These Things Don’t Add Up

Some things from last Thursday’s shooting at Ft. Hood don’t add up.  I’m wondering which part of the equation has the glitch: me or the government.  Guess which I’m betting on?

The CNN story says this:

Mark Todd was one of two civilian police sergeants credited with helping take down Hasan. He and partner Kimberly Munley pulled up outside the building where the shooting was occurring at the same time, and Todd saw the shooter standing outside — about 15 yards away. He appeared calm.

“As soon as we got there, it was game on, and then that’s when it escalated, and we did what we had to do,” he told CNN’s “Anderson Cooper.”

“I yelled at him, ‘Stop! Drop the weapon!’ And that’s when he raised his weapon and fired a couple of shots at me.”

Todd said he and Munley both took cover and as Hasan walked around one side of the building, he went around the other. “That’s when I saw him again. I told him to drop his weapon and he fired a couple more rounds. He fell, I went up and secured his weapon.”

Todd and Munley together, gunman outside, calm.  Todd takes the first shot at the gunman.

The AP story says this:

Munley, 34, was on the scene within three minutes.

Just over 5 feet tall, Munley is an advanced firearms instructor and civilian member of Fort Hood’s special reaction team. She had trained on “active shooter” scenarios after the April 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. She didn’t wait for backup.

As she approached the squat, rectangular building, a soldier emerged from a door with a gunman in pursuit. The officer fired, and the uniformed shooter wheeled and charged.

Munley alone, gunman running out of the building.  Munley takes the first shot at the gunman.

Why are these reports so different?  And why did they take 2 days to come out?  And whatever happened to the other gunmen?  A Lt. Gen. was talking about them in this video:

Here’s a partial transcript:

“A shooter opened fire. That person was killed. At this time, we are looking at 12 dead and 31 wounded. They are dispersed among the local hospitals in this area in Texas. “The shooter was killed. He was a soldier. We since then have apprehended two additional soldiers who are suspects, and I would go into the point that there were eyewitness accounts that there may have been more than one shooter.”

Usually spokespeople are very careful to dispense only information they can confirm.  He was confident enough to say there were eyewitnesses to more than one shooter.  And how about this from the UK Telegraph:

Four police officers were shot and wounded before they were arrested.

Eyewitnesses said the gunmen were dressed in military uniforms.

What is that all about?  Additionally, this little gem from that AP story smells more than a bit fishy to me:

After firing his Beretta at Hasan, Todd said the suspect flinched, slid down against a telephone pole and fell on his back. Todd recalls hearing people say, “two more, two more.” He first thought they were referring to more shooters, but he realized that the bystanders were urging him to fire two more rounds, Todd said.”

That is strange.  Why would EVERYONE say “two”?  Wouldn’t you think most would say simply “more” or “do it again” or “get him” or “watch out, he’s still alive” or “finish him off”?  Why “two more”?  It is very counter intuitive.  Saying three or one or five more would make just about as much sense.  Logic tells you that people were saying “two more” to indicate the specific number of additional gunmen they saw.

In this story, we hear of 30 to 40 cars driving up to apprehend a suspect at a small building housing golf carts, a few miles from where the incident took place.  30 to 40!!  That is QUITE a bit of suspicion they had!

The man was surrounded for 25 to 30 minutes, until a convoy of vehicles arrived, led by a Ford Crown Victoria and carrying men in suits, and he was taken away, the senior officer said.

I think the military is trying to reroute the story of the three gunmen into a story they want the public to hear, which is one of an individual acting alone.  Search “Second Gunman In Custody At Army’s Fort Hood” (but don’t use Google-they’re evil)  and read about it while you can.  There are many reports.  It was not just one person’s stress induced hallucination.  There were eyewitnesses.  The room was packed with 300 soldiers.  So where are the eyewitness accounts?  I wouldn’t be surprised if the second and third gunman links are scrubbed within the next few weeks.  We will all be able to go on about our business then.  God bless our federal government.  May they keep us in blissful ignorance.

If the other two gunmen were Muslim, why would the military hide them?  They would fit in fine with the ‘Islam infiltrating the military’ angle.  One reason not to reveal more information about them is that this would indicate incredible incompetence on the part of the military.  One guy slipping through the cracks is plausible.  Three guys slipping through would mean the military does not have control over even itself.  How can it conduct operations in foreign theaters if they cannot even keep things on the home front in order?

