A much misunderstood aspect of information technology is its mythology. Like
in ancient Greece many of dominant myth have pretty vague connection with reality,
if at all. Another problem is that despite rate of technological advancement and
the fact that both hardware and software prices are falling, but total IT costs
are still growing pretty fast.
The development dynamics of information technology at have never
been particularly clear. that gave a fertile grown to an intellectual haze
that can be described as the mythology of information technology (IT). This mythology
is nourished by an unusual set of economic and technical factors that often place
the analysis of IT outside the comfort zone of not only technologists, but financial
officers. One of the recent examples is the rise of IT obscurantism ( see
IT does not matter fallacy).
Studies of mythology and folklore recognize the importance of cultural context
and alternative ways of knowing. Moreover, these areas of inquiry also acknowledge
social processes involved in the origin and sustenance of enduring beliefs that
promote shared understanding of, and response to, "superhuman" phenomena. This
article first presents various interpretations of mythology and its relationship
to folklore in order to build a composite frame of reference that demonstrates
how myth operates today. Next, an examination of library and information science
literature reveals an idea of the information society as a superhuman force
to be reckoned with, defines what information is, and discusses how people use
it. LIS literature, along with writing that circulates in popular culture, also
shows how the concept of information overload functions as a modern-day myth
that shapes comprehension and coping strategies in an era when information--whether
as definitive of society, or as society's chief economic product--has taken
center stage.
Viewing information overload as myth validates its existence without requiring
proof. However, the occasion of developing arguments to focus this view, along
with the absence of systematic cohesive library and information science study
of information overload, indicates a need for documentation. The final section
of this article reports on a pilot project intended to provide evidence and
description of information overload as experienced by a particular folk group.(1)
The opinions of this group are of special interest because its members are studying
to become library and information science professionals. Because folk group
membership affords shared context and meaning consistent with functions of myth,
the pilot project also attempts to learn if a folk group can be considered an
information resource that serves to reduce the effects of information overload.
MYTHOLOGY AND FOLKLORE
The language of myth, folklore, story, and fairytale is intertwined, and
(except in technical folkloristic writing) these terms rarely seem clearly differentiated.
Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, which has made it difficult to
uncover one concise and coherent definition of mythology and its cultural implications
for use in this project. In general, myth, folklore, and story provide cultural
continuity and structure, encompass or inspire ritual, and serve instructional
purposes. Mythology can be considered a somewhat broader or more universal form
than the folktale and is often linked to the sacred or divine. However, the
word myth is also used to mean the opposite of fact. This discussion includes
various views of myth(2) and its relationship to folkloristics in order to extract
the nuance of meaning each offers for a description of the mythology of information
overload.
Johnson &
Johnson has agreed to pay $230 million to the state of New York to resolve an opioid
lawsuit slated to go to trial Tuesday, as negotiations intensify with the company and three
drug distributors to clinch a
$26 billion settlement of thousands of other lawsuits blaming the pharmaceutical industry
for the opioid crisis.
Johnson & Johnson's New York deal removes it from a coming trial on Long Island but not
from the rest of the cases it faces nationwide, including a continuing trial in California. The
New York settlement includes an additional $33 million in attorney fees and costs and calls for
the drugmaker to no longer sell opioids nationwide, something Johnson & Johnson said it
already stopped doing.
States have been trying to re-create with the opioid litigation what they accomplished with
tobacco companies in the 1990s, when $206 billion in settlements flowed into state coffers.
More than 3,000 counties, cities and other local governments have also pursued lawsuits over
the opioid crisis,
complicating talks that have dragged on since late 2019 and that have been slowed down by
the Covid-19 pandemic.
Nicholas Megaw in London Sun, June 6, 2021, 8:00 PM
The UK's competition regulator has been accused of "putting foxes in charge of the henhouse"
after asking the banking industry's own lobby group to design a supervisory body to combat the
dominance of big banks. Dozens of organisations including fintech start-ups, established tech
groups like Experian and Equifax, consumer representatives and a cross-party group of MPs have
raised concerns over the Competition and Markets Authority's plan to use proposals drawn up by
UK Finance as the basis for a consultation on the future of so-called open banking rules. Open
banking forces banks to share valuable customer data with other financial services providers,
allowing smaller firms to make faster lending decisions or offer new services such as budgeting
tools.
Metrics are judged to be misleading if they meet the following criteria:
The website for the metric is nontransparent and provides little information about itself such as location, management team
and its experience, other company information, and the like
The company charges journals for inclusion in the list.
The values (scores) for most or all of the journals on the list increase each year.
The company uses Google Scholar as its database for calculating metrics (Google Scholar does not screen for quality and indexes
predatory journals)
The methodology for calculating the value is contrived, unscientific, or unoriginal.
The company exists solely for the purpose of earning money from questionable journals that use the gold open-access model.
The company charges the journals and assigns them a value, and then the journals use the number to help increase article submissions
and therefore revenue. Alternatively, the company exists as a front for an existing publisher and assigns values to that publisher's
journals.
"... In today's world, brimful as it is with opinion and falsehoods masquerading as facts, you'd think the one place you can depend on for verifiable facts is science. You'd be wrong. Many billions of dollars' worth of wrong. ..."
"... A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test -- that the original results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches. But what they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid. ..."
"... "Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research," observed C. Glenn Begley, then Amgen's head of global cancer research, "this was a shocking result." ..."
"... A group at Bayer HealthCare in Germany similarly found that only 25% of published papers on which it was basing R&D; projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge resources should be abandoned. ..."
"... "The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated further," ..."
"... Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal -- Nature and Science lead the list -- encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws. ..."
"... Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers to read them. ..."
"... But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It's reached the National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers' approach to publication. ..."
"... PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the "perverse incentives" in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman, director of NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture. ..."
"... The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path. ..."
In today's world, brimful as it is with opinion and falsehoods masquerading as facts, you'd think the one place you can depend
on for verifiable facts is science. You'd be wrong. Many billions of dollars' worth of wrong.
A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark
papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. The idea was to make sure that research on which Amgen was spending
millions of development dollars still held up. They figured that a few of the studies would fail the test -- that the original
results couldn't be reproduced because the findings were especially novel or described fresh therapeutic approaches. But what
they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid.
"Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research," observed C. Glenn Begley, then Amgen's head of global cancer research,
"this was a shocking result."
Unfortunately, it wasn't unique. A group at Bayer HealthCare in Germany similarly found that only 25% of published
papers on which it was basing R&D; projects could be validated, suggesting that projects in which the firm had sunk huge
resources should be abandoned. Whole fields of research, including some in which patients were already participating in clinical trials, are based
on science that hasn't been, and possibly can't be, validated.
"The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated
further,"
says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Economist recently estimated spending on biomedical R&D; in industrialized countries at $59
billion a year. That's how much could be at risk from faulty fundamental research.
Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal -- Nature
and Science lead the list -- encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which
a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn't a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have
the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.
"The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims," he says. "And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having
splashy papers in Science or Nature -- it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention."
Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals
pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers
to read them.
But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It's reached the
National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers' approach to publication. Its new
PubMed Commons system allows qualified scientists to post
ongoing comments about published papers. The goal is to wean scientists from the idea that a cursory, one-time peer review is enough
to validate a research study, and substitute a process of continuing scrutiny, so that poor research can be identified quickly and
good research can be picked out of the crowd and find a wider audience.
PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the "perverse incentives" in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman,
director of NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture.
The Commons is currently in its pilot phase, during which only registered users among the cadre of researchers whose work appears
in PubMed -- NCBI's clearinghouse for citations from biomedical journals and online sources -- can post comments and read them.
Once the full system is launched, possibly within weeks, commenters still will have to be members of that select group, but the
comments will be public.
Science and Nature both acknowledge that peer review is imperfect. Science's executive editor, Monica Bradford, told me by email
that her journal, which is published by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, understands that for papers based on
large volumes of statistical data -- where cherry-picking or flawed interpretation can contribute to erroneous conclusions -- "increased
vigilance is required." Nature says that it now commissions expert statisticians to examine data in some papers.
But they both defend pre-publication peer review as an essential element in the scientific process -- a "reasonable and fair"
process, Bradford says.
Yet there's been some push-back by the prestige journals against the idea that they're encouraging flawed work -- and that their
business model amounts to profiteering. Earlier this month, Science published a piece by journalist John Bohannon about what happened
when he sent a spoof paper with flaws that could have been noticed by a high school chemistry student to 304 open-access chemistry
journals (those that charge researchers to publish their papers, but make them available for free). It was accepted by
more than half of them.
One that didn't bite was PloS One, an online open-access journal sponsored
by the Public Library of Science, which Eisen co-founded. In fact, PloS One was among the few journals that identified the fake
paper's methodological and ethical flaws.
What was curious, however, was that although Bohannon asserted that his sting showed how the open-access movement was part of
"an emerging Wild West in academic publishing," it was the traditionalist Science that published the most dubious recent academic
paper of all.
This was a 2010 paper by then-NASA biochemist Felisa Wolfe-Simon
and colleagues claiming that they had found bacteria growing in Mono Lake that were uniquely able to subsist on arsenic and even
used arsenic to build the backbone of their DNA.
The publication in Science was accompanied by a breathless press release and press conference sponsored by NASA, which had an
institutional interest in promoting the idea of alternative life forms. But almost immediately it was debunked by other scientists
for spectacularly poor methodology and an invalid conclusion. Wolfe-Simon, who didn't respond to a request for comment last week,
has defended her interpretation
of her results as "viable." She hasn't withdrawn the paper, nor has Science, which has published numerous
critiques of the work . Wolfe-Simon is now
associated with the prestigious Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
To Eisen, the Wolfe-Simon affair represents the "perfect storm of scientists obsessed with making a big splash and issuing press
releases" -- the natural outcome of a system in which there's no career gain in trying to replicate and validate previous work,
as important as that process is for the advancement of science.
"A paper that actually shows a previous paper is true would never get published in an important journal," he says, "and it would
be almost impossible to get that work funded."
However, the real threat to research and development doesn't come from one-time events like the arsenic study, but from the dissemination
of findings that look plausible on the surface but don't stand up to scrutiny, as Begley and his Amgen colleagues found.
The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources
devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest
of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to
get back on the right path.
Nicholas Megaw in London Sun, June 6, 2021, 8:00 PM
The UK's competition regulator has been accused of "putting foxes in charge of the henhouse"
after asking the banking industry's own lobby group to design a supervisory body to combat the
dominance of big banks. Dozens of organisations including fintech start-ups, established tech
groups like Experian and Equifax, consumer representatives and a cross-party group of MPs have
raised concerns over the Competition and Markets Authority's plan to use proposals drawn up by
UK Finance as the basis for a consultation on the future of so-called open banking rules. Open
banking forces banks to share valuable customer data with other financial services providers,
allowing smaller firms to make faster lending decisions or offer new services such as budgeting
tools.
