare legislation is intriguing. Keep in mind that the stakes here are huge. The insurance industry has hired the best of legal minds to beat this policy initiative any way they can. One way is for the insurance lobby to fund a questioning of the healthcare bill's constitutionality.
The core question according to Constitutional lawyers is whether the government can mandate – as it does under this new legislation – that citizens purchase health insurance from private companies or else pay a penalty. It's almost like Congress demanding that Americans buy only Chevrolets. And that is crazy.
The lawyers who specialize in Constitutional issues involving commerce say that strictly speaking, insurance companies' business transactions are traditionally not considered "commerce" as originally defined by our Founding Fathers. As such, then Congress has no authority to legislate rules involving the purchase of insurance by its citizens, because Congress' authority only extends to that which is considered "commerce". By extension then, as the argument goes, the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.
The smart money is betting a close call if the question goes to the Supreme Court, but they are also betting there aren't 5 Justices who will vote the bill down as being unconstitutional.
Personally, I'm not so sure of that. Over the last decade or so, the Court has become politicized along Party lines....just look at its Gore vs. Bush decision in 2000’s presidential election.
One last thing: and that’s the true cost of this program. The bullshit artists at the Congressional Budget Office seem to think that it won't cost us. To me, without crunching any numbers, their statement defies logic.
Here's what I think will happen: Insurance company profits will go up, income taxes will go up, hospitals and doctors will continue to get squeezed to a point where some of them will leave the business, access to healthcare will still be limited or denied…. and ....the budget deficit will continue to increase.
It’s insane....this whole thing.
This insanity is brought on by corporate and individual greed along with the collapse of our citizens making decisions intended to improve our society on the whole.
MP
There is way too much "spin" surrounding the issue of healthcare reform and not enough rational thought and civil dialogue.
On the Right, we have talk radio and Fox News appealing to that sector of the population that favors Saturday night bar brawls. You know the type….the slogan spewing, prone to violence Tea Baggers.
Then there are the bleeders from the Left. All they do is whine that the bill President Obama signed didn't go far enough. Yet their Liberal brethern cut deals with the health insurance industry that guarantee higher insurance premiums, income tax increases, and ballooning budget deficits.
Know this: Neither the Left or the Right “won” with the passage of the healthcare legislation. The insurance industry is the only winner. You, me, Left, Right….we’re all losers.
The insurance lobby successfully put up a furious defense of their "turf" and spent millions buying the votes of our Congressional whores. However, it was money well spent, because their return on investment over the coming years is huge.
Now let's get above all the political "noise" and see what we really have.
The fundamental question is whether a "civilized society” should provide healthcare to all its citizens as a social benefit.
The Right maintains that our citizens should "earn" their healthcare access and not be given it by merely being members of our society. They say being given access to healthcare as a right of citizenship is "socialism"….. and that socialism is a bad thing. But somehow they totally miss the fact that the Medicare program is socialism.
The objectors to healthcare reform have fallen prey to the propaganda campaign promulgated by the insurance industry. Consequently, they are promoting that industry's best interests on the political battleground. Further, what they are really doing is shooting themselves in the foot. What dumbasses! They’ve unwittingly played into the hands of the insurance industry.
The insurance lobby has cleverly diverted the argument from what should be a "social benefit" as a member of society to an argument of “It is the American Way to have profit seeking insurance companies handling access to healthcare”. They say that any other plan is socialism, playing the name-calling card by using a “hot button” term.
Look who ends up on the short end of this. Doctors and hospitals do. So do you, your family and just about everyone you know.
The US is the ONLY industrialized country that does NOT provide healthcare access to its citizens as a social benefit.
Examine who benefits from this lack of healthcare access: duhhhhh....Corporate America, that’s who!
How do you like seeing insurance company executives making millions of dollars in compensation because they squeeze hospitals and doctors of their honest due and deny sick people access to healthcare treatments?
Look what happened at the first session on Wall Street after the new bill was signed....all health insurance company stocks advanced big time. There's a reason they did. The expectations of continued profits – and even increasing profits – are virtually guaranteed by this bill.
And you know how healthcare insurance companies make money….doesn’t take an economist to tell you that by squeezing healthcare providers and by denying care to those who need it allows them to keep for profit more of the insurance premium dollars they collect.
The only real way to achieve healthcare reform is to take the profit away from the insurance industry. They do not belong in the system. They never really did, if you believe that healthcare should be a social benefit of a civilized society. The system should be free from the profit motive. Other countries having healthcare as a social benefit spend less per capita as a society than the US and yet have a healthier population.
The US healthcare delivery model provides nothing better than Third World results. If you can’t believe this statement, then look it up at the World Health Organization’s web site.
If we truly want healthcare reform, then we’ll drive those leeches who've been profiting from the misery of millions out of the system and keep them out.
But....our country is soooooooo corrupt that it'll never happen. The lobbyists and whores in Congress will see to that.
The Constitutionality aspect of the currently passed healthcare legislation is intriguing. Keep in mind that the stakes here are huge. The insurance industry has hired the best of legal minds to beat this policy initiative any way they can. One way is for the insurance lobby to fund a questioning of the healthcare bill's constitutionality.
The core question according to Constitutional lawyers is whether the government can mandate – as it does under this new legislation – that citizens purchase health insurance from private companies or else pay a penalty. It's almost like Congress demanding that Americans buy only Chevrolets. And that is crazy.