Alternately, if the second and third gunmen were anything other than Muslim, this little story would take on an ominous new overtone.  Jihadists within their ranks they can explain away; the breakdown of regular soldiers they cannot.  They can even create whatever stories they wish to of how Hasan displayed unusual behavior long before the act of terrorism.  (Don’t act so shocked–as if they would never make anything up for the sake of PR!)  In fact, the list is growing as we blog.  This will allow them to blame the failure to identify Hasan as a threat on a few weak links in the chain of command, discharge those poor saps, and voilá–back to military might again.  As an added bonus, you get a more unified public, more frightened and needing their huge nanny government to grow and protect them even more.  It’s one stop shopping for a rejeuvenation of support for our wars.  Perhaps it is a run up to some aggressive act in Iran.  I certainly hope this is not the case, but if it is, you heard it here first, unfortunately.  (What?  Our sterling government would never make things up to justify undeclared acts of war–would they?)

It is sad and strange when we realize that if this is determined to be an act of terrorism, at least it would be preferable what the alternative implies.  I hope it was solely an act of terrorism by one radical fanatic, I really do, because if in reality the scope was bigger than this, our military is in serious, serious trouble.

Is It Obvious Enough Yet?

…that they do not know what they are doing?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Or perhaps they are doing this on purpose?

 

Ordinary Convention or Meaningful Threat?

Everyone is making a big deal about the phrase “Allahu akbar” Nidal Hasan yelled before opening fire last Thursday on people at Ft. Hood.

This murder spree was a horrible act, absolutely.  Hasan is a criminal and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  It was a terrible tragedy for the victims and their families.  My heart sincerely breaks for them, and the nation rightfully mourns them.  Many bloggers have written excellent pieces on the story and I hope we will continue to receive further news about it and information about the victims and heros in order to properly honor and remember them.

The purpose of this post is simply to clarify something about this phrase, “Allahu akbar”.  It keeps getting bandied about as if it is some key into Hasan’s state of mind at the time–as if it was a battle cry.  On the contrary:  it doesn’t really mean anything at all.

It is NOT some kind of call to Armegeddon.  It is simply a habitual thing people raised in a certain culture say–with the type of fleeting thought attached that great frequency of use engenders.  It is sort of like saying “here we go”, or “okey dokey”, but with a spiritual angle.  With this I don’t mean to make light of the phrase itself, but I’m just trying to give everyone a sense of it’s tremendous conventionality.

It is said before many things, including business meetings, tennis games, and soccer matches.  I am NOT trying to compare a murderous shooting spree to a business meeting, but I’m just trying to point out that the phrase does NOT have the significance that many commenting on this story are artificially attaching to it.

In other words, the guy was going to say something, and this is what happened to come out due simply to habit.  It was not a declaration of any kind.  The act was an act of violence but the phrase was just a filler, not a battle cry.

If A precedes the horrible act B, then you cannot infuse the horror of B onto A.  A will also precede C, D, and E, so what are you going to think about A then?

If the guy next in the tennis court next to you at the health club says “Allahu akbar”, you do not need to be alarmed.  Don’t imagine things that aren’t really there.  It’s an ordinary convention, not a threat in any way, shape, or form.  Just smile and say “okey dokey” back.

The Road

It’s been a year.  How’s it been working out for us?

I was originally thinking of publishing the rant I wrote last year today–the rant that launched a blog.  I sent it out to my family and friends, offending about half of them and surprising the other half.  I used to be considered the self-restrained and calm one of the family.  (Not sure what status it’s morphed into–the obsessed one?  I haven’t asked lately.)  Funny, but when I read it now it seems fairly tame.  Pretty accurate, but fairly tame.  I was most shocked and concerned about the blatant cheating that went on during the Democratic primaries.  It was eye opening.  The media’s complacency was even more upsetting.

I’m in a bit less reactive place now.  The past year’s journey has been a real education.  It’s not about one person, one party, one color, one bill or another.  It’s about a philosophy–about fairness, justice, and liberty.  Obviously the road has turned out to be far more difficult than it seemed it would be this time last year.  Instead of problems solved, we have many more problems created and a future even more uncertain.

In honor of the new road, I hope you enjoy listening to this:

What Do You Think of It So Far?

by Nik Kershaw, from the album “15 Minutes”

You’ve had it all and you wanted more
You’ve had nothing and you wanted for nothing
You take a look through the open door
See it all going on out there
Time goes by, time goes by
And if you didn’t laugh you could almost cry

What do you think of it so far?
Do you wonder there might be something better?
Do you think about where you are?
Do you wonder where you’re going?