"... What is clear is that the FBI is taking a thumb-screws page from the playbook of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who deployed the little-used Foreign Agents Registration Act to pursue the white whale of collusion. As Lee Smith reported for RealClearInvestigations , just three people had pleaded guilty to FARA violations in the half-century before Mueller deployed it to pressure and punish Trump allies. ..."
"... And note, the FBI's zeal to crack down on unregistered foreign agents does not extend to the president's son Hunter Biden, who, Paul Sperry reported for RCI, "failed to register as a foreign agent while promoting the interests of foreign business partners in Washington, including brokering meetings with his father and other government officials." It appears that we have two tiers of justice: one for Biden administration enemies, another for its family and friends. ..."
The Biden administration is vigorously pursuing key figures from the phony Trump/Russia collusion scandal that roiled the nation
for four years. But instead of trying to punish the liars who perpetrated that fraud, it is targeting the truth-tellers who challenged
and exposed the conspiracy to negate the 2016 election.
Working from the same playbook used to smear dozens of Trump associates, the administration and its allies are planting stories
based on blind quotes in friendly media outlets to seek revenge.
On April 16,
Washington
Post columnist David Ignatius reported that the Justice Department is investigating Kash Patel – who had worked with Rep. Devin
Nunes and later the Trump administration to reveal the Russiagate hoax – for the "possible improper disclosure of classified information."
Ignatius said he received the tip from "two knowledgeable sources" who "wouldn't provide additional details."
Violating the bedrock principles of American justice and journalism, this article is an exercise in thuggery as the government
uses a powerful media outlet to intimidate and besmirch a citizen without evidence. With nothing to respond to, how can Patel defend
himself? If Patel is lucky, the federal government has only placed a sharp sword over his head that may not fall. If not, he might
be dragged into a lengthy court battle that could drain his finances and also cost him his freedom.
We don't know if Patel broke the law, but note that the administration has shown no interest in pursuing former FBI leaders such
as
James Comey and
Andrew McCabe , who improperly disclosed information regarding Russiagate.
Trump's former lawyer Rudolph Giuliani is also in the "cross hairs of a federal criminal investigation," according to
an April 29
article in New York Times that relied on "people with knowledge of the matter."
At issue, those anonymous sources say, is whether Giuliani was serving two masters when he counseled Trump to remove Marie L.
Yovanovitch as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in 2019. "Did Mr. Giuliani go after Ms. Yovanovitch solely on behalf of Mr. Trump,
who was his client at the time?" the Times reports. "Or was he also doing so on behalf of the Ukrainian officials, who wanted her
removed for their own reasons?"
I'll leave it to the lawyers to determine the wisdom of bringing a case based on the parsing of tangled motives. What is clear
is that the FBI is taking a thumb-screws page from the playbook of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who deployed the little-used Foreign
Agents Registration Act to pursue the white whale of collusion.
As Lee Smith reported for RealClearInvestigations , just three people had pleaded guilty to FARA violations in the half-century
before Mueller deployed it to pressure and punish Trump allies.
And note, the FBI's zeal to crack down on unregistered foreign agents does not extend to the president's son Hunter Biden, who,
Paul Sperry reported for RCI, "failed to register as a foreign agent while promoting the interests of foreign business partners in
Washington, including brokering meetings with his father and other government officials." It appears that we have two tiers of justice:
one for Biden administration enemies, another for its family and friends.
The targeting of Giuliani looks especially suspect and politically motivated after three main news outlets that have driven much
of the false Russiagate coverage – the New York Times, Washington Post and NBC News –
were forced to correct a recent story , once again based on anonymous sources, claiming the FBI had warned Giuliani in 2019 "that
he was a target of a Russian disinformation campaign during his efforts to dig up unflattering information about then-candidate Joe
Biden in 2019." Giuliani was never given such a briefing.
Considering the numerous instances in which the press published bogus information from "informed sources" during Russiagate, one
has to ask why they continue to serve as vehicles for falsehoods. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me
a dozen times and you're not fooling me – we're acting in concert. As RCI editor
Tom Kuntz has argued, journalistic integrity demands, at the very least, that these organizations tell their audience who exactly
had misled them. Confidentiality agreements should not protect liars.
A third example of the Biden administration's effort to punish Russiagate figures is its renewed effort to put former Manafort
associate Konstantin V. Kilimnik behind bars. In an extensive new article for RCI,
Aaron Maté reports that the Treasury Department provided no evidence to support its recent claim that Kilimnik is a "known Russian
Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf." It also refuses to explain how it was able to discover
the truth of Kilimnik's identity, which the two most extensive Russiagate investigations – the 448-page Muller report and the 966-page
Senate Intelligence report – failed to uncover.
This absence of evidence has not stopped the peddlers of the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory from claiming vindication. Democrat
Rep. Adam Schiff casts Treasury's unsubstantiated claim as smoking-gun evidence of collusion. The New York Times reports that the
claim demonstrates that "there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year
before the [2016] election."
Who needs proof when the government says it's so?
The FBI is also putting the screws to Kilimnik, offering $250,000 for information leading to his arrest on witness-tampering charges
involving text messages he sent in 2018 to two people who have only been identified as "potential witnesses" involving Manafort's
lobbying work for Ukraine, not Russiagate.
In an exclusive interview, Kilimnik told Maté, "I don't understand how two messages to our old partners who helped us get out
the message about Ukraine's integration aspirations in [the] EU, and asking them to get in touch with Paul, can be interpreted as
'intimidation' or 'obstruction of justice.'"
Maté also reports that the $250,000 bounty on Kilimnik is more than double the amount the FBI is offering for information leading
to the arrest of murder suspects.
The Biden administration's campaigns against Patel, Giuliani and Kilimnik suggest how the winners of the 2020 election are attempting
to rewrite the history of Russiagate. Having been debunked and rebuked by their own investigators, the conspiracists are taking a
second bite at the poisoned apple. Using anonymous sources to make unsubstantiated charges in the nation's most influential news
outlets, they are seeking to punish people for the crime of exposing their malfeasance.
"... They have looted businesses, burned churches, assaulted police officers, attacked and harassed ordinary citizens eating in restaurants or going about their normal lives "and all with impunity." No FBI raids, no systematic arrests, no dissemination of "Wanted" images on social media. ..."
"... Now I turn to my second contrast: the recent FBI raid on Rudy Giuliani's home and office, while there has been no raid on the home or office of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo . Start with Giuliani: The ostensible justification for the raid was to look for evidence Giuliani violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act. ..."
"... Moreover, Giuliani had for several months been offering the FBI clear evidence, corroborated by texts and emails, that Hunter Biden not only allegedly failed to register as a foreign agent, but also that he was allegedly involved in child pornography, money laundering, and an elaborate Biden family scheme to sell their political access in exchange for millions of dollars in personal gain. ..."
"... Giuliani seems warranted in concluding that the agency's conduct is a "clear example of a corrupt double standard": "One for high-level Democrats whose blatant crimes are ignored, such as Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden" and quite another for "Republicans who are prominent supporters and defender of President Trump." ..."
For a long time, the FBI
has stood as the admirable symbol of a police agency of government, implacably going after the bad guys and neutrally enforcing
the laws. This is the FBI of the movie "The Untouchables," in which special agent Eliot Ness leads his devoted crew of armed
agents in a heroic battle against the forces of organized crime.
Well, forget about the Untouchables. Today's FBI has quite obviously been
corrupted from the top. This is a process that seems to have begun under President Barack
Obama, endured during the Donald Trump years, and has now reached its unfortunate nadir under
President Joe Biden. It's time for conservatives and Republicans to start
thinking about getting rid of the FBI.
I want to highlight two sets of contrasting episodes that give us a window into how biased
and partisan this once-respected agency has now become.
Contrast the treatment the FBI has given to Jan. 6 activists with that it has afforded to
Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters.
The FBI has unrelentingly hunted down Jan. 6 protesters, in many cases confronting Trump
supporters who were merely in Washington at the time, or at the mall rally but not involved in
entering the Capitol. Those who have been arrested have been treated like domestic terrorists,
captured in raids involving drawn weapons, even though the charges against most of them amount
to little more than trespassing or entering a government facility without proper permission.
Nonviolent offenders have been given the same brutal treatment as violent ones. And to this day
the FBI promulgates images "a grandma here, a teenager there" asking
the public to help them track down still-at-large individuals who had something, anything, to
do with the events of Jan. 6.
Contrast this concentrated effort with the lackadaisical, even disinterested, approach of
the FBI to the Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists. Over a period of many months, those
activists have proven far more violent. They have killed a number of people, in contrast to the
Trump activists who killed nobody. (The only person killed on Jan. 6 was Ashli Babbitt, a Trump
supporter shot in the neck by a Capitol police officer.) They have looted businesses, burned
churches, assaulted police officers, attacked and harassed ordinary citizens eating in
restaurants or going about their normal lives "and all with impunity." No FBI raids, no systematic arrests, no dissemination of
"Wanted" images on
social media.
Now I turn to my second contrast: the recent FBI raid on Rudy Giuliani's
home and office, while there has been no raid on the home or office of New York Gov. Andrew
Cuomo . Start with Giuliani: The ostensible justification for the raid was to look for evidence
Giuliani violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Giuliani pointed out in a statement
released by his lawyer, however, that he offered to sit down with the FBI and the Biden
Department of Justice (DOJ) and show them to their satisfaction that there had been no
violation of law. Moreover, Giuliani had for several months been offering the FBI clear
evidence, corroborated by texts and emails, that Hunter Biden not only allegedly failed to
register as a foreign agent, but also that he was allegedly involved in child pornography,
money laundering, and an elaborate Biden family scheme to sell their political access in
exchange for millions of dollars in personal gain.
Both the FBI and the DOJ showed no interest in any of that. Consequently, Giuliani seems
warranted in concluding that the agency's conduct is a "clear example of a corrupt double standard": "One for high-level Democrats whose blatant crimes are ignored, such as
Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden" and quite another for "Republicans who are prominent supporters and defender of President
Trump."
Giuliani
further revealed that the FBI and DOJ had in late 2019 obtained access to his email
database without notifying him. This means that while Giuliani was advising his client Donald
Trump during the impeachment process""a relationship fully protected by attorney""client privilege""the FBI violated the law while supposedly
investigating Giuliani and Trump's possible violations of law.
Here, again, the FBI's extreme diligence in going after Giuliani can be
contrasted with the FBI's failure to act in the case of Gov. Cuomo. Cuomo is
currently involved in two separate scandals, one involving multiple women who have accused him
of sexual harassment, and another involving his direct involvement in a cover-up scheme to hide
the magnitude of nursing home deaths caused by his own policies.
According to the New York
Times , the Cuomo administration was far more culpable than previously known in
deliberately undercounting nursing home deaths over a period of five months.
Let's recall that these deaths need not have occurred. At the direction of
the Trump administration, the U.S. Navy dispatched a hospital ship Comfort to New York to
accept non-coronavirus patients and thus lessen the burden on New York hospitals.
Gov. Cuomo, however, turned the ship away to spite the Trump administration and instead
ordered New York nursing homes to accept the overflow of COVID-19 patients, helping the virus
to spread among vulnerable nursing home populations and thus causing thousands of unnecessary
deaths.