The lawyers who specialize in Constitutional issues involving commerce say that strictly speaking, insurance companies' business transactions are traditionally not considered "commerce" as originally defined by our Founding Fathers. As such, then Congress has no authority to legislate rules involving the purchase of insurance by its citizens, because Congress' authority only extends to that which is considered "commerce". By extension then, as the argument goes, the healthcare bill is unconstitutional.
The smart money is betting a close call if the question goes to the Supreme Court, but they are also betting there aren't 5 Justices who will vote the bill down as being unconstitutional.
Personally, I'm not so sure of that. Over the last decade or so, the Court has become politicized along Party lines....just look at its Gore vs. Bush decision in 2000’s presidential election.
One last thing: and that’s the true cost of this program. The bullshit artists at the Congressional Budget Office seem to think that it won't cost us. To me, without crunching any numbers, their statement defies logic.
Here's what I think will happen: Insurance company profits will go up, income taxes will go up, hospitals and doctors will continue to get squeezed to a point where some of them will leave the business, access to healthcare will still be limited or denied…. and ....the budget deficit will continue to increase.
It’s insane....this whole thing.
This insanity is brought on by corporate and individual greed along with the collapse of our citizens making decisions intended to improve our society on the whole.
MP
Saturday, February 20, 2010
PIERRE WELCOMES CORNHOLE FUN...
Come one, cum all to the CORNHOLE CHAMPIONSHIPS in Pierre South Dakota on June 19th, 2010!
Yep! That's right! The leaders of the City of Pierre have found yet another great way to re-vitalize the city, bringing in the American Cornhole Association for a GAY-la event! This will surely bring added respect for our city. No longer will the midwest be laughed at. Steamboat Park is going to be full of cornholers! We need to all make sure we bend over backwards for the event! I'm thinking "K Y" could sponsor it for the city, but if anyone has a better idea, let the Chamber of Commerce know!
For more information, just go to www.pierre.org and click on "Pierre area Cornhole Tournament" to learn all about how to Cornhole! What is Cornholing? Well, you will find out all about it on the 19th of June in Steamboat Park folks~!
I'm not sure, but I think you need to wear a "Borat" thong to compete.
If you go to the website, www.pierre.org you will see at the bottom of the page, under "Featured Events" that the "Pierre Area Cornhole Tournament" is listed just to the left of "Capital City Queen". So, after a hard day of hot sweaty cornhole fun, you can get right on the Capital City Queen and cool down your throbbing muscles.
Then, theFUN BEGINS!!!!
You can read all about how to CORNHOLE!!!
From the American Cornhole Association's website....http://www.playcornhole.org/
"The American Cornhole Association was established by a small group
of dedicated Cornholers from the west side of Cincinnati, Ohio. It has
grown over the years and, to the best of our knowledge, now represents
the largest organized Cornhole / Corn Toss association in the United States."
Dedicated Cornholers???
Under "How to play" it reveals...
"Scoring can be swift and the lead may change hands several times in a match before the winner is decided."
Yep! That's right! The leaders of the City of Pierre have found yet another great way to re-vitalize the city, bringing in the American Cornhole Association for a GAY-la event! This will surely bring added respect for our city. No longer will the midwest be laughed at. Steamboat Park is going to be full of cornholers! We need to all make sure we bend over backwards for the event! I'm thinking "K Y" could sponsor it for the city, but if anyone has a better idea, let the Chamber of Commerce know!
For more information, just go to www.pierre.org and click on "Pierre area Cornhole Tournament" to learn all about how to Cornhole! What is Cornholing? Well, you will find out all about it on the 19th of June in Steamboat Park folks~!
I'm not sure, but I think you need to wear a "Borat" thong to compete.
If you go to the website, www.pierre.org you will see at the bottom of the page, under "Featured Events" that the "Pierre Area Cornhole Tournament" is listed just to the left of "Capital City Queen". So, after a hard day of hot sweaty cornhole fun, you can get right on the Capital City Queen and cool down your throbbing muscles.
Then, theFUN BEGINS!!!!
You can read all about how to CORNHOLE!!!
From the American Cornhole Association's website....http://www.playcornhole.org/
"The American Cornhole Association was established by a small group
of dedicated Cornholers from the west side of Cincinnati, Ohio. It has
grown over the years and, to the best of our knowledge, now represents
the largest organized Cornhole / Corn Toss association in the United States."
Dedicated Cornholers???
Under "How to play" it reveals...
"Scoring can be swift and the lead may change hands several times in a match before the winner is decided."
Monday, February 1, 2010
Wall Street Heisted the People’s Money
January 25, 2010
by
Mike Pulaski
Public records show that the Federal Reserve has been printing money in order to buy US Treasury Notes (“Treasuries”) that no other party wants or can purchase.
To date, the US budget deficit has been largely funded by foreign purchasers of Treasuries. However, the bailout of our financial system caused the deficit to rapidly increase, causing the US to issue more Treasuries.
Recently, the deputy governor of the Peoples Bank of China said:
"The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries."
The rate that our deficit is growing will require a doubling of foreign purchases of Treasuries. Double China’s holdings? Their reply:
“It is definitely impossible. The world does not have that much money to buy more US Treasuries."
So the Federal Reserve has been buying the excess Treasuries! It will print more US Dollars, and then hand them over to the US Government in exchange for the Treasuries. Exchanging paper for paper.
We’re not talking trivial amounts here. The Federal Reserve has already purchased $1.7 Trillion of US debt. Yet there is still another $700 Billion that needs to be purchased in order for the US to balance its current budget!
Here’s the scary part of this whole scenario: All this newly printed money hasn’t hit Main Street yet.