Five days a week for a slice of pie
Six pack of beer for an anesthetic
You laugh a lot but you don’t know why
And you don’t seem to care ’bout that
Life goes on, life goes on
You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s almost gone

What do you think of it so far?
Do you wonder there might be something better?
Do you think about where you are?
Do you wonder where you’re going?

This three piece suite
These aching feet
This one way street
This funny old town
This unmade bed
These books unread
These thoughts unsaid
This merry go round

Time goes by
And if you didn’t laugh you could almost cry
Life goes on, life goes on
You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s almost gone

What do you think of it so far?
Do you wonder there might be something better?
Do you think about where you are?
Do you wonder where you’re going?

I do love the traveler/seeker archetype.  Prophetic moments and transcendence and all that.

In other news, November 5 was Guy Fawkes Day in Great Britain.  It’s a funny celebration.  One of the many lovely things about Great Britain is the roundabout way in which you tend to figure things out because things aren’t ‘in your face’ like they tend to be in this country.  It’s a much more subtle place.  Anyway, here’s the story:

Guy Fawkes was one of a group of men who plotted against King James I in 1605.  Here’s a link to a website with more complete explanations (all further quotes are taken from there), but in short, this group put barrels of gunpowder in the basement of the Houses of Parliament in a foiled attempt to blow it to smithereens and destroy the government.  It was mainly a Catholic/Protestant thing, the Catholics being the ones feeling tyrannized.  Although Fawkes was not the ringleader, he was the one caught when the King’s men got word of the plot and stormed the basement.

It affected the country deeply:

Even for the period which was notoriously unstable, the Gunpowder Plot struck a very profound chord for the people of England. In fact, even today, the reigning monarch only enters the Parliament once a year, on what is called “the State Opening of Parliament”. Prior to the Opening, and according to custom, the Yeomen of the Guard search the cellars of the Palace of Westminster. Nowadays, the Queen and Parliament still observe this tradition.

Another interesting factoid:  the word “guy” as we use it today originated from this event.  It’s even etymologized to Guy Fawkes Day in dictionaries.

And every November 5th each town has it’s own “Bonfire Night”.  Ours had a fairly large celebration–food, music, fire twirlers (!) and the traditional gigantic bonfire and fireworks show.  An effigy of ‘the Guy’ is burned.  The chant that is recited is this:

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot.
We see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!

Guy Fawkes, guy, t’was his intent
To blow up king and parliament.
Three score barrels were laid below
To prove old England’s overthrow.

By god’s mercy he was catch’d
With a darkened lantern and burning match.
So, holler boys, holler boys, Let the bells ring.
Holler boys, holler boys, God save the king.

And what shall we do with him?
Burn him!

(This is actually a nursery rhyme.  Chalk this up to cultural misunderstanding if you must, but should a nursery rhyme ever call for burning someone alive?  Really?)

It was one of those things where you really wonder if you are ‘getting it’.  (By this time–our 4th foreign country of residence and umpteenth country visited–I was very used to not ‘getting’ things immediately and was not at all agitated by this fact.  Patience and a little asking around usually worked wonders.)  So here are me and my American friend from down the street the next day:

Me:  So did you and the fam [the family] have fun last night at the bonfire?

Lynn:  Yeah, it was awesome–we got there early and got a place so close to the fire twirlers, we could feel the heat whooshing by.  How about you?

Me:  Yeah, we had a great time.  The fireworks were incredible, especially for such a small town.  Do you get this whole holiday, though?

Lynn:  You mean like why they name the day after a guy who tried to ruin everything?

Me:  Yes–It’s kind of like if you named December 25th “Ceasar Augustusmas” or celebrated “King George Day” on July 4th.

Lynn:  Or if you took off of work on Labor Day….

Me:  Exactly.

Lynn:  It is sort of backwards.  Something is definitely up with that.  Looking around last night I was thinking ‘these people are really having a little TOO much fun for such a seriously debilitating plot this guy was attempting’.  In the US, we don’t name stuff after our enemies.

Me:  I guess we’ll just have to ask Barry.  {Laughter ensues.}  [Barry Gibb was one of our neighbors.  We never actually saw him.  He lived about 2 streets over on a huge estate.  Two bloody years I spent searching the aisles of Sainsburys and hanging around the post office.  You let me down, Barry--I am gutted!]

