Free kibbles

SOCIALISM:

Republican criticizes unionization rule change.

"This new reality came about in 2010, when a voting rule enacted through the Railway Labor Act was stripped away by the National Mediation Board (NMB). This resulted in the potential for groups of railroad and airline workers to be unionized without the majority of them being in favor of it. Now, only a majority of those who choose to vote, as opposed to a majority of the total, are needed to unionize. To allow the fate of the majority of workers to be decided by only a small handful is not only undemocratic — it fails to protect private-industry workers at a time when they need it the most."

Undemocratic? That's the same way every government election in America works, and this hypocrite knows it.

ECONOMY:

Young people miss out on a lot of learning by not having jobs.

The rich don't seem to be effected by the bad economy.

TAX AND SPEND:

Parkinson's law declares there's no relationship between the number of bureaucrats and the amount of work done.

"Some will argue that the Constitution's General Welfare Clause allows for extra-constitutional activity by the federal government, but the mere suggestion is at odds with the Founders' intentions.Why write what is clearly a limiting document only to insert a clause that would make all those limits irrelevant? Had the General Welfare Clause meant what some modern theorists and politicians suggest, there's quite simply no way the Constitution would ever have been ratified. Rather, the General Welfare Clause was inserted to limit the federal government's role; specifically that the general welfare of the citizenry had to be considered when the federal government used its limited, enumerated powers."

If one takes this to its logical conclusion, that nothing government does is in the general welfare, then the Constitution forbids the government from existing. But this interpretation is correct. It's just that the authors and ratifiers were mistaken when they thought a government funded by theft could act in the general welfare.

California government pays retired workers pensions as if they worked five years longer than they actually did.

REGULATION:

It'll be interesting to see how this assault by women against Walmart turns out. You would think all the cards favor the plaintiffs, but maybe not.

FEDERAL RESERVE:

The Fed is making the ruling class get much richer while the rest of us get poorer.

""We now have an economy in which five banks control over 50 percent of the entire banking industry, four or five corporations own most of the mainstream media, and the top one percent of families hold a greater share of the nation’s wealth than any time since 1930.   This sort of concentration of wealth and power is a classic setup for the failure of a democratic republic and the stifling of organic economic growth.""

I seem to remember something significant happening in the 1930s.

"The plan was developed by Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner and the CEOs of the criminal Wall Street banking syndicate."

That still sounds like a coup to me. The president is irrelevant. The Fed Chairman and the Treasury Secretary are running the government and our economy.

"The authorities had a choice. This country has bankruptcy laws. The criminally negligent Wall Street banks could have been liquidated in an orderly bankruptcy. Their good assets could have been sold off to banks that did not take their extreme greed based risks. Bond holders and stockholders would have been wiped out. Today, we would have a balanced banking system, with no Too Big To Fail institutions. Instead, the years of placing their cronies within governmental agencies and buying off politicians paid big dividends for Wall Street. Their return on investment has been fantastic."

Some choice. The government exists to loot the people on behalf of the ruling class. It fulfilled its function perfectly. High fives and big bonuses all around. I'm still not sure about this mark to market accounting thing. It seems silly that one day a company can be solvent, but if a disaster hits and temporarily lowers the value of some asset, the company has to go bankrupt. Granted, that isn't what happened to the bundled mortgage securities. They're still trying to find their real bottom. But as I understand it, with mark to market accounting, a temporarily lower value could make a company insolvent and force it into bankruptcy.

"Essentially the banking syndicate got to have it both ways. It drew all the benefits of mark to market pricing when the markets were heading higher, and it was able to abandon mark to market pricing when markets went in the toilet."

I do know that that's wrong.

Suspicion that the Fed has been manipulating stock prices to make its QE2 program look successful.

GLOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY:

How environmentalists kill Africans by blocking electric plants.

Check out this headline:

"Did Obama Administration Play Favorites With Energy Loans?"

Of course he did. That's what politics is all about.