Banks that received bailout money have held on to it. They are not lending it out to their customers like the Government thought they would. Instead, this new money makes their balance sheets look healthy and props up their stock prices. Additionally, they’ve used some of the bailout money to purchase equities, sending the DOW up and over 10,000 from its recent bottom of 8,000.
Let’s not forget that bankers receive commissions for selling equities back to themselves and thus get credit for their sales “production”. At the same time, the banks’ balance sheets get healthier with the increasing value of their equity holdings.
Executives’ bonuses? Since the bank balance sheets look healthy again, and since their stock prices have increased from their low, these executives seek rewards which are calculated based on stock performance and sales “production”.
Bank executives know that if they hold onto the bailout money, the US Dollar’s value will remain high compared to other world currencies. This way, bonuses the executives receive now will have a greater value than they would if the bailout money were immediately released to Main Street. Its release would cause inflation, driving the value of the US Dollar downward, making executive bonuses less valuable.
Here’s the Big Picture:
Lobbyists bought politicians’ votes that changed our banking regulations established in 1933 to prevent another Great Depression.
One of these regulations, the Glass-Steagall Act, prohibited savings banks from also being investment banks. It was repealed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Democrat and Republican politicians have participated in the financial deregulation. For example, the financial industry was the largest political campaign contributor to both John McCain and Barack Obama, paying each campaign nearly equal amounts.
The removal of Glass-Steagall in combination with low interest rates caused a home mortgage boom, which included the selling of subprime mortgages to high risk consumers.
Subprime mortgages were then bought by consolidators, who packaged them in bundles and sold these bundles as mortgage backed securities.
Rating agencies and insurance companies joined the bandwagon, verifying and insuring these bundles’ false values to trusting purchasers.
The consolidators, rating agencies, and insurance companies made billions of dollars in sales commissions for many years while engaged in this business.
In early 2007, the Rothschild banking companies quit their subprime purchases and sold what they had purchased. Please note that the Rothschild banking companies hold an equity interest in the US Federal Reserve, which is a privately held bank and not a government agency.
AIG, the largest insurer of mortgage backed securities, discovered their “real” value, which in turn bankrupted the company.
Other financial institutions involved with mortgage backed securities began to fail.
The sales of these securities caused our financial system to nearly implode.
Taxpayer financed bailout money saved our financial system.
Since no laws were violated, those who originally profited from these securities’ sales kept the money they deceivingly “earned”.
The future effects of the bailout on ordinary citizens are higher income taxes, inflation, and reduced social benefits.
Simply – we have been fleeced by a gang of Wall Street thugs. Although they broke no laws, they acted unethically, driven by deceit and avarice. They violated our trust as did the politicians who sold their votes for a few dollars of campaign contributions.
I think we should make every effort to recover the money from the people who participated in this scam.
by
Mike Pulaski
Public records show that the Federal Reserve has been printing money in order to buy US Treasury Notes (“Treasuries”) that no other party wants or can purchase.
To date, the US budget deficit has been largely funded by foreign purchasers of Treasuries. However, the bailout of our financial system caused the deficit to rapidly increase, causing the US to issue more Treasuries.
Recently, the deputy governor of the Peoples Bank of China said:
"The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries."
The rate that our deficit is growing will require a doubling of foreign purchases of Treasuries. Double China’s holdings? Their reply:
“It is definitely impossible. The world does not have that much money to buy more US Treasuries."
So the Federal Reserve has been buying the excess Treasuries! It will print more US Dollars, and then hand them over to the US Government in exchange for the Treasuries. Exchanging paper for paper.
We’re not talking trivial amounts here. The Federal Reserve has already purchased $1.7 Trillion of US debt. Yet there is still another $700 Billion that needs to be purchased in order for the US to balance its current budget!
Here’s the scary part of this whole scenario: All this newly printed money hasn’t hit Main Street yet.
Banks that received bailout money have held on to it. They are not lending it out to their customers like the Government thought they would. Instead, this new money makes their balance sheets look healthy and props up their stock prices. Additionally, they’ve used some of the bailout money to purchase equities, sending the DOW up and over 10,000 from its recent bottom of 8,000.
Let’s not forget that bankers receive commissions for selling equities back to themselves and thus get credit for their sales “production”. At the same time, the banks’ balance sheets get healthier with the increasing value of their equity holdings.
Executives’ bonuses? Since the bank balance sheets look healthy again, and since their stock prices have increased from their low, these executives seek rewards which are calculated based on stock performance and sales “production”.
Bank executives know that if they hold onto the bailout money, the US Dollar’s value will remain high compared to other world currencies. This way, bonuses the executives receive now will have a greater value than they would if the bailout money were immediately released to Main Street. Its release would cause inflation, driving the value of the US Dollar downward, making executive bonuses less valuable.
Here’s the Big Picture:
Lobbyists bought politicians’ votes that changed our banking regulations established in 1933 to prevent another Great Depression.
One of these regulations, the Glass-Steagall Act, prohibited savings banks from also being investment banks. It was repealed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Democrat and Republican politicians have participated in the financial deregulation. For example, the financial industry was the largest political campaign contributor to both John McCain and Barack Obama, paying each campaign nearly equal amounts.
The removal of Glass-Steagall in combination with low interest rates caused a home mortgage boom, which included the selling of subprime mortgages to high risk consumers.
Subprime mortgages were then bought by consolidators, who packaged them in bundles and sold these bundles as mortgage backed securities.
Rating agencies and insurance companies joined the bandwagon, verifying and insuring these bundles’ false values to trusting purchasers.
The consolidators, rating agencies, and insurance companies made billions of dollars in sales commissions for many years while engaged in this business.