Then, when the Trump administration inquired about the nursing home data in New York, Cuomo
instructed his state health officials, including the health commissioner Howard Zucker, not to
release the true death toll to the federal government, state officials, or the general public.
Cuomo also suppressed a research paper that revealed the data and blocked two letters by
Zucker's department from being sent to state legislators.
While Giuliani's offense remains unclear, Cuomo is guilty of obvious
abuses of power ""actions that have not only put people in their graves but also
amounted, in a statistical sense, to "hiding the bodies." Again,
the FBI is nowhere to be found, and the reason for its absence appears to be that Cuomo is a
Democratic governor who seemingly enjoys immunity as far as today's FBI and
Biden's DOJ are concerned.
Enough is enough! When justice no longer involves the neutral or equal application of the
laws, it ceases to be justice. I realize, of course, that there will be no FBI reform under
Biden. Therefore, I strongly urge the Republican Party to make abolition of the
FBI""shutting down the agency and then reconstructing it from the ground
up""key provisions of its campaigns both in 2022 and 2024.
* * *
Dinesh D'Souza is an author, filmmaker, and daily host of the Dinesh
D'Souza podcast.
A real scientific advance, like a successful date,
needs both preparation and serendipity. As a tired, single medical student, I used to feel lucky when I managed two good
dates in a row. But career scientists must continually create this kind of magic. Universities judge their research faculty
not so much by the quality of their discoveries as by the number of papers they've placed in scholarly journals, and how
prestigious those journals happen to be. Scientists joke (and complain) that this relentless pressure to pad their résumés
often leads to flawed or unoriginal publications. So when Randall Munroe, the creator of the long-running webcomic
XKCD
,
laid out this problem in a perfect
cartoon
last
week, it captured the attention of scientists -- and inspired many to create versions specific to their own disciplines.
Together, these became a global, interdisciplinary conversation about the nature of modern research practices.
Your guide to life on a warming planet
Discover Atlantic Planet, a new section devoted to climate change and the ways it will reshape our world
Explore
The cartoon is, like most
XKCD
comics,
a simple back-and-white line drawing with a nerdy punch line. It depicts a taxonomy of the 12 "Types of Scientific Paper,"
presented in a grid. "The immune system is at it again," one paper's title reads. "My colleague is wrong and I can finally
prove it," declares another. The gag reveals how research literature, when stripped of its jargon, is just as susceptible
to repetition, triviality, pandering, and pettiness as other forms of communication. The cartoon's childlike simplicity,
though, seemed to offer cover for scientists to critique and celebrate their work at the same time.
The concept was intuitive -- and infinitely remixable.
Within a couple of days, the sociologist
Kieran
Healy
had created a version of the grid for his field; its entries included "This seems very weird and bad but it's
perfectly rational when you're poor," and "I take a SOCIOLOGICAL approach, unlike SOME people."
Epidemiologists
got
on board too -- "We don't really have a clue what we're doing: but here are some models!"
Statisticians
,
perhaps unsurprisingly, also geeked out: "A new robust variance estimator that nobody needs." (I don't get it either.) You
couldn't keep the
biologists
away
from the fun ("New microscope!! Yours is now obsolete"), and -- in their usual fashion -- the
science
journalists
soon followed ("Readers love animals"). A
doctoral
student
cobbled together a
website
to
help users generate their own versions. We reached Peak Meme with the creation of a
meta-meme
outlining
a taxonomy of academic-paper memes. At that point, the writer and internet activist Cory Doctorow
lauded
the
collective project of producing these jokes as "an act of wry, insightful auto-ethnography -- self-criticism wrapped in humor
that tells a story."
Put another way: The joke was on target. "The meme
hits the right nerve," says Vinay Prasad, an associate epidemiology professor and a prominent
critic
of medical research
. "Many papers serve no purpose, advance no agenda, may not be correct, make no sense, and are
poorly read. But they are required for promotion." The scholarly literature in many fields is riddled with extraneous work;
indeed, I've always been intrigued by the idea that this sorry outcome was more or less inevitable, given the incentives at
play. Take a bunch of clever, ambitious people and tell them to get as many papers published as possible while still
technically passing muster through peer review and what do you think is going to happen? Of course the system gets gamed:
The results from one experiment get
sliced
up
into a dozen papers, statistics are
massaged
to
produce more interesting results, and conclusions become
exaggerated
.
The most
prolific
authors
have found a way to publish more than one scientific paper a week. Those who can't keep up might hire a
paper
mill
to do (or fake) the work on their behalf.
In medicine, at least, the urgency of COVID-19 only
made it easier to publish a lot of articles very quickly. The most prestigious journals --
The
New England Journal of Medicine
, the
Journal of the American Medical Association
,
and
The Lancet
-- have traditionally reserved their limited space for large, expensive
clinical trials. During the pandemic, though, they started rapidly accepting reports that described just a handful of
patients. More than a few CVs were beefed up along the way. Scientists desperate to stay relevant began to shoehorn
COVID-19 into otherwise unrelated research, says Saurabh Jha, an associate radiology professor and a deputy editor of the
journal
Academic Radiology
.
A staggering
200,000
COVID-19
papers have already been published, of which just a tiny proportion will ever be read or put into practice. To be fair,
it's hard to know in advance which data will prove most useful during an unprecedented health crisis. But pandemic
publishing has only served to exacerbate some well-established bad habits, Michael Johansen, a family-medicine physician
and researcher who has
criticized
many
studies as being of minimal value, told me. "COVID publications appear to be representative of the literature at large: a
few really important papers and a whole bunch of stuff that isn't or shouldn't be read," he said. Peer-reviewed results
confirming that our vaccines really work, for example, could lead to millions of lives being saved. Data coming out of the
United Kingdom's nationwide
RECOVERY
trial
have provided strong evidence for now-standard treatments such as dexamethasone. But that weird case report?
Another modeling study trying to predict the unpredictable? They're good for a news cycle, maybe, but not for real medical
care. And some lousy studies have even undermined the treatment of COVID-19 patients (
hydroxychloroquine
has
entered the chat).
I should pause here to acknowledge that I'm a
hypocrite. "Some thoughts on how everyone else is bad at research" is listed as one of the facetious article types in the
original
XKCD
comic, yet here I am rehashing the same idea, with an internet-culture
angle. Unfortunately, because
The Atlantic
isn't included in scientific databases,
publishing this piece will do nothing to advance my academic career. "Everyone recognizes it's a hamster-in-a-wheel
situation, and we are all hamsters," says Anirban Maitra, a physician and scientific director at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
(He created a
version
of
the "12 Types" meme for my own beloved field: "A random pathology paper with the phrase 'artificial intelligence' in the
title.") Maitra has built a successful career by running in the publication wheel -- his own bibliography now includes more
than
300
publications
-- but he says he has no idea how to fix the system's flaws. In fact, none of the scientists I talked with
could think of a realistic solution. If science has become a punch line, then we haven't yet figured out how to get rid of
the setup.
While the
XKCD
comic
can be read as critical of the scientific enterprise, part of its viral appeal is that it also conveys the joy that
scientists feel in nerding out about their favorite topics. ("Hey, I found a trove of old records! They don't turn out to
be particularly useful, but still, cool!") Publication metrics have become a sad stand-in for quality in academia, but
maybe there's a lesson in the fact that even a webcomic can arouse so much passion and collaboration across the scientific
community. Surely there's a better way to cultivate knowledge than today's endless grid of black-and-white papers.
BENJAMIN MAZER
is a physician specializing in laboratory medicine.
A major scandal is unfolding in the US naval community. It turned out that a whole class
of ships, on which America had pinned great hopes a couple of decades ago, turned out to be
utterly incapable of combat. What exactly are the problems with these ships? Why did they
only show up now? What does the massive corruption in the United States have to do with what
is happening?
Political events in the United States have overshadowed everything that happens in this
country. Including one event related to the Navy, which would indeed have exploded.
We are talking about a whole type of warships, both already delivered to the US Navy, and
those still under construction – the so-called Littoral combat ship (LCS) of the
Freedom type. And it's not that they're useless. And not at the prohibitive cost. And not
even that the gearboxes of the ship's main power plant (GEM) do not withstand the maximum
stroke, and with the speed of 47 knots, which was the ridge of this project, he will never be
able to walk – they also resigned themselves to this.
But at the end of 2020, it turned out that they generally cannot move faster than a dry
cargo ship for more or less a long time. That is, it is not just scrapping metal; it is also
almost stationary scrap metal.
Voice of America CEO Accused Of Fraud, Misuse Of Office All In One Week
Fresh crises and fresh challenges confront the Trump-appointed CEO of the parent of Voice
of America, even with less than two weeks left of the Trump presidency.
To start, the Attorney General of the District of Columbia this week accused U.S. Agency
for Global Media CEO Michael Pack of illegally funneling more than $4 million to his private
documentary company through a not-for-profit that he also controls.
Senator Rand Paul accused Georgia and other states of using the COVID-19 pandemic to steal
the election in a move he says could have came from the playbook of Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm
Emanuel, who famously said, "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Appearing on Fox News prior to the Wednesday Senate hearing on election irregularities,
Senator Paul was asked how revelations, such as the one out of Georgia showing more than 1,700
voters illegally submitted two ballots during the Nov. 3 contest, would effect the upcoming
runoff elections in the Empire State of the South.
Paul would respond, saying: "You'd think that all of this would be investigated and tried to
be fixed before the election."
He also pointed to potential illegal voting activity in Nevada:
"We're going to hear testimony from Nevada where 15 hundred people were deceased and
should not have voted, four thousand people were illegal aliens, and 15 thousand people voted
from commercial address when you have to vote from a home address."
Echoing the case laid out by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his recently dismissed
Supreme Court lawsuit, Paul accused states of using the COVID-19 crisis to dodge state and
federal election law, comparing the move to a play right out of the Obama, Rahm Emanuel
playbook:
"It's sort of Obama, Rahm Emanuel's playbook. They took the crisis of COVID and then they
changed election law not by changing law at the state legislature, they had secretaries of
state and or governors simply by fiat change the law to say 'oh you can keep counting votes'
when the law did say that. So, this election really was stolen in a way and it was stolen
because people changed the law "
Shortly after his appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
famously uttered the words "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" during a corporate
panel sponsored by the Wall Street Journal .
"What I mean by that is never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it's an opportunity to
do things that you had never considered, or that you didn't think were possible," Emanuel would
explain at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_mzcbXi1Tkk
Trump Campaign Attorney, Jesse Binnall, would laid out similar accusations of voter fraud to
those given by Senator Paul during the Wednesday Senate hearing.
See Binnall's opening statement below:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/RpLAW-7FBPs
But, Senator Paul was not done, as Douglas
Braff reports via SaraACarter.com , during today's Senate hearing examining irregularities
during 2020 presidential election the Kentucky Republican claimed:
"The fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen...And the only way it'll be fixed
is by, in the future, reinforcing the laws."
