|
The first confirmation of voting problems is in. In the town of Sutton,
NH, three people noticed, after having voted for Paul that the Sutton
count was zero.
Link: http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655
Turns out, Paul got 31 votes in Sutton. The votes from Sutton then go to
be tallied by Premier.
For those not yet aware, the 2008 vote totalling is being conducted
behind closed doors by the staff of Premier, a subsidiary of Diebold.
"Behind closed doors" is "for security purposes", say
the Diebold experts.
If this vote counting business turns out ugly, I smell revolution. In
the Ohio recount of 2004, for example, two people were convicted of
falsifying the recount, and there wide-spread statistical and
unexplainable anomalies in initial voting results, such as totals 10 times
greater in a dozen districts than the number of registered voters.
(Example: 400 registered voters, 4000 votes for Bush)
The democrats (in MD) approved of the electronic voting machines years
ago, so don't guess dems and repubs are different. The machines are
appallingly bad, and no third party worth its salt, such as CREF, would
endorse the product. CREF reported security holes to the DHS in 2004, to
which the DHS never responded.
When this country was formed, voting was not hammered out at the
federal level - it was left up to the individual states to do it however
they wanted. We need voting reform - bad. 81% of NH, for example, is using
Diebold/LHS electronic equipment that is neither secure nor which leaves
any kind of a paper trail. It's also being conducted by a private corp!
If you or anyone you know voted for Paul in New Hampshire, they are
working to track down voters who have not signed affidavits to do so. This
is a process of going after their own account of actual vote tallies for
Ron Paul. Here: http://ronpaulvotecount.com/
We may be seeing a recount. Not sure what Paul wants to do. The org is
in the proess, as I say, of trying to reconstruct the NH vote themselves.
The first sign of a voting problem was in Dixville Notch, where 16
votes were counted and 17 votes were cast. This made the news immediately,
and appears to be a potential "straw man". In other words, the
media is raising an issue which will then be resolved (publicly), thus
giving the appearance of having fixed any voting problems in NH.
Straw Men are often deployed to mislead. Charlie Sheen, for example,
who is only one celeb who spoke out on 9/11, was plastered all over the
news when he came out. No one knows of Ed Begley, Jr. or Ed Asner a'tall
(already in on 911 truth at the time). Sheen was a man of very
questionable character, and as likely as anything else was being used by
media moguls to discredit the movement.
We'll see how the investigations turn in the coming days.
- Mark
|
|
Hi,
Mark here.
For years, I've been abbreviating awareness as A (God), existence as E
(creation), and individuation/identity as I (a non-real or illusory
effect). Respectively, the God, the man, and the devil of all things. I
boiled it down to the duality of A and E as the mentally unbeatable
paradox of life, and incidentally, where "I" would simply arise
as the locus of the other two.
Of A and E, where one is unchanging, the other never changes. Where one
is featureless, the other is only featured. These have been A and E.
Deists apparently lead to very similar conclusions. The unbeatable
paradox, then, is to always know that there are "simultaneous
truths", such as "everything matters" and "nothing
matters", and by their simultaneity, they
would always both be true. Or perhaps "fate" and
"destiny", where once again, simultaneously, these would always
both be true. The paradox would always exceed the puny mind capacity.
By accepting an axiomatic or indivisible tandem of A and E in all
things, I would say AE. Thoughts outstanding included the wonder as to
whether or not a dualistic perspective was the best that any mind could
do.
Now... When regarding A and E as a single element, it is to take one
step further, and to say that the A and E together form a single axiom.
Rather than to say it is a tandem of two axioms, it is to literally say
that it is a single thing.
Then I laughed out loud. Thanks, Lary!
I said, "oh my God, it's a diphthong!"
From the Wikipedia...
"In phonetics, a diphthong (also gliding vowel) (Greek
äßöèïããïò, "diphthongos", literally "with two
sounds," or "with two tones") is a monosyllabic vowel
combination involving a quick but smooth movement from one vowel to
another, often interpreted by listeners as a single vowel sound or
phoneme. While "pure" vowels, or monophthongs, are said to have
one target tongue position, diphthongs have two target tongue
positions."
It's just got to be one of those crazy coincidences in life.
Cheers -
Mark
|
|
Hi,
I think it's been 10 days since any email has come from me. Well, that's
how long it took to clear up hardware and virus problems on one of my
machines. Frankly, I deserved it, but as they say, some things happen for
a reason, and so I appear to have finally started to take modern-day
malware seriously. --- It occurs to me that having a general (hit and
miss) understanding of economics might not be a bad idea these days. A
little history and a better understanding of one or two variables could go
a long way in our attempts to navigate present-day economic realities, and
in spite of what the talking heads seem to say. I think it's a good idea
to know where we are at, and how we got here, especially when I hear those
sockpuppets speak.