In early 2007, the Rothschild banking companies quit their subprime purchases and sold what they had purchased. Please note that the Rothschild banking companies hold an equity interest in the US Federal Reserve, which is a privately held bank and not a government agency.
AIG, the largest insurer of mortgage backed securities, discovered their “real” value, which in turn bankrupted the company.
Other financial institutions involved with mortgage backed securities began to fail.
The sales of these securities caused our financial system to nearly implode.
Taxpayer financed bailout money saved our financial system.
Since no laws were violated, those who originally profited from these securities’ sales kept the money they deceivingly “earned”.
The future effects of the bailout on ordinary citizens are higher income taxes, inflation, and reduced social benefits.
Simply – we have been fleeced by a gang of Wall Street thugs. Although they broke no laws, they acted unethically, driven by deceit and avarice. They violated our trust as did the politicians who sold their votes for a few dollars of campaign contributions.
I think we should make every effort to recover the money from the people who participated in this scam.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Cyberterrorism
by Gerald Posner
A classified FBI report indicates that China has secretly developed an army of 180,000 cyberspies that “poses the largest single threat to the United States for cyberterrorism and has the potential to destroy vital infrastructure, interrupt banking and commerce, and compromise sensitive military and defense databases."
These spies are already launching 90,000 attacks a year just against U.S. Defense Department computers, according to a senior FBI analyst familiar with the contents of the report, making news Tuesday that the Chinese government may have hacked the email accountings of human-rights activists, prompting Google to consider withdrawing from that country, seem like child’s play.
The FBI report estimates that the Chinese Army has developed a network of over 30,000 Chinese military cyberspies, plus 150,000 private-sector computer experts, whose mission is to steal American military and technological secrets.
Cyber warfare is part of every developed country's 21st century arsenal. Although no U.S. official will admit it, the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA regularly probe and try to hack into China's military and industrial computer networks to obtain the information that years ago were brought back by the James Bonds of spy services. The U.S., and many of our European allies, try to find ways to wreck some havoc in the Chinese computer grid if a conflict ever takes place. The difference is that the Chinese are better than anyone else and lead the way in technological breakthroughs for the cyber battlefield. The FBI report concludes that a massive Chinese cyberattack could “be in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction," says the analyst, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about it, adding that it would do substantial damage to the American economy, telecommunications, electric power grid, and military preparedness.
The FBI report estimates that since 2003, the Chinese Army has specifically developed a network of over 30,000 Chinese military cyberspies, plus more than 150,000 private-sector computer experts, whose mission is to steal American military and technological secrets and cause mischief in government and financial services. China’s goal, says the FBI report, is to have the world’s premier “informationized armed forces” by 2020. According to the bureau’s classified information, the Chinese hackers are adept at implanting malicious computer code, and in 2009 companies in diverse industries such as oil and gas, banking, aerospace, and telecommunications encountered costly and at times debilitating problems with Chinese-implanted “malware.” The FBI analyst would not name the affected companies.
One of China’s most effective weapons, according to the FBI report, is a continuation of what Pentagon security investigators originally dubbed Titan Rain; it is a Chinese scanner program that probes national defense and high-tech industrial computer networks thousands of times a minute looking for vulnerabilities. The Chinese military hackers, the FBI analyst told me, enter without any keystroke errors, leave no digital fingerprints, and create a clean backdoor exit in under 20 minutes, feats considered capable only for a military or civilian spy agency of only a few governments.
These attacks are proliferating. The FBI report lays out the identifiable attacks originating from China just on the Defense Department computers; they increased from 44,000 in 2007 to 55,000 in 2008, and topped 90,000 last year. “They probe, they test our responses, as quick as we make changes and fix vulnerabilities, they are moving a step ahead,” the analyst told me.
The Chinese hackers aren’t after credit-card numbers or bank accounts or looking to steal private identities. Instead, they are hunting for information. Although the barrage of attacks may at times appear random, the FBI report concludes that it is part of a strategy to fully flush out U.S. military telecommunications and to better understand—and to attempt to intercept—intelligence being gathered by American spy agencies, particularly the National Security Agency.
“It’s the great irony of the Information Age that the very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy,” President Obama said last May when he announced a new White House office dedicated to protecting the nation’s computer systems. The Pentagon followed shortly after with a new military cyberspace command. In his remarks, the president said that, “In today’s world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few keystrokes of a computer.” And he admitted, “We’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country.”
China’s Ministry of Public Security has thousands of so-called Information Warfare Militia Units that effectively monitor all domestic Internet traffic of the country’s 140 million 'Net users. It’s this internal program that may have affected Google. On Tuesday, Google said it had detected a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China.” While Google did not specifically accuse the Chinese government, it said it was “no longer willing to continue censoring our results” on its Chinese search engine, as the government requires. Thus, it may need to withdraw from its largest potential market.
The private-sector issues affect government security. As a precondition to doing business in China, several years ago Microsoft was required to provide the government the source codes for the company’s Office software. The Chinese State Planning Commission contended that Microsoft's Windows operating system was a secret tool of the U.S. government and demanded Microsoft instruct Chinese software engineers on inserting their own software into Window's applications.
That gave the Chinese Army’s cyberwarfare department what computer hackers dub a “skeleton key,” allowing them access to almost every networked private business, military, and government computer in the U.S. Among the Chinese Army-backed Microsoft attacks, the FBI report includes successful forays against computer systems at the State Department, Commerce Department, the FBI, and the Naval War College, among others.