"But I think [Kreb's] job was keeping the foreigners out of the election. It was the most
secure election based on the security of the internet and technology, but he has never voiced
an opinion [ ] on whether or not dead people voted -- I don't think he examined that," Paul
said toward the end of his speaking time, then questioning if Krebs examined non-citizens'
voting.
Many Republicans, in alleging that widespread election fraud occurred in the 2020 election,
have often cited claims that a lot of dead people and non-citizens voted. The over 50 lawsuits
challenging the results of the election in certain swing states alleging election fraud have
overwhelmingly failed in the courts.
"So to say it was the safest election -- sure, I agree with your statement if you're
referring to foreign intervention," Paul continued.
"But if you're saying it's the safest election based on no dead people voted, no
non-citizens voted, no people broke the absentee [ballot] rules, I think that's false and I
think that's what's upset a lot of people on our side is that they're taking your statement
to mean 'Oh, there were no problems in the elections.'"
"I don't think you examined any of the problems that we've heard here," he added, "so really
you're just referring to something differently, the way I look at it." ay_arrow 1
wee-weed up 6 hours ago (Edited)
Okay, Sen Rand Paul...
Now put your credibility where your mouth is...
And back up Mo Brooks on Jan 6th when he stands up to challenge the validity of the
election.
This will call for congresscritters with balls enough to say, "This illegal voting that
occurred threatens the Republic and will not stand!"
US Banana Republic 6 hours ago
Do you know why Biden is telling everyone to stay home from his inauguration (which will
never be anyway)?
Because NOBODY would have come. With or without COVID being a factor.
Fraudly Dementia Boy who is supposedly the most popular Democrat in history according to
the vote, never would have gotten more than 12 people to show up to see him sworn in,.
EightyEight Mike 6 hours ago remove link
"17 Intelligence Agencies confirmed that there was foreign interference in the
presidential election."
Remember hearing that every day?
sgt_doom 5 hours ago remove link
Even Matt Taibbi debunked that bullcrap --- a couple of guys at the CIA, friends of the
Clapper/Brannan bromance, who later transferred to the NSA, to prattle the same bullcrap!
[ China (the CCP) owns UBS Securities Co LTD >> which owns Staple Street Capital
>> which owns Dominion >> ergo, CCP owns Dominion --- this is the way it is
done in int'l finance]
Doom Porn Star 6 hours ago (Edited)
Laws were NOT changed. The legal procedures for changing the voting laws were NOT
followed.
The very laws about changing the election laws were not followed and thus laws were not
changed.
For instance: in Pennsylvania the Legislature is the only authority that can change the
state constitution and the laws governing elections within. The Legislature did NOT change
the constitution of Pennsylvania.
Saying that laws were changed is not the same as actually going through the legal
procedures required to change the laws and enacting new legally binding legislation.
Saying "We changed the laws."doesn't change anything no matter how many times you repeat
the phrase.
They did NOT change the laws -which is why SCOTUS freaked out and refused to hear the
case.
IF SCOTUS actually had been forced to admit that the laws were not actually changed ,
despite the repeated insistent rhetoric that they had been changed, Trump would easily have
won the Electoral College.
PGR88 6 hours ago
Let's look at California
This year, due to "COVID-19," California mailed out 25 million ballots to everyone on
voter rolls. Remember also, their DMV automatically registers everyone to vote - including
illegals, who are given drivers licenses. Mail-in-voting in CA has been a trend, but now
Newsom wants this to be permanent.
There are no checks on non-citizens voting.
Voter rolls have not been purged of people who left the State or who changed addresses
In November 2020, approx, 7 million ballots were returned. Normally, in some districts, up
to 10% of mail-in ballots may be rejected for problems. This year, due to the vast numbers,
less than 0.01% were rejected.
It is absolutely impossible for state election workers to check voter rolls, signatures,
addresses on 7 million ballots - so in effect, NO checks occur
California also allows "ballot harvesters." Any organized group my collect ballots from
Voters, and turn them in. Some activist groups are even funded by the state to "harvest"
ballots. That means political actors are collecting ballots, completely outside of any
verification or chain-of-possession steps.
I dare anyone to tell me such a system is not full of manipulation and fraud
NoBigDeal 6 hours ago remove link
The GOP have to fight this in the court of public opinion because no court judge is
prepared to listen to the case. They accuse them of telling lies without looking at the
evidence. A cynical Catch 22 position.
As the administrators of justice this is a frightening heads up for anyone who thought
there was any integrity and fairness in the legal system.
It's all bribes now..
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 5 hours ago (Edited)
Imagine sitting in court for tax fraud and the prosecutor saying........ "we gotta make
sure this doesn't happen in the future.".....but you get to walk and keep the money you
stole.
Onthebeach6 6 hours ago remove link
The Deep State actors are still trying to steal it by claiming no CCP interference in the
election.
The report on foreign interference in the US election is due for release on Friday (18
th ) afternoon. This will be 45 days after it was requested by the President. It
may be delayed.
The report is being prepared by the DNI (Department of National Intelligence) which is an
umbrella organization over 16 intelligence agencies.
There is currently a massive ongoing fight between agencies in respect of those who wish
to include the evidence of Chinese CCP involvement and those who wish to cover this up and
blame Russia.
Director Ratcliffe of the DNI wants the CCP involvement included in the report and has
stated that he will not sign the report unless this detailed CCP information is included.
It is important to understand that there is both evidence of CCP helping to fix the
election and ongoing CCP pressure to ensure that their asset Biden is sworn in as
President.
It is clear that CCP and deep state assets as well as the DNC and big tech worked together
to steal the election and remove Trump in support of a globalist agenda that would enrich a
small minority whilst impoverishing most Americans.
WatchOutForThatTree 2 hours ago
Whether the "election" turned out the way you wanted or not, it's pretty damned obvious
this bitch was rigged.
Can all the stupid trolls and mindless posters please go back into your caves? The
quality(or lack thereof) of discourse here sucks nowadays...
Linguo 1 hour ago
Rigged ? Corporate money by the billions, voter suppression, two parties whose sole
allegiance is to Wall Street deliberately excluding third and fourth parties and
gerrymandering to name a few, contributes to the democratic process ? What planet do you live
on ? This country has never been a democracy. If the election was rigged, why did the
republicans do well with the exception of the racist war criminal who is personally
responsible for hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 deaths, King BS the 1st ? Idiot.
wimvincken 3 hours ago remove link
It's unbelievable what happened in the US. Many countries have simple ID driven elections.
You show your ID and vote. Simple.
And in case the country has a computers, that computer can check if you're a citizen and
if you already have voted in almost real-time. Simple.
I didn't know that the US doesn't have computers. Who would have thought that? /sarc
Sorry, but the incompetence is there running amok. Strategy is not one of the strongest
thing there, because they could predict something like this to happen beforehand. The way how
the Americans vote is simply asking for trouble like this. Now I'm curious if they want to
fix it. I don't think so.
Soloamber 3 hours ago
The winner of the USA elections is now who cheats best .
The Democrats did nothing for four years except the fraud impeachment and the coordinated
effort to steal the election . It was their only chance with Dementia man .
Pdunne 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Elections are won or lost these days with influence and money.
It is time to go back to the days when only individuals can donate to a campaign, not more
corporate money or dark funds for PAC's.
Candidates will always pander to the money and if it was coming from the people maybe the
people would get a fairer government. play_arrow
ronin12 PREMIUM 4 hours ago remove link
It's super fantastic to hear Rand Paul speak the truth.
So wtf is he actually going to DO about it?
Soloamber 3 hours ago remove link
Three full years of MSM Russia , Russia started by the Clinton's , CIA , Obama and the
biggest dip **** to run the FBI .
Mass election fraud ....cheating Trump out of an obvious win . NOTHING .
Move on because the gang rapists say so .
Voters one access to democracy stolen by the corrupt Democrat Party , negated by an
algorithm, dead voters
, vote harvesting, billionaire globalist determined to destroy the USA and Chinese money
.
Then people like sleeve bag Schumer unilaterally trying to bribe students with their own
credit card .
Biden was right dark days .
Babadook 4 hours ago remove link
Gullible. That is the only word that describes the fantasy of faith in using electronic
voting machines. Pen, paper & observers work perfectly well in other developed
countries.
Don Storm 4 hours ago
Like someone posted earlier on ZH:
" In 2020 California mailed out 25 million ballots to everyone on voter rolls. Remember,
the DMV automatically registers everyone to vote including illegals, who are given drivers
licenses. Mail-in-voting in CA has been a trend, but now Newsom wants this to be
permanent.
There are no checks on non-citizens voting. Voter rolls have not been purged of people who
left the State or who changed addresses.
In 2020, approx. 7 million ballots were returned. Normally, up to 5% of mail-in ballots
may be rejected for problems. This year, due to the vast numbers less than 0.01% were
rejected.
It is absolutely impossible for state election workers to check voter rolls, signatures,
addresses on 7 million ballots. So, NO checks occured whatsoever.
California allows "ballot harvesters." Any organized group may collect ballots from voters
and turn them in. In fact, some activist groups are even funded by the state to "harvest"
ballots.
I DARE anyone to show that such a system is NOT subject to total abuse and fraud on a
massive scale. "
Here we have our answer, and California isn't the only state that allowed for such a weak
mail-in ballot system.
Perhaps even more disturbing, why were mail-in ballots allowed on such a massive scale to
begin with? And, we are not even talking about Dominion and other crap that took place.
Bjorn2bebad PREMIUM 4 hours ago
I live in Japan and they sent me a ballot - to Tokyo! I have not lived in CA for 8
years!!!
Nullifytodefy1835 6 hours ago remove link
Do you think that signature verification, the very thing that was touted, as being the
very thing, that makes voting by mail safe, secure and fraud free, was thrown out the window
for this election. Literally, the PA SOS told the election staff that ballots cannot be
excluded because of signature mismatch, along with a host of other "irregularities" that
would have the ballots, like the 26,000 that were tossed during the primary, excluded from
being legal ballots that count. It concerns me that, the talking heads parrot the signature
verification talking point everywhere you look, knowing that they had no plan on ever doing
such. It really smacks of impropriety and corruption, if you only look at that, and that
alone. When you then take account of the other issues, it looks like a stolen election. I am
certainly not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, but I have had an issue with election
fraud for many years, as I have personally known of a migrant advocacy group that would bus
the non citizens to the polling places and they would vote. I reported this many times, still
it continued. Still it continues. When the only "proof" of citizenship you must provide, is a
check in a box that you, "attest under penalty of perjury" that you are a citizen, blah,
blah, blah, there is bound to be those that take advantage of the lack of oversight. Wherever
there is an opportunity, a criminal, fraudster or corrupt actor, will take advantage, to the
fullest extent possible. Human nature.
While many seem to prefer a multi-millionaire tycoon that inexplicably became a politician,
you prefer a politician that inexplicably became a multi-millionaire. That's fine, but I
don't recall hearing any consistent policy from Joe Biden other than his promises to not be
Donald Trump.
The truth is that you don't like Trump, or perhaps you don't like his policies. Don't
pretend you did an analysis and decided that Biden has better policies, as we haven't seen
any of Biden's policies.