I think it starts with a fellow by the name of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. When faced with the great depression, he reacted with the
"Big Deal" and the "fiat" money system. He took us off
the gold standard and created a much larger economy than we had when he
entered office.
With the gold standard, our wealth is restricted to (the paltry and
meager) Fort Knox, but when switching to the fiat system, larger changes
in the overall size of our economy can occur. This was the idea, and the
larger economy was put to work employing millions of Americans in
government programs that built things like Mount Rushmore and the Blue
Ridge Parkway (just to name one or two).
Then there was World War II, which expanded the American economy to the
tune of present-day American realities, where literally 5 million American
families gain their subsistence by providing arms, munitions, support and
services to US Military personnel. Since 1945, the only president I know
of to take the big hit and significantly reduce the military machine was
George Bush Sr.
The fiat money system is where we create a pile of paper, and say that
the total amount of paper is equal to the total amount of actual wealth.
What then has to happen is when the total amount of wealth changes, the
total amount of paper has to be correspondingly updated, through
destruction of existing paper or by the printing and distribution of new
money. As long as the paper supply stays comparable to the actual wealth,
this system is sound (on paper), and each dollar holds its present value.
In theory, the fiat money system works very well. In theory, capital
punishment is justice. Let's take a quick look at what happens with the
actual implementation.
The treasury has the task of watching both the money supply and the
buying power that we have. There are figures that we must have to know if
more money needs to be printed and sent out, or brought in and burned, via
the banking system. We have to know what the inflation rate is, because it
represents a situation where the paper count and the actual wealth differ.
The US Treasury Department does this by calculating the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) to see changes in buying power, and the M-1/2/3 money
calculators to determine the total paper supply. (Paper isn't just
dollars, there are also US Treasury bonds/bills)
Did something go wrong? Let's see. We know that if the inflation rate
rises, then either someone has been printing up too much cash, or the
amount of economic activity is dwindling. Inflation represents a cycle,
wherein the paper and the actuality shift from being different to being
the same. Until they get back in tune with one another, there is a known
cycle, or lag, or gap, where we experience calculable effects.
Why do we have to have a gap between the two? I think this is a
fundamental problem with the introduction of a second system - a system of
money, thus creating a place for a lag or a gap wherein the paper isn't
exactly real. High inflation appears to be produced by a somewhat
"false economy". (And then, derivatives of money, the corporate
stock, and derivatives of stocks, such as stock options)
Manipulating the American economy has to be exciting for those who can,
don't you think? Ok, so when calculating the CPI, we are going to find out
what a 2008 dollar can do. Then, we can compare that to what a 2007 dollar
can do, and when we see the difference, we can call up the press and tell
them what the inflation rate is between the two. Change in CPI is what we
use.
One example that comes to mind is, (quite literally they did this), to
say that if a person can buy a 1 GHz computer in 2004 for $500, and a 2
GHz computer in 2005 for $500, then consumer buying power has doubled, or
it has experienced a 50% rate of deflation. According to the US Treasury
Department in recent years, this is one example of what is being done in
the process of calculating changes in CPI. I would like to thank someone
for making my computer half the price (in one year), but I can't afford
the postage.
What this has also meant is that, according to the official figures,
we're not experiencing inflation. It's been around 4%, which aint so bad,
since Bush Jr. took office. This is also part of why another economic
thing has happened, or has been able to happen.
Since December of 2006, at the very least, the US Treasury has been
printing new cash at a rate of $29 Billion each month. It's boosting the
economy, because as soon as all that new cash hits the banking system, it
becomes available to stimulate new economic growth, with loans for
personal and commercial developments. Then again, there is always that
nagging "lag" business going on, between the size of the paper,
and its adjustment to reality. It's that darned duality between the paper
and the reality that gets you, even when the economy is spurred into new
growth. At 4% inflation, it's time to print (if you want to).
What is the total US paper supply? This involves applying the money
calculators, M1, M2 and M3. M1 is more local, and M3 is the most
comprehensive, which tells us the total world-wide amount. Unfortunately,
a couple of years ago, the US Treasury reported to us that the M3
calculator was being removed because it costed too much to perform that
calculation, and, we don't need that thing anyways. We don't know how big
our money supply is. I am starting to feel like a blindfolded barfly, but
I can't afford it, so I guess I'll have to home brew instead. That's what
they did in the thirties, right?
Once the cause of inflation is underway, a cycle goes with it. I had
predicted it would hit the 180 degree point in mid-2006, then I had to
push it back to mid-2007, and now we're starting to see that midway point
for real at the start of 2008. Some have likened inflation to a rubber
band. In the first half, there is more money, and it seems like people
make profits everywhere they turn. In the second half, the values adjust,
and people have a hard time making a profit it seems no matter what they
do.