Some Chinese attacks plant embedded covert programs into government networks, searching for classified files and then automatically forwarding them by email to China. Using sophisticated “rootkit” programs to hide their presence, China’s hackers are “simply the most sophisticated,” says the senior FBI analyst. Homeland Security’s $1.8 billion computer network was penetrated by Chinese cyberwarriors in 2007, and an unknown amount of information was copied to a secure Chinese Web site. Even the Pentagon was breached in 2007 and again in early 2009, despite what it considered foolproof Titan Rain security patches. The 2009 intrusion was particularly worrisome since the Chinese managed to get inside the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project—the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever—according to a government official familiar with the attack who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity. The cyber intruders copied several terabytes of data about the design and electronics systems, information that might make it easier to defend against the craft.
The FBI report concludes that many of the attacks identified as being from China might be part of Beijing’s plan to occasionally let its cyberspies be unmasked in order to give American and other Western counties a false sense of security. “There is no telling how many breaches there are that we haven’t yet picked up,” the FBI analyst told me. Most American government agencies have stopped buying Chinese hardware from Lenovo (the Chinese firm that acquired IBM's personal-computer division in 2005) and any software from the mainland.
But China is manufacturing microchips for dozens of major international companies, and those chips could hold viruses set to activate when used in a computer network. Chips employed in military applications could be designed to reverse engineer the weapon’s design and provide the information to Chinese spies. China’s microchip output is almost doubling every two years, and chip giant Intel has opened a multibillion-dollar plant in Dalian, China.
The FBI report’s grim conclusion: China sees its cyberwarriors as a critical component of its asymmetric warfare capability and the U.S. government should publicly identify China as an “ongoing intelligence risk.” The Chinese Embassy says that the country "opposes and forbids all forms of cyber crimes" and that charges of its cyber warrior program are remnants of “a Cold War mentality" and intended only “to fan up China threat sensations."
“Without confronting it as a major threat,” the FBI analyst told me, “companies like Google go to do business there incorrectly assuming they face no greater risk from Chinese penetrations than they face from any other country. It’s just not true. There’s no more imminent cyberthreat than the one posed by China.”
Gerald Posner is The Daily Beast's chief investigative reporter. He's the award-winning author of 10 investigative nonfiction bestsellers, on topics ranging from political assassinations, to Nazi war criminals, to 9/11, to terrorism. His latest book, Miami Babylon: Crime, Wealth and Power—A Dispatch from the Beach, was published in October. He lives in Miami Beach with his wife, the author Trisha Posner.
A classified FBI report indicates that China has secretly developed an army of 180,000 cyberspies that “poses the largest single threat to the United States for cyberterrorism and has the potential to destroy vital infrastructure, interrupt banking and commerce, and compromise sensitive military and defense databases."
These spies are already launching 90,000 attacks a year just against U.S. Defense Department computers, according to a senior FBI analyst familiar with the contents of the report, making news Tuesday that the Chinese government may have hacked the email accountings of human-rights activists, prompting Google to consider withdrawing from that country, seem like child’s play.
The FBI report estimates that the Chinese Army has developed a network of over 30,000 Chinese military cyberspies, plus 150,000 private-sector computer experts, whose mission is to steal American military and technological secrets.
Cyber warfare is part of every developed country's 21st century arsenal. Although no U.S. official will admit it, the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA regularly probe and try to hack into China's military and industrial computer networks to obtain the information that years ago were brought back by the James Bonds of spy services. The U.S., and many of our European allies, try to find ways to wreck some havoc in the Chinese computer grid if a conflict ever takes place. The difference is that the Chinese are better than anyone else and lead the way in technological breakthroughs for the cyber battlefield. The FBI report concludes that a massive Chinese cyberattack could “be in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction," says the analyst, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about it, adding that it would do substantial damage to the American economy, telecommunications, electric power grid, and military preparedness.
The FBI report estimates that since 2003, the Chinese Army has specifically developed a network of over 30,000 Chinese military cyberspies, plus more than 150,000 private-sector computer experts, whose mission is to steal American military and technological secrets and cause mischief in government and financial services. China’s goal, says the FBI report, is to have the world’s premier “informationized armed forces” by 2020. According to the bureau’s classified information, the Chinese hackers are adept at implanting malicious computer code, and in 2009 companies in diverse industries such as oil and gas, banking, aerospace, and telecommunications encountered costly and at times debilitating problems with Chinese-implanted “malware.” The FBI analyst would not name the affected companies.
One of China’s most effective weapons, according to the FBI report, is a continuation of what Pentagon security investigators originally dubbed Titan Rain; it is a Chinese scanner program that probes national defense and high-tech industrial computer networks thousands of times a minute looking for vulnerabilities. The Chinese military hackers, the FBI analyst told me, enter without any keystroke errors, leave no digital fingerprints, and create a clean backdoor exit in under 20 minutes, feats considered capable only for a military or civilian spy agency of only a few governments.
These attacks are proliferating. The FBI report lays out the identifiable attacks originating from China just on the Defense Department computers; they increased from 44,000 in 2007 to 55,000 in 2008, and topped 90,000 last year. “They probe, they test our responses, as quick as we make changes and fix vulnerabilities, they are moving a step ahead,” the analyst told me.
The Chinese hackers aren’t after credit-card numbers or bank accounts or looking to steal private identities. Instead, they are hunting for information. Although the barrage of attacks may at times appear random, the FBI report concludes that it is part of a strategy to fully flush out U.S. military telecommunications and to better understand—and to attempt to intercept—intelligence being gathered by American spy agencies, particularly the National Security Agency.