We asked several of our neighbors.  Turns out they were too polite to come right out and say it, but further research confirmed our suspicions:

Some of the English have been known to wonder, in a tongue in cheek kind of way, whether they are celebrating Fawkes’ execution or honoring his attempt to do away with the government.

If you’ve ever seen the movie “V for Vendetta“, which came out in 2005, you’ve heard of this day and may believe the theme of the holiday to be as the movie portrays it.  In truth, the movie was a switcheroo of the holiday.  The holiday officially focuses on the ‘God save the King’ angle while the movie features a violent anarchist taking the heroic role of the treasonist/patriot.

So which is it–do you shout ‘God save the King’ or do you take the lines “We see no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot” out of context as an anti-government statement?  If you desire to dismantle government or reduce its role are you a treasonist or a patriot?  I guess it depends on which road you are currently traveling.

Anatomy of a Pig…Or…How I Dissected Larry Summers Like a Seventh Grade Science Project*

Purpose

This post is in response to a classic question about the basic nature versus nurture debate.  The main postulate is that although natural gifts and deficiencies exist in all of us (regardless of gender), the forces of nurture are so powerful as to render the effects of the natural gifts fairly insignificant.  In other words, the relationship between nature and nurture is overwhelmingly dominated by nurture.  Therefore, people in positions of authority should refrain from indiscriminate speculation about the statistical significance of said relationship because it is not professional conduct to bully others with one’s random opinion.

Background

It all started with a great post over at DailyBail.com.  The headline was tongue in cheek, as the clever DB is wont to write: “Video:  TARP Hits the Fan:  Neil Cavuto asks Elizabeth Warren ‘Why Doesn’t Larry Summers Like You?’“   Despite the serious nature of the actual clip and unable to contain my displeasure with anything Larry Summers-related, my flippant comment was:

Duh, Neil–Summers doesn’t like her because she’s a girl who can do math (real good-like, too) and he’s pig with not enough sense to keep his trap shut.

I included a link to an article which displayed Larry Summers’ inability to keep his trap shut.  This prompted the following response from a fellow commenter:

SNK, Is there no truth to the inclinations of men vs. women? I mean, I know sexism is very real, but beyond that, aren’t there differences in inclination (percentage-wise)? My sister was the only female physics major in her class, and even she has said “there just aren’t many women interested in physics.”

I’m not trying to pick a fight here, I’m curious and would like to hear your opinion.

And I am happy to oblige.  I promised a very unprofessional response would be forthcoming on this blog and I certainly do not want to disappoint.  (It’s rather late in coming, but five weeks of house guests will do that to you.)

IMHO, this is really a discussion about the abuse of math and science (statistics and genetics, to be specific) and their misuse for personal piggery, not about differences between the sexes per se.  Larry Summers has made comments (while acting as president of Harvard University–and I use the word “acting” as a real double entendre, here) regarding the under representation of women in math and science academia that have been neither well thought out, nor supported with documentation, nor balanced.  Therefore the focus should be on Summers’ lack of sense, common or otherwise, lack of leadership capabilities, and inability to behave appropriately in academic–or any type of professional–settings.

Hypothesis

I think we will find that Larry Summers is a pig.

Materials

1) Boston Globe article from January 17, 2005 (pretty good)
2) Larry Summers’ bio from Wikipedia (eh—good enough)
3) My random opinions (way more than good enough)

Procedure

I read some stuff, applied my random opinions to the subject, and came up with some thoughts which I will hereafter refer to as facts.  (As far as I can see, this is standard operating procedure for most disciplines/professions, including economics, marketing, education, psychology, journalism, blogging, politics, and banking.  Adding a veneer of scientific pseudo intellectualism apparently seals the deal on credibility, too.  Now if I can just slip in the word Schadenfreude, or a little something about Nietzsche, it would near win me a Nobel these days–or at least a bailout!)

Data

There is no data here.  (What do you think this is, a graded homework assignment?)

Analysis and Discussion

We all have inclinations and interests.  Inclinations and interests differ from innate abilities and capacities (or deficiencies) in that they are conditions not present at birth; they are learned.  For example, if I were to perchance come upon Larry Summers walking down the street, I myself would be inclined to smack him upside the head.  I would be interested to see how happy that would make me feel.  (I suspect very.)  Yet I was not born inclined to smack Larry Summers upside the head and/or interested to see how it would make me feel (i.e., I have no innate capacity that compels me to smack him upside the head, etc.).  They are simply an inclination and an interest developed (‘learned’) over time by the convergence of several environmental forces:  my intolerance of stupid bullies, my disgust with Keynesian voodoo so-called economists, my impatience with elitists, and my deep mistrust of anyone related to the current administration with its thievery dressed up as bailout/stimulus mentality.