You are fine with ignoring Biden's threats to withhold aid from the Ukraine unless they do
XYZ, but it's a "thug's approach" when Trump does it?
"... If you want a quick rundown of the Burisma op and Hunter's role in it, check out this 2019 report in the Wall Street Journal. This respectable news outlet might not have called what he did there as "corruption" or "graft," but that's exactly what it was: Hunter traded his dad's name and access for money. ..."
What's
truly scandalous about this whole Hunter thing is that it shows just how normalized elite
corruption is in our imperial society and how little anyone at the top cares.
Last week I stepped away from the Internet for 24 hours and came back to find the most
ridiculous thing took place: Twitter decided to just straight up censor a New York Post story that
weaponized Hunter Biden's boring rich kid degenerate life and his corrupt dealings in Ukraine.
This crude attempt at
censorship only inflamed interest in this obvious h
Glenn, was curious for your take on Yasha Levine's piece on the matter. As far as the
censorship angle goes, I think you are both in agreement, but as far as just how big a story
this really is, he seems to be a little more jaded. https://yasha.substack.com/p/yes-hunter-biden-is-corrupt-its-one
It's unclear at this point how much Joe knew about what was going on. For my part, I suspect
he knew but was not actually directing Hunter's activities. I actually also doubt that he has
any idea that a piece of the China deal was being held for him, if indeed it was.
That said, I think it is clear that he knew that Hunter was throwing the Biden name around
to gin up business deals and he didn't tell him to stop it.
I think it's also clear that the media in general is desperate to avoid any mention of the
story...which is, in my mind at least, the best argument to vote for Trump. A lapdog media is
no check on the crazy stuff that happens in DC
If you want a quick rundown of the Burisma op and Hunter's role in it, check out this
2019 report in the Wall Street Journal. This respectable news outlet might not have called what
he did there as "corruption" or "graft," but that's exactly what it was: Hunter traded his
dad's name and access for money.
So it's strange that people have been getting so worked up over this New York Post story.
Even if the emails end up being fake or some details were fudged, it's doesn't change anything
because they're riffing on something real. If Hunter hadn't sold his access to a Ukrainian
oligarch, there would be no story here -- fake emails or no. And that's what's truly scandalous
about this whole Hunter Biden thing: It shows just how normalized elite corruption is in our
imperial society and how little anyone at the top cares about it.
Watching liberals deflect this reality by screaming about some devious foreign plot to
subvert democracy well, it's hard to be shocked or outraged anymore. All you can do now is mock
it and laugh.
-- Yasha Levine
PS: Aside from all the other problems, screaming about "the Russians" every time Hunter's
corruption comes up is yet another example of the xenophobia and racism that's become totally
normalized among our liberal elite.
Each time I read about Hunter's scandal in Ukraine, I have to think of VP Joe Biden and his
family! They all, in this way, traded in VP Biden's name and position! So the real question is,
why is this behavior so widespread amongst these family members?! Honestly...without
cooperation from the VP, would that have happened to the degree it did?!
Let's see...."If you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the one billion
dollars!"
Also, I see that you brushed on the fact that it might be corruption, but it's been
legalized: "But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even
himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption."
So what Levine is saying is that - yeah it's bad, but it's not only legal - it's been going
on for years and across both parties.
from a purely political standpoint, the reason once credible liberal/mainstream sources seek
to suppress/malign right wing and conservative voices is simple: these voices would inform
policy as most americans would embrace those voices. most people want to hear tucker carlson
call looters...looters - especially when no one else is saying it. and want to see fair and
impartial handling of media. so every viewpoint is ignored, or derided...this isnt to say that
righwing voices are always correct - just that they appeal to a deep seated need that is
missing on the left: simplicity. not everything has to be analyzed to death. not everything has
shades of white supremacy. not everything reeks of...the list goes on and on. some things are
just simple. we need safety. we need a good economy. the truth is multiplex and evolving, and
not everything is just because a dark web of college educated journalist elitist say so. trump
and his supporters exist because of msm. they enabled him, they created this massive nationwide
gaslighting of simple straight forward policies and ideas that most people have held peacefully
for decades (like the fact that censorship is indeed bad). and if he wins, it'll be because of
the deeply corrupt media elites. and i hope he wins. they deserve it.
on this article, it looks like hunter did some shady stuff, but as for this story, it lacks
real credibility, and as a consumer of news in america, i'd ask the question why msm ran with
russiagate for 3 years with zero credible evidence but is silent now. the truth is simple. we
don't need to go further.
"... Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land ..."
"Former Biden insider Tony Bobulinski allegedly has a recording of Biden family operatives
begging him to stay quiet , or he will "bury" the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's
overseas dealings.
According to The Federalist 's Sean Davis, Bobulinski will play the tape on Fox News'
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Tuesday , when Carlson will devote his show 'entirely' to an
interview with the Biden whistleblower."
"According to a source familiar with the planning, Bobulinski will play recordings of Biden
family operatives begging him to stay quiet and claiming Bobulinski's revelations will "bury"
the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's overseas deals."
As The Federalist notes:
The Federalist confirmed with sources familiar with the plans that Bobulinski, a retired
Navy lieutenant and Biden associate, will be airing tapes of Biden operatives begging
Bobulinski to remain quiet as former Vice President Joe Biden nears the finish line to the
White House next week.
Bobulinski
flipped on the Bidens following a Senate report which revealed that they received a $5
million interest-free loan from a now-bankrupt Chinese energy company .
According to the former Biden insider, he was introduced to Joe Biden by Hunter, and they
had an hour-long meeting where they discussed the Biden's business plans with the Chinese, with
which he says Joe was "plainly familiar at least at a high level." " Zerohedge
--------------
First of all, Bobulinski is NOT a "retired Navy lieutenant." He is a former Navy
Lieutenant.
Well, folks, it's up to you to watch TC's show tonight if you want to learn about this.
Tucker's show is the most watched news show in the history of cable television, so the pain
should not be too great, pl
I don't watch cable TV so I'll have to depend on the objectivity of observers. I'll be
curious who / what is a "family operative"? are they traceable like a military
chain-of-command?
in related news, we can get a fix on the play between private / public behaviors & the
pace of Justice winding.
Tucker Carlson's show is my favorite news/commentary show. I try not to miss it. Because
of the fact that he seems to try hard to verify his sources--and the people he interviews, I
trust him. He also tries to provide guests from the left in an attempt to be fair.
He's definitely not a Hannity, who is the one who turns many off of FOX (though Hannity
comes right after Tucker).
Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling
indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land .
Thank goodness the Federal Judge has allowed the lawsuit by the private citizen and
writer, based on the 1990s allegation, to procede without government interference. I'm sure
nobody will do that to democrats in the future. Meanwhile in the Flynn case the DOJ confirms
that the govenment documents and discovery exhibits are ture and correct. I'm sure Judge
Sullivan will procede expeditiously with granting the unopposed motion to dismiss that
case.
This story interests me because I believe he is the first to leave the sinking ship but
not the last.
There would be no reason for this if he thought Joe would win and the investigation would be
snuffed out.
If Trump wins there will most likely be a new version of "Let's Make A Deal" being aired on
the nightly news.
I am down to one package of popcorn. I need to restock.
Actually, indulgences were more akin to BitCoins. Especially after 1567, when His Holiness
the Pope finally officially banned them... but they had been still produced and sold in large
quantities. In France only Richeliue put a stop to this con.
Serve me my plate a Crow. Maybe.
He is saying now that he is 2nd generation military and that they pissed him off claiming he
was a Russian asset.
That is plausible.
Maybe it is both?
Regardless it seems he has a great deal of proof.
I was convinced during the interview. Bobulinsky seemed pretty convincing in his concern
for his own reputation, having been associated with the Biden "Mafia" in the first place.
It was clear during the interview that he had provided Tucker verification for his
claims.
I am more concerned that this revelation comes too late and that many, many people have
voted early. He referenced some hearings that will be held in Congress. I doubt that will
affect the election, given the slow pace of anything getting done in Congress. I voted early,
but I am not personally concerned because I did NOT vote for Biden; however, I am concerned
that those who voted early for Biden could not now change their votes.
SO, if I understand the situation correctly, Bobulinski was essentially sought after, used
and then screwed by the Bidens, which seems risky on the part of the clan. But I guess if Joe
wins the election, they will have gotten away with it as I can't imagine, in spite of any
damning evidence, the Bidens will suffer the same punishing rectal examination-like scrutiny
and vilification the Trump family's been subjected to.
Col Lang,
Hoping you write about your assessment of B and what he had to say.
I found him to be generally credible. All of his motives for singing largely make sense to
me. I think he's a patriot. Some good supporting evidence. He's sharp. I liked him. He's the
kind of guy I'd enjoy working with.
I don't know anything about the realm of international deal making and finance. I'm
wondering how a Navy O3 works his way to enjoying yachts in Monaco while making $millions. Is
he an Annapolis guy? Tight with the right classmates? Not a lot to be found on him via
Google.
He was no longer in the navy when he was messing around with the Biden familia. He was
probably in the Navy three or four years. He ought to lay off on that. I'll think it over
tonight.
Once Wray's FBI gets done with the Rusty Wallace Noose Case they'll have time to deep dive
the laptop he's had for almost a year.
Col.,
Bobulinski seemed awful polished during that interview. Almost too good to be true. Hunter
being a druggy and Burisma payments being real certainly lend an air to credibility.
Turns out Patrick Ho Hunters partner in CEFC had a FISA warrant on him when he was nabbed
in New York awhile back. His first call was to Hunter to seek legal advice and Hunter
represented him. So them scumbags in the FBI have been sitting on this for awhile and will
use it on Joe (if elected) when needed. Must be modus operandi at the FBI in gathering dirt
on all politicians via FISA's, Hoover is still there.
As with all of us Bobulinski is not lily white but is making an effort to clean his act and
those around him. Lily White always comes in degrees. Not much in the NY Times, Wash Post or
WSJ this morning but the WSJ deserves a little credit with McBurn's editorial.
Bobulinski obviously comes from a military family thus his harping on his Navy creds. Guess
when your in that much sunshine you fall back strongly on anything available.
I don't doubt his credibility and it's good that he at least got on Tucker Carlson to
provide some much needed answers, but he's not a known quantity and I have hard time
imagining his revelations will change minds.
I think the FBI sandbagging the whole affair is what holds back this story getting the
attention it deserves from the public. The president I'm sorry to say has been badly served
by Wray, Haspel, and company. I think he should have replaced them months ago and waiting
until reelection to do it may have been a mistake.
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal involving
Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of that claim by
the FBI .
In her interview with Joe Biden, CBS anchor Norah O'Donnell did not push Biden to simply
confirm that the emails were fake or whether he did in fact meet with Hunter's associates
(despite his prior denials). Instead O'Donnell asked: "Do you believe the recent leak of
material allegedly from Hunter's computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?"
Biden responded with the same answer that has gone unchallenged dozens of times:
"From what I've read and know the intelligence community warned the president that
Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians. And we also know that Putin is
trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. And so when you put the
combination of Russia, Giuliani– the president, together– it's just what it is.