“It’s the great irony of the Information Age that the very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy,” President Obama said last May when he announced a new White House office dedicated to protecting the nation’s computer systems. The Pentagon followed shortly after with a new military cyberspace command. In his remarks, the president said that, “In today’s world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few keystrokes of a computer.” And he admitted, “We’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country.”
China’s Ministry of Public Security has thousands of so-called Information Warfare Militia Units that effectively monitor all domestic Internet traffic of the country’s 140 million 'Net users. It’s this internal program that may have affected Google. On Tuesday, Google said it had detected a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China.” While Google did not specifically accuse the Chinese government, it said it was “no longer willing to continue censoring our results” on its Chinese search engine, as the government requires. Thus, it may need to withdraw from its largest potential market.
The private-sector issues affect government security. As a precondition to doing business in China, several years ago Microsoft was required to provide the government the source codes for the company’s Office software. The Chinese State Planning Commission contended that Microsoft's Windows operating system was a secret tool of the U.S. government and demanded Microsoft instruct Chinese software engineers on inserting their own software into Window's applications.
That gave the Chinese Army’s cyberwarfare department what computer hackers dub a “skeleton key,” allowing them access to almost every networked private business, military, and government computer in the U.S. Among the Chinese Army-backed Microsoft attacks, the FBI report includes successful forays against computer systems at the State Department, Commerce Department, the FBI, and the Naval War College, among others.
Some Chinese attacks plant embedded covert programs into government networks, searching for classified files and then automatically forwarding them by email to China. Using sophisticated “rootkit” programs to hide their presence, China’s hackers are “simply the most sophisticated,” says the senior FBI analyst. Homeland Security’s $1.8 billion computer network was penetrated by Chinese cyberwarriors in 2007, and an unknown amount of information was copied to a secure Chinese Web site. Even the Pentagon was breached in 2007 and again in early 2009, despite what it considered foolproof Titan Rain security patches. The 2009 intrusion was particularly worrisome since the Chinese managed to get inside the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project—the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever—according to a government official familiar with the attack who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity. The cyber intruders copied several terabytes of data about the design and electronics systems, information that might make it easier to defend against the craft.
The FBI report concludes that many of the attacks identified as being from China might be part of Beijing’s plan to occasionally let its cyberspies be unmasked in order to give American and other Western counties a false sense of security. “There is no telling how many breaches there are that we haven’t yet picked up,” the FBI analyst told me. Most American government agencies have stopped buying Chinese hardware from Lenovo (the Chinese firm that acquired IBM's personal-computer division in 2005) and any software from the mainland.
But China is manufacturing microchips for dozens of major international companies, and those chips could hold viruses set to activate when used in a computer network. Chips employed in military applications could be designed to reverse engineer the weapon’s design and provide the information to Chinese spies. China’s microchip output is almost doubling every two years, and chip giant Intel has opened a multibillion-dollar plant in Dalian, China.
The FBI report’s grim conclusion: China sees its cyberwarriors as a critical component of its asymmetric warfare capability and the U.S. government should publicly identify China as an “ongoing intelligence risk.” The Chinese Embassy says that the country "opposes and forbids all forms of cyber crimes" and that charges of its cyber warrior program are remnants of “a Cold War mentality" and intended only “to fan up China threat sensations."
“Without confronting it as a major threat,” the FBI analyst told me, “companies like Google go to do business there incorrectly assuming they face no greater risk from Chinese penetrations than they face from any other country. It’s just not true. There’s no more imminent cyberthreat than the one posed by China.”
Gerald Posner is The Daily Beast's chief investigative reporter. He's the award-winning author of 10 investigative nonfiction bestsellers, on topics ranging from political assassinations, to Nazi war criminals, to 9/11, to terrorism. His latest book, Miami Babylon: Crime, Wealth and Power—A Dispatch from the Beach, was published in October. He lives in Miami Beach with his wife, the author Trisha Posner.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
17,000 potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under obscure law
By Raw Story
Monday, January 4th, 2010 -- 11:37 am
Of some 84,000 chemicals being used commercially in the United States, some 20 percent -- or 17,000 -- are kept secret not only from the public, but from medical professionals, state regulators and even emergency responders, according to a report at the Washington Post.
And the reason for this potentially harmful lack of openness? Profit.
A 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, mandates that manufacturers report to the Environmental Protection Agency any new chemicals they intend to market, but manufacturers can request that a chemical be kept secret if disclosure "could harm their bottom line," the Washington Post reports.
Because they are secret, it's impossible to tell how many of the 17,000 chemicals are potentially harmful to people. But the Post notes that, in March of last year, more than half of the "substantial risk" reports filed with the EPA involved secret chemicals.
And chemical makers may be abusing their privilege under the law. According to the EPA, in recent years 95 percent of manufacturers' reports of new chemicals have made some request for secrecy. Ten of the secret chemicals are used in children's products
.
The Post reports that Congress this year will tackle reform of the 1976 law.
EPA head Lisa Jackson has begun an effort to increase transparency in commercial chemicals. The EPA recently announced it is creating a "Chemicals of Concern" list, which will detail substances that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment." The power to do that was granted to the EPA under the 1976 law, but has never been used before.
Environment News Service reports:
Jackson says the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform. The decision to list the chemicals further signals "this administration's commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA," she said.
"At the same time," Jackson said, "I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation's outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard."
"Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward," said Jackson, who is a mother.
In a press release, the EPA noted that, since the 1976 law was put on the books, the number of listed chemicals used in the US has increased from 60,000 to more than 80,000, but the EPA "has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals."