We are seeing economic stimulus packages, to make it so that we have
more buying power, and so that we can experience more spending and a
larger economy. The current administration has also taken the federal debt
from zero to $9 Trillion in 7 years (actually, they did it in less).
Congress has laws about how much debt we can have, a.k.a. the "debt
ceiling", but then congress came along and raised that ceiling four
times. They'll be doing that again, or we'll have to have them all
arrested and thrown in jail.
One thing that strikes me that few folks recollect is who actually sets
the federal budget and how much we spend. This is the US House of
Representatives. Congress holds the purse strings. When wars get out of
hand led by the White House, for example, congress can step in a choke
their money supply. Of course, then we can have an Iran Contra affair,
such as with the Reagan Administration, where they literally fund their
own wars for efforts in places like Nicaragua and Grenada. But it should
also be noted that no president ever really ratified a US budget, they
just took the cameras and the attention away from everybody else. Oh, how
we love the bright lights and the big stars.
Congress seems to have learned how to hide pretty darned well over the
decades. For example, up until World War II, they would oversee wars.
Since that time, however, they have literally written "blank
checks" to the White House by signing over the power to declare war
if the president thinks that's needed. Next, when the president declares
war, it's not an act of congress. Pretty sneaky, huh? Well, the 20th
Century has seen a number of creeping changes.
With hindsight, and with the production of scholarly works on the fall
of the Soviet Empire, we come to find that it took about 70 years of all
manner of internal corruption to bring that empire down. Dick Cheney tells
us that it was the war in Afghanistan, but I think that would be more like
the straw that broke the camel's back. I think it's more like one of those
joke graphs where the line runs off the bottom of the page. If anything,
the biggest contribution may have been by the Reagan administration and
it's trillion-dollar SDI (star wars) program, scaring the soviets into an
arms race that they couldn't afford. Perhaps comparing Bush Jr. to Reagan
is like comparing John F Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe to Bill Clinton and
Monica Lewinski.
For more background on Bush Jr. in action, we have the bankrupting of
three Texas-based oil companies, all of which he made good money from,
followed by the governorship of Texas, which he took from a surplus to a
deficit, and left the Texas taxpayers with the bill for Rangers stadium.
(Rangers stadium was effectively seized by Bush by way of "eminent
domain"). Dubyah has a history of bankrupting the things he touches,
so I think that, in light of his present office, we should all be thankful
that he is "born again", and therefore, a different man than the
one that he was.
When thinking of the present administration, I am reminded of Dwight D.
Eisenhower and his speech to the nation as he stepped down from office. He
warned us of the might and the power of a phrase that he coined; the
"military industrial complex". Ike knew, from being such a great
general, that since World War II, the US had become, amongst other things,
a huge military machine. In fact, we have military bases in 130 countries
at least, and a military presence in 180 countries around the globe. Like
the Russian says, "Do we have missiles? Of course we have missiles...
We don't know where they are!" Well, I stole that line from Robin
Williams, so I have to give him credit. Ike said that we would get into
trouble if the MI leaders got into the White House. Thankfully, Rumsfeld
is gone, so we only have to deal with Halliburton and the oil barons.
Not unlike Leia Skywalker, there is another. This is a thing called
"commodity-based inflation", which we can't really control, and
which is created by changes in the supply of limited resources, or
commodities, such as oil. When there isn't as much of it, the price for
each barrel changes against the same number of dollars in the system. Oil
is a toughy, too, since it has a way of affecting the price of everything
that gets to you by boat or truck or plane, and for anything burning
energy, such as light bulbs, which help workers see what they are doing
when they weave baskets or bake bread. We have to realize some kind of
adjustment in the period of this administration and to follow, since a
barrel of oil has gone from around $20 to four or five times that much.
Thankfully, and according to the US Treasury, we are not experiencing high
inflation at this time.
We can also expand the present economy to meet the incalculable paper
supply we're sitting on, perhaps by way of a war or a really big hurricane
or something. An all-out strike on Iran would be very helpful, at least in
the short term, to the US economy. Thankfully, congress controls the purse
strings, so we don't have to worry about that. They're too wimpy to
declare war on anybody.
I have to say, I actually dropped Economics 101 twice in college, and
didn't get through it until the third try. They told me that the only good
economy was a growing one. My recommendation is to watch out for what
these people are saying, because I am still trying to come to grips with
what the philosophers are saying, which is is to say that "what goes
up must come down". Since economists are not philosophers, it might
be a good idea to get a second opinion.
We might also be experiencing a "lag" between what the 20th
Century has created, which is global warming, and its actual economic
fallout. But when that happens, the dollar will adjust accordingly, and
everything will be fine.