It's a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. What is he running on?
What is he running on?"
It did not matter that the answer omitted the key assertion that this was not Hunter's
laptop or emails or that he did not leave the computer with this store.
Recently, Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid wrote
said the quiet part out loud by telling the media:
"We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Let that sink in for a second. It does not matter if these are real emails and not Russian
disinformation. They probably are real but should be treated as disinformation even though
American intelligence has repeatedly r ebutted that claim. It does not even matter that the
computer has seized the computer as evidence in a criminal fraud investigation or that a Biden
confidant is now giving his allegations to the FBI under threat of criminal charges if he lies
to investigators.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It simply does not matter. It is disinformation because it is simply inconvenient to treat
it as real information.
Bastiat , 3 hours ago
I should have lost the capacity for shock in reaction to this Mockingbird crap but the
sheer naked audacity of it still gets me.
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
I don't know what is worse. The concept that hiding crimes is no longer that important or
the lack of response to the crimes by so many.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
I don't know what's worse. The fact that our supposed news networks do this, or the fact
that in spite of the vast majority of Americans saying they distrust them, they still let
them get away with it. They still watch, and read, and listen. TBH, I don't think the lack of
MSM coverage is an issue with this particular story. I think the average Democrats and RINOs
are just covering their eyes and ears with this one. They want Trump to lose so bad, they
don't care if day one of the Biden administration is him handing suitcases of military
hardware blueprints to the Chinese. Anyone with a (D), never Trump, keep the swamp churning.
That's all they care about.
Four chan , 25 minutes ago
the laptop and its contents are 100% verified with clean chain of control.
UndergroundPost , 3 hours ago
It's now clear the Democrat Party under the Biden / Clinton Dynasties is nothing more than
a fully compromised, corrupt and criminal extension of the Communist Party of China
SDShack , 3 hours ago
Absolutely! The timelines of everything line up perfect. These laptops were dropped off at
the computer shop in early 2019. Work was done, but not paid for. The owner tried to get paid
and have the laptops picked up for 3 months. No go, so abandoned property now belongs to the
computer shop. All perfectly legal. It's now fall 2019 and the Impeachment Sham related to
Ukraine is starting. Computer shop realizes that laptops belonged to Demorat VP son being
caught up in the entire Impeachment Sham. Computer shop guy realizes he is holding dynamite
with lit fuse so he contacts FBI. FBI does nothing, then gets involved, then sits on the
story. This is all end of 2019.
Meanwhile, demorat primaries are starting and Bernie is the leader. DNC can't have Bernie
win, so they try to game the system to stop him just like 2016. But no one early on can do
it. Senile Joe fails first. Then Kamalho, who was the favorite, flames out. Then all the
others. It's now early 2020 and the DNC is hemorrhaging money and in disarray. Then look what
happens, the DNC miraculously unities around Senile Joe to stop the Angry Berd, with Kamalho
being the fallback position as VP. It is clear that the CCP ordered the DNC to do this
because they had the goods on Corrupt Joe, and the DNC needs the Chicom money. They all
figured they had it all covered up. They never figured on the crazy cokehead son blowing it
all up. The timelines all line up, and explain why Senile Joe rose from the dead in the
primaries to be the anointed one, along with Kamalho. The CCP got the candidates they bought
and paid for.
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
100% true but the republican government refuses to prosecute their buddies. The US has 1
party and we ain't invited.
Robert De Zero , 3 hours ago
It isn't real, we hope it isn't real, you can't prove it's real, 50 experts said it isn't
real, Russia planted it, Russian disinformation, Rudy is compromised, Rudy might be a Russian
agent, Rudy almost banged a 24 YO and he can't be trusted, It's not about Joe we don't care,
Hunter isn't running, Bobulinski has a funny name so he can't be trusted...NOT ONCE ASKING IF
THIS IS a MAJOR PHUCKING PROBLEM.
The problem isn't RUSSIA, it's you bastards in the Big Lies Media!
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
Why hasn't the patriotic republicans arrested the evil democrats? Whats the hold up?
tonye , 3 hours ago
At some point we are going to have to break up the corporate media conglomerates.
All of them.
And start racketeering prosecutions.
Salsa Verde , 3 hours ago
Facts mean nothing in a country where emotional outbursts are now considered gospel.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I think we need to bring back the death penalty in every state and not keep housing these
criminals for lifetimes.
Zorch , 2 hours ago
Wait! What does Gretta say?
VisceralFat1 , 3 hours ago
so... the hunter laptop is fake
and global warming is real
got it
jin187 , 3 hours ago
You just summed up the only thing 90% of students actually learn from 12 years of public
school.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
correct on both points
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
duh...
the Feds have plenty of laptops that have incriminating evidence of our elected leaders
(Wasserman Schultz, Iman Brothers, Weiner, DNC Servers, etc...), Dems and Repubs
at issue is if we REALLY knew the depths of treason from said leaders, we'd run out of
rope and tall trees...
so...anyone who votes Democrat, is complicit in my eyes (and they don't need to vote
Republican) and deserve the heat of the truth, strong enough to melt all the
snowflake-SJW's
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
ban laptops...it's so simple...no laptops and bad things stop happening
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
/sarc
banned public schools first...they're indoctrination centers of controlled deception
NO critical thinking...NO innovative strategies
ONLY State sponsors 'information' filtered by the snowflakes anti-social media platforms
and e-encyclopedia (Schmoogle)
11b40 , 3 hours ago
Ban email & instant messages. Life would be immediately better.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Dorsey looks like a fvcking homeless person. What a clown. I'd love to rip that ring right
out of his nose.
sunhu , 2 hours ago
losers anger is always fun to watch
chubbar , 3 hours ago
The media is acting against the best interests of the USA. Think about it, "IF" the
allegations are true, we need to find out BEFORE we elect someone who is selling out our
country for personal gain, not after. WHY would the media think differently unless they don't
care whether the allegations are true or not? Are they working for China? Is the DNC? These
are appropriate lines of inquiry given the wholesale censoring the media has levied on the
Biden corruption story. The FBI sat on this for months and it has Child ****, which means
children remain at risk until the FBI goes in and stops it. WTF is wrong with Wray that he
allows this to go on?
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
Dude, if it was for real Hunter Biden would have been arrested by now. You can't seriously
believe they're just holding back their damning evidence. The obvious conclusion is they
don't have it.
Mr. Universe , 2 hours ago
...except those pictures of a naked Hunter with his niece and the emails of the family
trying to keep a lid on Mom's protestations.
You see lots of pics of Hunter Biden with a blacked out bitch. No way of knowing who he's
actually with.
hugin-o-munin , 2 hours ago
Yeah like duh really man, I mean come on man. Stop thinking so much man, hang ten and
chill bruh.
8-(
Im4truth4all , 2 hours ago
Has Comey, Clapper, Strozk and the list goes on ad infinitum, been arrested? No.
ebear , 1 hour ago
"The obvious conclusion is they don't have it."
An inference, by itself, is not a conclusion.
Soloamber , 2 hours ago
Wray inherited a completely screwed up Comey FBI .
He is not a culture changer .
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Stop calling these people mainstream. There is nothing mainstream about them because
nobody watches their crap.
Joe Rogan's show last night got more views than all of them combined.
WhatDoYouFightFor , 3 hours ago
Hunter is still walking around free, system is F'd. Nothing will right the United States
at this point.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
it's the Hillary conundrum, right?
IF they get Hunter, it's 'election interference'...
deceitful godless individuals...
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
But but but Her Emails
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
he will always be free on these items as the evidence was all acquired illegally and
likely doctored to all hell.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is why I said the day Trump got elected that these people just need to disappear to a
blacksite in Yemen. The best way to drain the swamp is waterboarding all the ones we know to
find the ones we don't know.
Ghost of Porky , 3 hours ago
If Trump rescued 30 drowning children with his helicopter the CNN headline would read
"Trump Increases Carbon Footprint to Risk Superspreader Event.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Exactly - so tired of MSM and their opinionated lies
pstpetrov , 3 hours ago
Yes Liberals are all about disinformation and Trump has the moral high ground.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Best joke I've heard in October. Well played, sir!
otschelnik , 3 hours ago
How would the MSM react if Don Jr. flew into China on AF1 with his father, met with
Chinese central committee members and intelligence officials, formed a Joint Venture with
them and then got a 5 million dollar no interest loan from the head of a private oil company,
who's chairman used to work in intelligence?
Imagine that. How would ABC MSNBC CNN NPR WaPo NYT PBS broadcast that?
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Better question, who cares. Nobody watches that junk anymore.
fanbeav , 3 hours ago
Liberal sheeple still do.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Let's get the case in a court of law so allegations and wild claims can be proven or
disproven. But wait, this was timed so court isn't an option. So all we are left with is the
sniff test. Smells like baby diaper needs changed.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
How did they react when it was Kushner doing the traveling and getting the money for his
business?
Iconoclast422 , 3 hours ago
the computer has seized the computer as evidence
Why does every article have these little tidbits that make me think every writer has
stroked out in 2020?
11b40 , 3 hours ago
You see that, too? Something is wrong in the editing process. Sloppy, I guess, or
foreign.
Santiago de Mago , 3 hours ago
I noticed that in several articles today... almost like they are being written by AI
bots.
"My Macaroni And Cheese Is A Lesbian Also She Is My Lawyer"
balz , 3 hours ago
Every time you see someone saying they are a "journalist" at a MSM, don't forget to tell
them they are wrong and their job-title is "propagandist".
Shut. It. Down. , 2 hours ago
Some of the emails have already been verified by the outside recipient or sender.
Next you'll tell me all the sex videos were photoshopped by Putin.
KayaCreate , 1 hour ago
I lost 5 mins of my life watching Hunters **** getting kicked around by a probable minor
while smoking crack. You could tell it was him as his fake teeth glowed in the dark.
Cephisus , 3 hours ago
The media are scum.
Bill of Rights , 3 hours ago
Funny isn't it, every time the Globalist are exposed its " Disinformation " ..Hows that
Russian Collusion evidence coming along? its only been four years.....
American2 , 2 hours ago
The only question remaining to ask is simply this: Who is more enfeebled, Joe Biden; or
the networks and ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times?
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
I have been out of f*cks to give when it comes to the MSM for a decade now. What is so
comical is that when the MSM so overtly covers for candidates, it backfires horribly. You
can't hyperventilate over an anonymously sourced Trump tax return story and yet ignore the
Biden laptop. People see right through that.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes were made public. Nobody knows where Biden's (or whoever's) laptop came
from. Giuliani is already very late with the promised salacious details. How many people do
you think are really changing their vote to the Domestic Terrorist in the WH?