WAR ON DRUGS:

High tech narco-submarine captured. This shows how rich the war on drugs is making the drug cartels. It's crazy. No matter how obvious it becomes, the prohibitionists will never admit the drug war is long lost.

A century ago, government targeted the caffeine in Coca-cola, not the cocaine.

POLICE STATE:

Police exist primarily to harass and collect, to loot us, and only secondarily to serve and protect.

"Physical protection from criminal thugs is arguably the only moral service a cop can provide. But the truth is they don't provide even this most elemental of services. Indeed, the Supremes have explicitly laid this out; i.e., cops have no duty to protect specific individuals from harm. Just "society." That means you are on your own where it matters most; the one area where most of us would agree having some back-up would be nice to have."

They're called first responders for a reason. The people are always the first defenders. And for the vast majority of Americans, the most dangerous situation they'll ever face is dealing with a cop.

The State Department wants minute details of your mother's life around the time of your birth before it hands out a birth certificate. This is nuts.

Member of ruling class avoids prosecution for mortgage fraud. Regular person does not.

Boortz reports, "Make of this what you will but the number of D.C. police officers getting six-figure salaries has risen 30% since 2007." It pays to work for the king.

WAR:

NATO airstrike kills 14 Libyan rebels. Criticism of Obama for the war in Libya.

"He has yet to go to Congress for authorization, although he made sure he cleared it with our pushyallies and the UN Security Council. Having received this double-dispensation, Congress is for him but an afterthought. This is the true meaning of “multilateralism”: world opinion matters, American opinion – not so much."

But it's not world opinion. It's the opinion of the world's ruling class. The opinion of the serfs at home and abroad doesn't matter.

"Algeria, under the self-proclaimed “socialist” dictator turned Western ally Abdelaziz Bouteflika, is also experiencing anti-government protests, which are being met withbrutal force. Later on in his speech, Obama notes the disruption an exodus from Libya would have on neighboring countries, which hints at the administration’s real fear: that an influx of revolution-minded Libyans into Algeria would further destabilize the Bouteflika regime."

That doesn't sound like a significant enough reason to attack Qaddafi's forces. Washington manipulated the situation in Egypt to insure that a client government stayed in power. I find it hard to believe they couldn't do the same in Algeria. Besides, the rebels are on the east of Libya by Egypt, not Algeria.

"Gadhafi never said he would “show ‘no mercy’ to his own people,” but rather that he would show no mercy to the organizers of the rebellion – presumably, the interim “council” that now rules Benghazi, including his own former Interior Minister. These are the “rats” he referred to – defectors from his own government, who deserted what they perhaps rightly regard as a sinking ship."

As any dictator trying to stay in power would.

"Contrary to the President’s assertion that a massacre was imminent, there is no credible evidence Gadhafi was preparing any such action. Not a shred. Indeed, common sense, and military necessity, would argue against it: after all, having taken Benghazi, the Libyan despot would still have to rule it. It’s easy to demonize Gadhafi as a putative madman, yet he didn’t survive all these years for nothing."

Dictators want to rule something, not rubble. Former CIA operative takes charge of Libyan rebels.

"On Saturday, McClatchy reported that Khalifa Hifter, a former Gaddafi military officer, was appointed to lead the rebel army supported by the United Nations, the United States and the Globalist Coalition.Hifter spent two decades living in suburban Virginia “where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gaddafi groups,” writes Chris Adams for the newspaper. A friend told the journalist he “was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.”As it turns out, Mr. Hifter is a CIA operative, which likely explains his lengthy stay in Virginia. In 1996, the Washington Post reported that a Col. Haftar (a variation on Hifter) had arrived in the United States and he was “reported to be the leader of a contra-style group based in the U.S. called the Libyan National Army,” the Wisdom Fund noted at the time. “This group is supported by the U.S., and has been given training facilities in the U.S. It’s a good presumption that Col. Haftar’s group operates in Libya with the blessings of our government.”"