Monday, January 4th, 2010 -- 11:37 am
Of some 84,000 chemicals being used commercially in the United States, some 20 percent -- or 17,000 -- are kept secret not only from the public, but from medical professionals, state regulators and even emergency responders, according to a report at the Washington Post.
And the reason for this potentially harmful lack of openness? Profit.
A 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, mandates that manufacturers report to the Environmental Protection Agency any new chemicals they intend to market, but manufacturers can request that a chemical be kept secret if disclosure "could harm their bottom line," the Washington Post reports.
Because they are secret, it's impossible to tell how many of the 17,000 chemicals are potentially harmful to people. But the Post notes that, in March of last year, more than half of the "substantial risk" reports filed with the EPA involved secret chemicals.
And chemical makers may be abusing their privilege under the law. According to the EPA, in recent years 95 percent of manufacturers' reports of new chemicals have made some request for secrecy. Ten of the secret chemicals are used in children's products
.
The Post reports that Congress this year will tackle reform of the 1976 law.
EPA head Lisa Jackson has begun an effort to increase transparency in commercial chemicals. The EPA recently announced it is creating a "Chemicals of Concern" list, which will detail substances that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment." The power to do that was granted to the EPA under the 1976 law, but has never been used before.
Environment News Service reports:
Jackson says the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform. The decision to list the chemicals further signals "this administration's commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA," she said.
"At the same time," Jackson said, "I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation's outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard."
"Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward," said Jackson, who is a mother.
In a press release, the EPA noted that, since the 1976 law was put on the books, the number of listed chemicals used in the US has increased from 60,000 to more than 80,000, but the EPA "has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals."
Is the Fed Juicing the Stock Market?
By Mike Whitney
Global Research, January 2, 2010
Is the Fed manipulating the stock market? TrimTabs CEO Charles Biderman seems to think so, and he makes a strong case for his theory in an article at zerohedge.com.
Biderman focuses his attention on the mystery surrounding the stock market's 9-month rally and asks, "Where is the money coming from?" After all, the market cap has increased by more than $6 trillion since March 9. That amount of money should be fairly easy to trace; right?
Wrong.
Biderman: "The most positive economic development in 2009 was the stock market rally. (But) We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast. For the most part, the money did not from the traditional players that provided money in the past."
Huh? So, this vast infusion of liquidity--which helped the banks to avoid painful deleveraging--did not come from the usual suspects?
That's right. According to Biderman, the money did not come from (a) companies ("which were a huge net seller") (b) retail investor funds, (c) retail investors, (d) foreign investors, or (e) pension funds.
What about the hedge funds?
Biderman: "We have no way to track in real time what hedge funds do, and they may well have shifted some assets into U.S. equities. But we doubt their buying power was enormous because they posted an outflow of $12 billion from April through November."
Okay; so we're back to Square One. Where did the money come from?
Biderman again: "As far as we know, it is not illegal for the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury to buy S&P 500 futures. Moreover, several officials have suggested the government should support stock prices. For example, former Fed board member Robert Heller opined in the Wall Street Journal in 1989, “Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.” In a Financial Times article in 2002, an unidentified Fed official was quoted as acknowledging that policymakers had considered buying U.S. equities directly, not just futures. The official mentioned that the Fed could “theoretically buy anything to pump money into the system.”
Biderman is referring to the Plunge Protection Team. Here's a clip from an article I wrote in 2007 which helps to clarify the PPT's origins:
"The Working Group on Financial Markets, also know as the Plunge Protection Team, was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown of October 1987. Its members include the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the SEC and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Recently, (2007) the team has been put on high alert because of increased market volatility and, what Hank Paulson calls, the systemic risk posed by hedge funds and derivatives....
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the UK Telegraph notes, "Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson has called for the PPT to meet with greater frequency and set up a command centre at the US Treasury that will track global markets and serve as an operations base in the next crisis. The top brass will meet every six weeks, combining the heads of Treasury, Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and key exchanges."
This suggests that the PPT could, in fact, be the driving-force behind the ongoing stock market rally.
Biderman: "This type of intervention could explain some of the unusual market action in recent months, with stock prices grinding higher on low volume even as companies sold huge amounts of new shares and retail investors stayed on the sidelines. For example, Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge has pointed out that virtually all of the market’s upside since mid-September has come from after-hours S&P 500 futures activity."
True. The market has been behaving erratically for some time now. Could it be the "invisible hand" of Fed chair Ben Bernanke nudging equities ever-higher?
Consider the comments of former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos who verified the existence of the PPT in an appearance on Good Morning America on Sept 17, 2000. He said:
"What I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets . . . perhaps the most important the Fed in 1989 created what is called the Plunge Protection Team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and the other exchanges and they have been meeting informally so far, and they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem. They have in the past acted more formally . . . I don't know if you remember but in 1998, there was a crisis called the Long term Capital Crisis. It was a major currency trader and there was a global currency crisis. And they, with the guidance of the Fed, all of the banks got together when it started to collapse and propped up the currency markets. And, they have plans in place to consider that if the markets start to fall."
If there was ever a time that warranted government intervention, it was right after Lehman Bros blew up and global markets went into freefall. The whole system was teetering and about to collapse. It's likely that the Fed recognized the danger and made a last-ditch effort to avoid another Great Depression. That means that Bernanke probably used his surrogates at the banks and brokerages to strategically purchase futures and equities that had the best chance of reversing the downward trend. What else could he do---sit on his hands and wait for Armageddon?