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
I know of one person
Invert This MM , 3 hours ago
You are a freaking Share Blue Clown. Nobody buys your monkey dung
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
You know me so well, after 3 months of trolling here.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
You really are one stupid fuuk. You just outed one of your sockpuppets and I was purged in
the Google crack down. I have been posting here for 12 years. You monkeys are really
stupid.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
Hey Monkey, I was purged during the Google shake dawn. Been here 14 years. Like a complete
moron, you just outed one of your sockpuppets. Dumbass
replaceme , 3 hours ago
No serious Dem thinks the laptop isn't Hunter's - your supposed to ignore it, or pretend
it has nothing to do with Joe. The Russians, booga boogah
invention13 , 3 hours ago
No, his taxes weren't made public. Claims about his taxes were made public - there is a
difference which you seem happy to elide.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes as reported by the NY Times were NOT made public, what gives you that idea.
The info was leaked to the Times.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is what I want to know. How is it that the NYP is still banned from Twitter based on
them obtaining information "illegally or illicitly", when we know for a fact now that they
didn't? At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the NYT and their followers are still happily
linking and chatting away about the story on how they illegally obtained Trump's tax
returns.
wearef_ckedwithnohope , 3 hours ago
Matt Taibbi has written a series of articles bemoaning the current state of
journalism.
replaceme , 3 hours ago
What's journalism?
invention13 , 3 hours ago
I'm beginning to think it is something that never really existed - just an ideal in some
people's minds.
Shillelagh Pog , 2 hours ago
Journalism is putting down on paper your, or someone you like, or is paying you for,
feelings, duh.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
He has the same issues with his journalism.
starcraft22 , 1 hour ago
The laptop is real. The media is the foreign disinformation.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Just shocking how MSM is so quick to dismiss this shocking evidence. We know it's not part
of their brainwashing echo chamber of lies for their low IQ and low informed voters but had
this been one of Trump's sons laptops - this would be MAJOR HEADLINES for the next 12
months.
Remember the 4 year Russiangate investigation, 40 million to Robert Mueller all based on a
bought and paid dossier paid for by the DNC/Clinton foundation, corrupt FBI, FISA warrants
all to spy and setup Trump to incriminate him for the VERY same crimes they were in FACT
committing.
Ar15ak47rpg7 , 2 hours ago
Note to all Zero HEDGERS....there seems to be no difference between the scrubbing of
comments on Twitter and Facebook and ZH. The free flow of ideas on ZH no longer exist. Just
like the Drudge Report the Deep Stater's have gotten to the Tylers. Beware
One of these is not like the others.. , 2 hours ago
I concur, the more thoughtful the post, the more likely it seems to vanish.
ebear , 1 hour ago
I must be an idiot then. As much as I'd like to add that badge to my collection, my stuff
never seems to get scrubbed. Damn!
Urfa Man , 3 minutes ago
Gulag and the shrews that run it are putting big financial pressure on ZH to censor us.
This month I've twice tried to post a URL for the news article that details the censorship
here, but go figure, those posts get scrubbed.
It's all because of you and me. The Bolsheviks at Gulag say this comment section hurts
feelings and therefore must be dominated and controlled with an iron fist.
Gulag Bans ZeroHedge From Ad Platform
If you replace "Gulag" with the name of a major search engine and conduct a search using
the words in italics above - via a search engine like duckduckgo - the results will probably
point you to the news article that gives the details of this ZH censorship and why your
comments disappear.
lacortenews com is the domain that carries the news report
Good luck. There's not much left of free speech or the original freedom of the
internet.
unionbroker , 3 hours ago
A business associate of mine told me with a straight face that he didn't trust Bobulinski
because he had a Russian sounding name. He is on Twitter a lot so maybe that explains it.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
I don't trust him either. He has already changed his story. he requested to meet Joe Biden
and then later he didn't request it. . And he met him, but he didn't have a meeting with him.
He confirmed that on Fox last night.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I trust him 100% #imwithhim
remember Dr Christine Ford and her fake as story against Kavanaugh - this is much more
realistic than her fake as
Republicans can play dirty too
jin187 , 2 hours ago
Yeah, this is what it's come to, so **** it. I hope Rudy is out there right now handing
out suitcases of cash to anyone willing to come forward with any lies about Biden, Pelosi,
Schumer, just like our side's Gloria Steinem.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
bring him in under oath and actually investigate...
BUT that would be 'election interference' (you know, the whole Hillary conundrum,
right?)
rule of law is now changed to morality of feelings...if it makes me feel insignificant, it
CAN'T be TRUE!!
WAAAHHHHHH
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
he will testify under oath watch - and he won't be like pencil neck Schiff and those other
cowards and plea the 5th
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
???
you could watch the Tucker Carlson show interview instead of your imagined one.
Uh... did watch it. And yes, the story he tells there about meeting Biden is not the same
as the one he told before. Riddle me this: if this is real, why would they hopelessly
compromise their chain of evidence by dribbling it to the public like this?
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
because no one in the MSM would dummy - they are all in DEEP ****
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
They don't have to use the MSM, or any media. They simply arrest Hunter Biden, then drop
all the info at once instead of tantalizingly holding the smoking guns out of our view. All
they are doing here, if they actually have anything, is risking the lives of their witnesses
and giving the perps a lot of warning. That's to say nothing about compromising the evidence
to the point of inadmissability. It's running a risk for no gain whatsoever.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
stuff is only out of your view if your eyes are closed
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
"not the same" ?
missed your weblink (not that you could be making stuff up, cough, cough.)
also, how that would have any significant bearing on the whole matter,
including most MSM news censorship and Russia nonsense ?
RedNeckMother , 3 hours ago
Who told you that bulls hit?
calculator , 2 hours ago
It's entirely possible he is military intelligence and was sent undercover to infiltrate
the Bidens and discover their treachery. The CIA and FBI sure as hell don't appear to be
doing it. Since we may very well be in a shooting war with the CCP at some point in the near
future, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the military is actually doing their jobs to ensure
we are not compromised.
SDShack , 3 hours ago
We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Cmon Turley, parse these words> Why does the WaPo say 'WE MUST' treat these leaks this
way? This implies that the WaPo is BEING ORDERED to treat these leaks this way! So WHO has
power over the WaPo? Is that power direct, or financial, or BOTH? Also the assumption the
WaPo is trying to propagate is that the Foreign Intelligence Operation is...THE
RUSSIANS...but could it not actually be the CCP that is pulling the WaPo strings? Doesn't the
CCP revelation go to the central heart of the entire Corrupt Joe matter, as well as the
financial angle for the Bezo's Amazon WaPo? Even in their lies, the nuggets of hidden truth
are exposed.
Amel , 3 hours ago
Asking yourself why the CIA control of the MSM favors a Manchurian candidate over Trump ?
Because the CIA's own survival is valued above national security.
invention13 , 3 hours ago
For they same reason they had to treat the Russian collusion allegations as though they
were real.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Same reason there was no outrage at the Obama child cages at the Mexico border. Or outrage
at all of the wars Obama started. Or outrage at all of the drone killing under Obama.
Most Blue Team members are satisfied getting their news from MSM, leaving MSM able to
shape the narrative almost completely. There are a handful of guys like Jimmy Dore on the
left who call out the rest of the left on this. Pretty scary, actually.
factorypreset , 3 hours ago
It sure seems like the press is helping to squash this whole thing by asking any questions
in such a way that Joe doesn't perjure himself.
mtl4 , 3 hours ago
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal
involving Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of
that claim by the FBI.
All makes perfect sense in a time when you chose your gender in the morning while getting
dressed, you only need to be accused of anything to completely ruin your reputation (unless
your a politician in which case there are no laws). So why would anyone deal with reality at
a time when we've gotten so good at simply ignoring it.
l. Joe Biden's compromising partnership with the Communist Part}' of China runs
via Yang Jiechi (CPC's Central Foreign Affairs Commission). YANG met frequently
with BIDEN during his tenure at the Chinese embassy in Washington.
2. Hunter Biden's 2013 Bohai Harvest Rosemont investment partnership was set-up
by Ministry' of Foreign Affairs institutions designed to garner influence with foreign
leaders during YANG's tenure as Foreign Minister.
3. HUNTER has a direct line to the Politburo, according to SOURCE A, a senior
finance professional in China.
4. Michael Lin brokered the BHR partnership and partners with MOFA foreign
influence organizations.
5. LIN is a POI for his work on behalf of China, as confirmed by SOURCE В and
SOURCE С (at two separate national intelligence agencies).
6. BHR is a state managed operation. Leading shareholder in BHR is a Bank of China
and BHR's partners are SOEs that funnel revenue/assets to BHR.
7. HUNTER continues to hold 10% in BHR. He visited China in 2010 and met with
major Chinese government financial companies that would later back BHR.
8. HUNTER's BHR stake (purchased for $400,000) is now likely be worth approx.
$50 million (fees and capital appreciation based on BHR's $6.5 billion AUM).
9. HUNTER also did business with Chinese tycoons linked with the Chinese military
and against the interests of US national security.
10. BIDEN's foreign policy stance towards China (formerly hawkish), has since turned
positive despite China's country's rising geopolitical assertiveness.
As the furor over Twitter and Facebook's attempts to censor Wednesday morning's New York
Post bombshell intensifies, Rudy Giuliani, who was named as the source of the documents in the
NY Post story, just dropped a new video on Twitter where he outlines some of the alleged
transgressions of "the Biden Crime Family".
Earlier, the NYP
exposed never-before-publicized emails suggesting that Joe Biden's involvement with his
son's business endeavors was much more active than he led the world to believe.
In other words, if the emails are genuine (and nobody has offered any credible evidence yet
to suggest that they aren't) then it's clear the Biden lied about having never discussed
business with his son.
In a tweet, Giuliani confirmed that he has more material that has yet to see the light of
day, and teased the public that it would soon be made available on his website , which he said he launched to stop big
tech from censoring the story.
... Giuliani cited Iraq, what he said was the first example of this, outlining a scheme
involving a $1.5 billion contract and Biden's brother, James Biden.
The former NYC mayor continues: "The question is, why did Joe Biden lie about it? The New
York Post on its front page shows that Joe Biden has been lying about Burisma for 7 years,"
Giuliani added, again claiming that Biden "committed a crime".
Specifically, he named Hunter Biden, James Biden, Joe Biden and Sarah Biden, along with
other unnamed family members, as "the Biden Crime Family."
The "crime family" framing of course harkens back to the "Clinton Crime family", as well as
Giuliani's work as a prosecutor where he famously helped break the Mafia's stranglehold on the
underworld, and much of the legitimate business happening in the territories they
controlled.
Now, we can't help but wonder: will Giuliani drop the Hunter Biden sex tape
ZENDOG , 4 hours ago
Wake me when someone goes to jail.
Fiscal Reality , 2 hours ago
Barr: MIA
Durham: MIA
Horowitz: MIA
MSM: MIA and Covering up
CIA: Complicit
DNC: Complicit
FBI: Complicit
Ukraine: Partner
China: Partner
Obama: Partner
Hillary: Co-conspirator.
Outcome? Nothing. A big, fat, dripping NOTHING.
OpenEyes , 2 hours ago
It's all falling down. Crumbling right before their eyes three weeks before the election
that they were plotting to steal. This is just like when a dam gives way, slowly and then
suddenly. And, it involves more than just the corrupt Bidens. The chain is long and goes all
the way to the top. They are in the process of losing the election, and their reputations, in
the court of public opinion. Next comes the courts of law.