In other words, my postulated smacking of Larry Summers upside the head would be categorized as a product of NURTURE.

Larry Summers contends that there are innate (inborn) differences in scientific and mathematical abilities between males and females.  Now, I’m sure a discussion of the merits of this argument could go on endlessly.  However, I don’t want to take sides on it, because there is a slight possibility Larry Summers is technically correct (which would not lessen my desire to smack him upside the head, by the way).  I’m guessing, though, that if you could manage strict control over the independent variables in your subjects’ lives (i.e.–the blatancies and subtleties of nurture they receive for years and years on end–an impossibility, really), you would find so little variation between genders as to render the original argument useless.  There would be gadzillions of females who would excel at math and science given opportunities and encouragement precisely comparable to those their male counterparts received.  (“Gadzillions” is a technical mathematical term.  It means ‘lots’.)  Nurture (or environment) is a massive and pervasive force in our lives, so pervasive that people like Larry Summers, people not given to acknowledging reality, tend to fail to even recognize it’s influence.

Time has taught me that success in math and science is due far more to practice, persistence and preparation than any innate ability or capacity.  After all, are any of us, male or female, born with the ability to do calculus or explain nuclear physics?  Of course not.  We need to be taught these things and must march ourselves through particular thought processes to understand them.  These are nurtured skills, not innate abilities.

My main argument with him, this Larry Summers (order: artiodactyla, family: suidae, genus: sussummers, species: scrofalawrence), is his pigosity.  It is hyperly irresponsible for the president of any university, much less a highly prestigious one, to unleash his personal bigotry via pseudo scientific rhetoric.  Throwing out half-baked ideas at a symposium where attendees (female and male) have spent years plumbing the depths of their respective fields is sloppy and disrespectful.

Additionally, Larry Summers failed to cite any of the studies that show little girlies actually score higher than boys on tests in all areas up until middle school.   I personally don’t think one can conclude anything about innate abilities between genders from these studies (I’ll throw out there that it has more to do with the fit between gender learning and modern day teaching styles), but with these I could easily put the kibosh on Summers’ claim that boys have some exclusive superiority in math and science.  That is, if I was as sloppy and disrespectful as he.

What was the point of Larry Summers saying what he did?  In my opinion, it was born of the same immature mentality that causes children to taunt each other with “Boys are better than girls!” or “Girls rule, boys drool!”  Very unbecoming of an adult.

Larry–you dunderhead—grow up!  News flash: to be an effective leader of a group, one must respect its members, and Larry Summers proved he does not respect women.  If he was attempting to be bloviatingly scholarly, he would have brought out a balancing fabrication (or “point”—whatever you want to call it) such as ‘and men are innately deficient in social skills—why, for proof, just look at me!’  OK,  case closed, dude.  I would sure enjoy that Schadenfreude [bingo!].

Larry Summers obviously has an inability to communicate effectively:  he does not know when to stop talking.  I would suggest he stops talking at the moment he stops thinking.  This would make for a fairly quiet Larry Summers, which would be great for our country since at present he is pretending to be an economist.  Plus this is a guy who can’t even stay awake during important meetings.  Credit analysis and fiscal responsibility are so boring!  I imagine he misses A LOT of salient information here and there, so I wouldn’t give a handful of beans for what he thinks about anything.

Worst of all, he has two daughters.  What kind of father makes a judgment at birth about his child’s potential based on imagined ideas of her/his intellectual deficiencies based on a select group of studies and ignoring countering studies?  Answer: a crappy one, that’s what kind.

This world we live in is totally screwy.  Why, right around the time Cavuto was pummeling Dr. Warren with questions about the why-no-Larry-likey situation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Turkish and Armenian diplomats at the signing of a historic agreement to establish diplomatic relations and open borders between the two nations after a century of enmity between their peoples.  (A century!  My math sense tells me that is about 10, no, 1000—um, no, I mean 100 years.  That means it started in the stone age, scientifically speaking.)  The agreement hit a snag, though, and it took Secretary Clinton and other mediators about three hours to help broker a solution.

In other words, this woman helped iron out part of a century old conflict in three hours.  Now that’s my kind of ironing!  (All in a day’s work.)