"Chad served as a base of operations to destabilize Libya, according to Paris-based African Confidential newsletter. It reported on January 5th, 1989, that “the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army,” writes author Peter Dale Scott."

It's amazing that Middle Eastern Muslims haven't attacked us more in response to all the damage our government has done to them.

Senator Feinstein is not this stupid, but she thinks her constituents are. Or maybe she is.

Showing how stupid the term isolationist is.

"If those who oppose violent invasions of other countries are considered  ”isolationists,” is a person who refuses to break into his neighbor’s house to  be regarded as ”anti-social”?"

Funny.

NATO builds a $1 billion new headquarters in Brussels, and we're paying for it.

POLITICS:

The tea party hangover we're seeing is the result of Republican business as usual. Republicans in Congress aren't cutting spending. Republicans like Kasich are increasing spending. Every Republican including Walker in Wisconsin have failed to tie government spending to our bad economy. The problem isn't the tea party. It's establishment Republicans. A bunch of them are going to lose their jobs in the 2012 primaries. But the tea partiers in Congress better take a stand against the war spending or the tea party movement will collapse under its own hypocrisy. If the tea party wants to make a big splash in 2012, it should defeat Speaker Boehner.

Study concludes that Clinton was a bigger supporter of free markets than Bush. I think both were enemies of free markets, but Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with, and that led to some free market reforms that never happen when one party controls Congress and the presidency.

MEDIA:

Tom Woods's Interview with a Zombie is hilarious. I don't think Ann Rice feels threatened though.

LOCAL:

In a totally invalid comparison, the Dayton Daily News reports that Fairfield Commons has more police calls than the Greene. This was done as part of their advocacy campaign supporting RTA bus routes to the Greene.

MISC:

Praise for Rango (spoilers).

Gary North on the corruption at Berkshire-Hathaway.

"It turns out that Buffett's subordinate bought about $10 million worth of shares in some firm that the rest of us had never heard of, but whose customers are loyal to it. Then the guy pitched Buffett on buying it for Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett took the advice, the stock went up 30%, and the subordinate sold his shares for a tidy profit: maybe $3 million. Nice work if you can get it, and if you get it, tell me how."

If he hadn't sold it, I'd say he did nothing wrong. If he really thought the stock was good buy, he should have held it. I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying a good opportunity and both purchasing some stock privately and recommending to the boss that the company buy it too. But selling it after the company buys it? That's a firing offense. The article goes on to explain why this isn't insider trading and why making insider trading illegal is bogus.

"From the point of view of management, this official corporate prohibition is good policy. It is close to impossible to enforce, but it is good PR. The policy lets investors operate in terms of an assumption, however naive: senior managers will not profit personally at the expense of share owners. But this should not be a matter of civil legislation. It is a matter to be policed by the owners of the company.If the owners think that senior management is ripping them off, they can sell the shares. This should be obvious. It is not obvious to politicians.If outside investors think that senior management has made itself vulnerable to outraged shareholders, they can offer to buy the shares from these existing share owners. They can take control of the firm, toss out the senior managers, and replace them with managers who abide by the corporate rule against insider trading.So, what do we see? We see the SEC impose rules against outside buyers who try to do just this. The SEC forces these "predator" investors to report on what they are planning if they plan to buy a controlling interest in the firm. This gives the targeted managers time to mount a defensive campaign. It raises the cost of any take-over. Existing senior managers like this."

But the SEC was not created to police the markets. Like all government programs, it was created to loot the people on behalf of government workers and the ruling class. That's why it does the latter effectively and is counterproductive to the former. Because of these motivations, this happens:

"Do we really want to reduce sharp practices that inflict needless losses on investors? Then we should let investors decide how to police the firms whose shares they own.Do most of the investors not care? Then why should the government care?Do most of the investors think that setting up such rules and enforcement arrangements is not worth the money? Then why should Congress care?Congress passed a law against insider training. Fine, says senior management. But to be fair, senior management insists, the government needs to pass a similar law to restrict predatory speculators from buying control. Congress complies. Not only is this law seen as fair, it increases Control by the government.Who wins? Existing corporate management. By consenting to rules against insider trading by individual members of senior management, they all get protection from corporate raiders who might swoop in and buy up control."