Health Care may be the one to incur the tens of trillions of dollars in
debt we need to bankrupt the United States. We've got baby boomers
retiring, increases in medical technology, and the World Health
Organization is telling us that world-wide cancer and disease rates will
continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Convert your cash into
spinach, and you might just beat the inflation and skip the medical costs.
I am reminded of human psychology and the important concept of
"mutually assured destruction". Nobody pushes the nuclear
button, because they know they'll die in a matter of hours. The fallout
from modern conventional war takes 10 times the lives lost in combat, but
only by way of its post-war "lag". We also didn't used to
experience the faraway fallout from conventional weapons like we will now,
with the expenditures of eternally irradiating Depleted Uranium munitions
and such. For example, the fallout from Gulf War I has been measured from
Hawaii to the Himalayas.
We often lack compassion. Put another way, all too often we humans seem
to have to experience a present day malady directly to then earnestly
participate in the creation of a better tomorrow. With pain, we mature. As
Willy (Shakespeare) would say, "He laughs at scars who has
none". Empires crumble with drunkenness and laughter. All hail the
Washington poster children; they're bringing us to our enlightenment!
That's it for me, and thanks for listening. Just a reminder - watch out
on the value of your cash and its derivatives in the coming months,
because our economy might stop growing.
Cheers -
Mark
|
|
Hi,
I always write political emails with a personal sense of vision for a
better tomorrow, and it makes me stop to wonder who is sharing my
optimism. The travesties of our day illustrate the needs to be addressed
tomorrow. Is there a sense of hope? Every time I write, I see the
solution.
The Wikipedia is one of a collection of new elements on the horizon,
all born out of the Internet, but I have reacted to its shortcomings.
Important developments to me seem to be coming in the form of informal
informational infrastructure. People are sharing information to the extent
that they know and trust one another, by “word of mouth”, if you will.
There are blogs popping up, and the search engines are giving us
truckloads of information for contemporary topics that we might wish to
dive into directly, as opposed to burial by way of arcane, sequentially
ordered established news and information sources. You can’t dive into a
topic with a newspaper these days like you can with an Internet search
engine. The information at our fingertips is also accessing volumes of
material no one would, by snail mail, subscribe to, or dare to fathom. We
do, after all, have lives, don’t we? Perhaps if you read every article
of every day’s New York Times, from the front page to the back, you
might do Ok.
Our society is highly complex and interdependent. From raw materials to
finish product, for example, it takes a million hands to produce a single
automobile. We go to the experts and the authorities for every piece of
information that we obtain, on virtually every topic, academically or
otherwise. All we need is trust, and each one of us may then participate
in our own topic or group, and happily depend upon the validity of
external sources for news outside of our more immediate domains.
I believe the role of the Internet altogether to be directly analogous
to a character from a series of books know as “Foundation” (1950), by
Isaac Asimov. In his story, Asimov paints the picture of an established
society where science has developed the ability to calculate any and all
of the variables, and to then be able to definitively say where you will
be, for example, next Wednesday at 8 AM. It gives them total control.
One of the central characters that arises in Foundation is “the Mule”;
a human with the head of a mule, he is an incalculable mutation. Society’s
scientists experience problems with their ability to determine, at any
time, his causal chains. The Mule introduces variables that defy their
capacity to calculate his next move, as he relishes in his ability to go
wherever he pleases when he pleases and without any detection.
I believe that the Internet itself is a perfect analogy to Asimov’s
Mule, where established powers are incapable of predicting what it will
produce next. I am thankful to the million or more citizens who have
participated through http://savetheinternet.com
to stop the established powers from seizing control of this valuable
resource and their attempts to gut our Freedom of Information act. May he
be free forever!
While still in it’s initial writing, a next generation Wikipedia is
being drawn up. A site is being built for discussion, and the documents
are being composed. I still have to spit out a few important sections, and
develop the development crew. This is simply a structure for people to
form their own groups, on the internet, employing 3 branches and a set of
checks and balances, as geared for the people’s production of
information, by group or by topic, and as capable of acquiring trust in
the public eye. In my estimation, the Wikipedia just isn’t cutting it.
It’s monolithic, and therefore centralized, and where it appears to gain
greater trust, it appears to gain equally in covert contributions.
There was an idea, some years ago now, known as the “Nupedia”,
which appears to have failed due its mammoth checks and balances
requirements (effectively 9 branches for all information processing). A
compromise may be the order of the day, between the prolific Wiki-like
contributions, and the systems without contributions, as bogged down by
their own infrastructures.
The discussion site for this idea, a.k.a. the “Co-Operative Assembly”,
can be found here: http://groups.google.com/group/coopassembly?hl=en,
and as I say, it is being written as you read this. Congratulations! You
are the first to see it. All are welcome to contribute with their
thoughts, reactions, or the things they would like to see.
Cheers –
Mark
|