Compare just this one achievement to wet rag limp noodle full of promise but done nuthin’ yet Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize the other day.  What gives here?!?  America used to be the place where achievement was rewarded, now all you’ve got to do is say the right thing and be in the correct political position to be recognized as some kind of prodigy.

If those lame-o things are your idea of what it takes to be ’successful’, and if you can’t restrain yourself from taking incompletely analyzed social science studies (blasted social “sciences”!), ignoring their severe limitations, then twisting their results to fit your bullying agenda, and if you can’t even mask your immature playground taunting with the regular leadership babble the rest of us are forced to utilize for the sake of fairness and civility, Larry Summers, well then, you can stuff it!

Conclusion

Larry Summers is a pig.  My hypothesis was correct!  I am good at, like, science ‘n stuff!

Well, this post must come to a close now.  I’ve got my own ironing to do.

(*I am indecisive and can’t figure out which title to use—sheesh, I am such a girl!)

Rainbows and smiley faces to everyone!!     

For My Self Amusement

Did you see the veto letter Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent to the California legislature?  It contains a hidden message.  (Follow the letters down the left side.)

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1176 without my signature.

For some time now I’ve lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many
unnecessary bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health
care are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the Legislature just
kicks the can down the alley.

Yet another legislative year has come and gone without the major reforms Californians
overwhelmingly deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is
unnecessary to sign this measure at this time.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Ha ha ho hum.  What a poser.  I posted a comment about it on a blog but got nary a chuckle, so I’m reposting it here to hopefully elicit the laughs it so richly deserves:

Hey, if I wrote something like that
everyone would be mad at me.
Seems unfair.

Arguably, it’s not very professional.

Just because he’s governor, he shouldn’t
expect everyone to be amused by his
regressive personality quirks. My
kids are better behaved than he is.

See–anyone can play that silly game, Ahhnuld. Do grow up.

Dr. Paul Says It All (Again)

(h/t Daily Bail)

Ron Paul on CNN Oct. 20

On bailouts (from 0:58):

“Well, they take care of their own.  There’s a great deal of  influence in Washington from Wall Street.  And I think most people have known about it but they’re really coming to the understanding [of] how it really works.  If things are going well when the bubble is being formed and the Fed makes easy credit [then] a lot of people make a lot of money.  But that’s doomed to fail.  The bubble bursts and rightfully the thing to do then is to put people in jail if they committed fraud and the people who are bankrupt, let them go bankrupt.  Well, we didn’t do that.  Very little fraud was prosecuted and the people who were supposed to go bankrupt got bailed out.  Some went bankrupt.  If they didn’t have enough influence like Lehman Brothers, they went bankrupt, but somebody like Goldman Sachs, they’re in a much better position so they really got the bailout and they’re making tons of money.  So it’s the system that is so bad.”

On regulating (from 3:48):

“Well the regulation has to be on the cause of the problem.  The cause of the problem is easy credit, so the regulation has to be on the Federal Reserve.  Then if things get out of whack, there are still regulations, it’s not like there wouldn’t be any regulation, but the regulations come in a different manner, they come through bankruptcy.  We didn’t permit the bankruptcies.  We did the bailing out.  We perpetuated the problem by inflating the currency and bailing out the people that were benefiting, so fraud is a very significant problem that government should be involved in, you should deal with that, but the government is committing the fraud when they create this money and deal with their special interests.  It’s a fraudulent monetary system.  They run a counterfeiting operation, so yes, the regulations have to be there, but we can’t allow the central bank to create the bubble and say that it is unstable and we can prevent the problems by regulations.  I think it’s all twisted around.  The regulations have to come first….”

Easy credit + supporting fraudulent practices + printing money out of thin air = one big mess

What Would You Do?

What would you do if someone handed you $1000?  And what if it came with the explicit stipulation that this is ‘fun money’, to be spent on yourself only?  No bills, gifts for others, etc.

Just posing a question, that’s all…

Hmm?  Suggestions, please.

File Under: Wish I’d Said That!, parts 2 & 3

It’s so much easier to link incredibly eloquent writers than to write a post of my own.    Very efficient, too, and I do love efficiency!

Here’s an exceptional read on “Peace and the Peace Prize” by Ben O’Neill

And here’s Robert Higgs’ follow up to a previous article (also linked in a post below), “Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Political Economy“.

And You Think We’ve Already Been Through a Major Meltdown?

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  Here’s the type of stuff going on–presented without further comment (I’m gobsmacked and speechless):
Another Goldman executive named to key government post as its profits skyrocket by Glenn Greenwald