The ruling class wins. The people lose. As always with government intervention.

"If you think America's corporate management is paying protection money to Congress, you do not understand economic cause and effect. Corporate management is the Mob. It operates in terms of a system in which Congress serves as the enforcer, along with the SEC. Congress is not cleaning up the financial system, ethically speaking. The financial system is cleaning up by means of Congress."

While there is certainly some truth to this, I think in general it's backwards. For example, Google never had a lobbying office in Washington until Congress started attacking it and forced it to open and office in order to pay tribute. Of course Microsoft had a hand in prompting Congress to go after Google. Also, I'm sure Lehman Brothers thought they had the protection of Congress right up until the government let it go bankrupt. A strong case could be made the government actually bankrupted it by reporting it was in trouble while the managers were trying to save the company. Remember, the government has all the power. It has the monopoly on force. The aristocrats sell that power to the highest bigger, but they still ultimately reserve it to themselves. Government is a god to corporations. They can kill and raise corporations from the dead with a stroke of a pen, and if they kill one, another is always there to pay more tribute. The government is the Sheriff of Nottingham. Corporations are his tax collectors.

"It was not the big banks that rescued the Treasury in 2008. It was the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System – an official agency of the Federal government – that rescued the big banks. Today's million-dollar big bank bonuses are not sent to Congressmen. They are sent to the survivors of the bailout by Congress. The voters saw this coming in October 2008. Congress didn't care."

But the reason Congress does that is the recipients turn around and send a significant fraction, as much as can be sent without inviting an investigation that ends the aristocrat's career, back to the aristocrats in tribute. North's own language exposes the fallacy of his argument about who has all the power:

"The goons are Congress and the enforcers in the executive branch. The victims are taxpayers and investors who think the goons represent them. The Mob is the corporate system that consents to a law against insider trading in order to gain protection from investors: new investors who are ready to buy shares at a good price from existing investors, so they can replace existing senior management."

If the corporations were really in charge, they wouldn't have to consent to anything. The government, which has all the power, forced the insider trading law on them so the aristocrats could get away with insider trading and nobody else. The corporations requested protection from takeovers, and since they pay so much tribute, Congress agreed. If they don't pay enough tribute, or if the aristocrats think they can make more money by taking the corporation down, government will destroy them because it has all the power. Aristocrats allow corporations to take the policy lead only as long as they profit. In defense of North's position, one thing is indisputable: Congress almost always refuses to wield its power and allows others, be it the president or corporations, to do so.

How the US embassy in Japan help feed the nuclear hysteria. Arial photographs of the plant show incredible destruction. You really get a sense of the enormity of the task those heroes undertook to limit the radiation from the plant. It looks like the plant is literally right on the ocean. How it survived that 33 foot tsunami is amazing.

First it was bed bugs. Now it's stink bugs.

Ancient metal codexes from right after the death of Christ.

"If the dating is verified, the books would be among the earliest Christian documents, predating the writings of St Paul.
The prospect that they could contain contemporary accounts of the final years of Jesus’s life has excited scholars – although their enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that experts have previously been fooled by sophisticated fakes."

Wow. How in the world could they have disappeared? I'm sure the Church would pay a fortune to hide them,  but let's hope that doesn't happen.

"Mr Elkington, who is leading British efforts to have the books returned to Jordan, said: ‘It is vital that the collection can be recovered intact and secured in the best possible circumstances, both for the benefit of its owners and for a potentially fascinated international audience.’"

Ya think? What's up with footnote with no source?

"*British scientists have uncovered up to eight million mummified dogs, thought to have been sacrificed to Anubis, the god of the dead, 2500 years ago after excavating tunnels in the ancient Eygptian city of Saqqara."

Eight million?