The problem is, no steps have been taken to prevent a similar catastrophe from occurring in the future. The same lethal debt-instruments that triggered the crisis are in play today; over $1 trillion in toxic assets still remain on the banks balance sheets, and nothing has been done to reduce financial sector debt. In fact, according to the Fed, total debt for the financial sector was $16.5 trillion in the second quarter 2009, the same as it was a year earlier. Nothing has changed.
Financial institutions are re-levering and taking on greater risks knowing that the government will bail them out if they get into trouble. At the same time, the Fed's lending programs have kept markets from fully-correcting by keeping asset prices artificially high. This has helped the banks to conceal their losses and appear healthier than they really are. The question is; how long can the charade go on before something gives?
Policymakers seem to believe that blanket government guarantees and stock market manipulation are enough to forestall another disaster. But critics think that a day of reckoning is fast approaching.
Global Research, January 2, 2010
Is the Fed manipulating the stock market? TrimTabs CEO Charles Biderman seems to think so, and he makes a strong case for his theory in an article at zerohedge.com.
Biderman focuses his attention on the mystery surrounding the stock market's 9-month rally and asks, "Where is the money coming from?" After all, the market cap has increased by more than $6 trillion since March 9. That amount of money should be fairly easy to trace; right?
Wrong.
Biderman: "The most positive economic development in 2009 was the stock market rally. (But) We cannot identify the source of the new money that pushed stock prices up so far so fast. For the most part, the money did not from the traditional players that provided money in the past."
Huh? So, this vast infusion of liquidity--which helped the banks to avoid painful deleveraging--did not come from the usual suspects?
That's right. According to Biderman, the money did not come from (a) companies ("which were a huge net seller") (b) retail investor funds, (c) retail investors, (d) foreign investors, or (e) pension funds.
What about the hedge funds?
Biderman: "We have no way to track in real time what hedge funds do, and they may well have shifted some assets into U.S. equities. But we doubt their buying power was enormous because they posted an outflow of $12 billion from April through November."
Okay; so we're back to Square One. Where did the money come from?
Biderman again: "As far as we know, it is not illegal for the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury to buy S&P 500 futures. Moreover, several officials have suggested the government should support stock prices. For example, former Fed board member Robert Heller opined in the Wall Street Journal in 1989, “Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole.” In a Financial Times article in 2002, an unidentified Fed official was quoted as acknowledging that policymakers had considered buying U.S. equities directly, not just futures. The official mentioned that the Fed could “theoretically buy anything to pump money into the system.”
Biderman is referring to the Plunge Protection Team. Here's a clip from an article I wrote in 2007 which helps to clarify the PPT's origins:
"The Working Group on Financial Markets, also know as the Plunge Protection Team, was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown of October 1987. Its members include the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the SEC and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Recently, (2007) the team has been put on high alert because of increased market volatility and, what Hank Paulson calls, the systemic risk posed by hedge funds and derivatives....
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the UK Telegraph notes, "Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson has called for the PPT to meet with greater frequency and set up a command centre at the US Treasury that will track global markets and serve as an operations base in the next crisis. The top brass will meet every six weeks, combining the heads of Treasury, Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and key exchanges."
This suggests that the PPT could, in fact, be the driving-force behind the ongoing stock market rally.
Biderman: "This type of intervention could explain some of the unusual market action in recent months, with stock prices grinding higher on low volume even as companies sold huge amounts of new shares and retail investors stayed on the sidelines. For example, Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge has pointed out that virtually all of the market’s upside since mid-September has come from after-hours S&P 500 futures activity."
True. The market has been behaving erratically for some time now. Could it be the "invisible hand" of Fed chair Ben Bernanke nudging equities ever-higher?
Consider the comments of former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos who verified the existence of the PPT in an appearance on Good Morning America on Sept 17, 2000. He said:
"What I wanted to talk about for a few minutes is the various efforts that are going on in public and behind the scenes by the Fed and other government officials to guard against a free-fall in the markets . . . perhaps the most important the Fed in 1989 created what is called the Plunge Protection Team, which is the Federal Reserve, big major banks, representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and the other exchanges and they have been meeting informally so far, and they have a kind of an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem. They have in the past acted more formally . . . I don't know if you remember but in 1998, there was a crisis called the Long term Capital Crisis. It was a major currency trader and there was a global currency crisis. And they, with the guidance of the Fed, all of the banks got together when it started to collapse and propped up the currency markets. And, they have plans in place to consider that if the markets start to fall."
If there was ever a time that warranted government intervention, it was right after Lehman Bros blew up and global markets went into freefall. The whole system was teetering and about to collapse. It's likely that the Fed recognized the danger and made a last-ditch effort to avoid another Great Depression. That means that Bernanke probably used his surrogates at the banks and brokerages to strategically purchase futures and equities that had the best chance of reversing the downward trend. What else could he do---sit on his hands and wait for Armageddon?
The problem is, no steps have been taken to prevent a similar catastrophe from occurring in the future. The same lethal debt-instruments that triggered the crisis are in play today; over $1 trillion in toxic assets still remain on the banks balance sheets, and nothing has been done to reduce financial sector debt. In fact, according to the Fed, total debt for the financial sector was $16.5 trillion in the second quarter 2009, the same as it was a year earlier. Nothing has changed.
Financial institutions are re-levering and taking on greater risks knowing that the government will bail them out if they get into trouble. At the same time, the Fed's lending programs have kept markets from fully-correcting by keeping asset prices artificially high. This has helped the banks to conceal their losses and appear healthier than they really are. The question is; how long can the charade go on before something gives?
Policymakers seem to believe that blanket government guarantees and stock market manipulation are enough to forestall another disaster. But critics think that a day of reckoning is fast approaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)