We haven't even gotten into the Durham investigation yet. Have you noticed how quiet
things have been over there? Not a single leak. That tells me that they have a serious case
and a tight team.
I am long popcorn, beer and orange jumpsuits.
Md4 , 3 hours ago
"The emails obtained from Hunter Biden's hard drive reveal Joe Biden lied about Burisma,
and more. Tonight I react and share a private text message that describes the ongoing schemes
by the Biden Crime Family."
And that's coming from Giuliani.
A former federal prosecutor of organized crime.
This guy... knows what he's talking about...
DaveClark5 , 3 hours ago
Crooks will be crooks. What is more disguising is the sheeple that vote for them. Our
founders said that the voters must have some kind of moral compass for there experiment to
work. It is now in the balance.
Lyman54 , 1 hour ago
Well we are still waiting for the Weiner laptop contents to be exposed. I suppose the
Biden laptop info will never see the light of day either.
Walter Melon , 3 hours ago
The old mafia prosecutors of the '70s and '80s would release a statement of something
like, "We have a high level mobster admitting to crimes on an audio recording. If you know
anything about this, please contact us."
And the rats would line up not knowing if it was them or someone else, to make their
deal.
Giuliani remembers this.
Let's see what rats show up this week.
Stormtrooper , 4 hours ago
If the purpose of these releases is to influence the election, forget about it. Demon-rats
aren't smart enough to put 2+2 together. The answer for them is 5. Or 10. Or 18. Whatever
fantasy answer they want it to be. They won't be influenced by irrefutable proof that Joe
Biden is dirty.
freakscene , 3 hours ago
They're not targeting "Democrats".
They're targeting those in the middle that are somehow undecided.
PT , 2 hours ago
Everything revealed in October can be safely forgotten. PizzaGate came out one week before
the election. Sure, I saw the spirit-cooking video, I saw the Podesta emails ... and then it
all magically disappeared. How horrific was the Anthony Weiner lap top? Sooooooooo horrific
that it could be forgotten for four years and counting.
January 2016, 147 FBI agents and then what happened? Looks like the year leading up to the
election (one quarter of all time) can be safely ignored too.
If they were going to trial then they would go to trial and the media releases would be
about the trial. No trial? Nothing is happening.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 4 hours ago
It's October... color me surprised.
ImTalkinfullCs , 1 hour ago
This is disqualifying......
bobroonie , 1 hour ago
Not in our Feudal society.
SmokeyBlonde , 43 minutes ago
This is a resume-enhancer for all D's and establishment R's, aka The Uniparty.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
I have been extremely critical of Guliani in the past, mostly 9/11 related, but his common
sense videos are just that, with excellent guests. NYC wishes they had Rudy back.
Saturn2001 , 1 hour ago
The problem is that the hardcore demonkrats and more importantly the press, will stifle
this whole set of facts and defend these lying/thieving creatures. We've seen it before. We
even have the likes of piggy noonan of the Wall Street Journal suggesting that electing Biden
would be a return to normal. Normal thieving, destroying deep state skum. They have done so
much harm to the United States and to the world.
Son of Loki , 1 hour ago
Trump has a way with words:
Donald Trump: 'The Bidens Got Rich While Americans Got Robbed'
The president cited the bombshell New York Post story uncovering emails sent from Vadym
Pozharskyi, an adviser to Ukrainian energy company Burisma, to Hunter Biden, thanking him for
helping arrange a meeting with his father.
Hunter Biden received between $50,000 and $83,000 a month from Burisma to sit on the
board.
"The Biden family treated the vice presidency as a for-profit corporation flying around
the globe collecting millions of dollars from China and Ukraine and Russia and other
countries," Trump said.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
They threatened to not give the money to Ukraine. That money was USAID money allocated by
vote from Congress taken from American taxpayers. Burisma got it's cut which laundered back
to Bidens. Many laws were broken.
philmannwright , 26 minutes ago
The funny part is that whatever Joe did for his kids, is likely NOTHING compared to the
hundreds of millions of dollars that Hillary took for access to herself, and that is only
what we know about during the Clinton Family's federal reign of self-enrichment from
1992-2016... never mind whitewater.
chemcounter , 2 hours ago
Trump needs to execute prosecution on Hillary. You see, these people get away with
enriching themselves and when they are caught, the opposition tries to hold it over their
heads to keep them inactive politically. Instead, they lay low and then come out later
executing well laid plans then use the reasoning that they must be innocent of all the
accusations or someone would have prosecuted. The people are sick of the obvious dual class
criminal justice system.
Nothing new concerning the papers of reference, be it NYT in the USA, Spiegel -unfortunately
I do not speak german and the Spiegel is the only one that I know of with a small weakly
english section- Le Monde, The Guardian, El País, etc. They all belong to the infamous
club of the presstitutes.
Ukraine is a zombie, remotely controlled to keep Russia off balance, not having enough with
Ukraine the same tricks are being applied in Belarus but it seems that the plan did not go
trough.
The work you do is commendable B, but I would appreciate a lot if you would focus your
efforts in Germany since not a lot is known about the internal politics of a country that
basically is the leading one in the EU.
The Navalny affair, Merkel calling for changes in the UN, Germany relations with Poland, the
Treuhand and the liquidation of the DRG, and a lot of issues that someone living there -- I
assume -- sure knows a lot better that the rest.
Ukraine is like an open oozing wound, and it could be a surprise in the coming election
debates in the USA, the Biden Poroshenko tapes are not even mentioned by the presstitutes, and
the level of theft and corruption is monumental, fumbling Biden will have a serious problem
when these conversations come up in the debates.
Nice take on imbecilization of important and complex topics by the US MSM and politicians.
Money quote about neoliberal Dems like Obama and Biden "
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept.
Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They
see human suffering as a means to increase their power."
Another money quote: "in the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's everywhere and
it's deadly."
Notable quotes:
"... But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering as a means to increase their power. ..."
"... Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden. ..."
"... One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management. ..."
"... Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles." ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Massive wildfires continue to sweep across huge portions of the Pacific Northwest.
In Oregon, half a million residents have been forced to evacuate -- one out of every ten people in the state.
Dozens are dead tonight, including small children. But the fires still aren't close to contained. Watch this report from Fox's
Jeff Paul:
Video report
And it continues as we speak, walls of flame consuming everything in their path: homes, animals, human beings. Tragedy on a
massive scale.
When something this awful happens, decent people pause. They put aside their own interests for a moment. They consider how they
can help. We've seen that kind of selflessness before.
This is, remember, the anniversary of 9-11.
But there are others for whom altruism is an alien concept. Self-interest is all
they know. These people never pause. They relentlessly press for any advantage, under any circumstances. They see human suffering
as a means to increase their power.
These are the people who turn funerals into political rallies and feel no shame for doing it.
As Americans burned to death, people like this swung into action immediately. They went on television with a partisan talking
point: Climate change caused these fires, they said. They didn't explain how that happened. They just kept saying it.
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: you can't see it, but it's everywhere,
and it's deadly. And, like systemic racism, it's your fault: The American middle class did it. They ate too many hamburgers,
drove too many SUVs, had too many children.
A lot of them wear T-shirts to work and didn't finish college. That causes climate change too. And, worst of all, some of them
may vote for Donald Trump in November.
If there's anything that absolutely, definitively causes climate change -- and literally over a hundred percent of scientists
agree with this established fact -- it's voting for Donald Trump. You might as well start a tire fire. You're destroying the ozone
layer.
Joe Biden has checked the science, and he agrees. Yesterday, the people on Biden's staff who understand the internet tweeted out
an image of the wildfires, along with the message, "Climate change is already here -- and we're witnessing its devastating effects
every single day. We have to get President Trump out of the White House."
Again, by voting for Donald Trump, you've made hundreds of thousands of Oregonians homeless tonight. You've killed people.
Joe Biden's closest friend in the world, a prominent Martha's Vineyard kite-surfer called Barack Obama, echoed that message
with his trademark restraint. Obama declawed that your "life" depends on voting for Joe Biden.
At a time when sea levels are rising and we're about to see killer whales in the Rockies? Honestly, it doesn't seem like Obama is
overly concerned about climate change? And by the way, didn't he go to law school? When he did become a climate expert?
Those seem like good questions. But lawyers pretending to be scientists are now everywhere in the Democratic Party.
Here's the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, a proud graduate of Willamette University law school, explaining that he's already
figured out the "cause" of the fires. Watch:
INSLEE: Fires are proof we need a stronger liberal agenda Sept 8 TRT: 18 Inslee: And these are conditions that are exacerbated
by the changing climate that we are suffering. And I do not believe that we should surrender these subdivisions or these houses
to climate change-exacerbated fires. We should fight the cause of these fires.
This is a crock. In fact, there is not a single scientist on earth who knows whether, or by how much, these fires may have been
"exacerbated" by warmer temperatures caused by "climate change," whatever that means anymore.
All we have is conjecture from a handful of scientists, none of whom have reached any definitive conclusions.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, for example, has admitted that it's, quote, "hard to determine whether climate change
played a role in sparking the fires."
Meanwhile, investigators have determined that the massive El Dorado fire in California, which has torched nearly 14,000 acres,
was caused by morons setting off some kind of fireworks. And then on Wednesday, police announced that a criminal investigation is
underway into the massive Almeda fire in Ashland, Oregon.
The sheriff there said it's too early to say what caused the fire, but he's said human remains were found at the suspected origin
point. Nothing is being ruled out, including arson.
The more you know, the more complicated it is, like everything. Serious people are just beginning to gather evidence to determine
what happened to cause this disaster.
But at the same time, unserious people are now everywhere on the media right now, drowning out nuance. Don't worry about the
facts, they say. Just trust us -- the sky orange is orange over San Francisco because households making $40,000 a year made the
mistake of voting for a Republican.
Therefore you must hand us total control of the nation's economy. Watch amateur arson detective Nancy Pelosi explain:
PELOSI: Mother Earth is angry. She's telling us, whether she's telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the
west, whatever it is, the climate crisis is real and has an impact.
Mother Nature is angry. Please. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi went outside? No one asked her. All we know is what she said:
climate change caused this. Of course.
No matter the natural disaster -- hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever -- climate change did it. Keep in mind, Nancy Pelosi owns two
sub-zero freezers. They cost $10,000 apiece.
We know because she showed them off on national television. Those use a lot of energy. Like Barack Obama, she constantly flies
private between her multi-million dollar estates all over the country.
Obviously, she doesn't care about climate change. And neither do her supporters -- otherwise, they'd be trying to destroy the
mansions she owns, not the hair salons that expose her hypocrisy.
For the left, this is really about blaming and ritually humiliating the middle-class for the election of Donald Trump. Joe Biden
knows that the Pennsylvanians who would be financially ruined by his
fracking
ban
are the same Pennsylvanians who flipped the state red in 2016 for the first time in a generation.
That's the whole point. One of the reasons Joe Biden is barely allowed outside is that he has no problem showing his contempt for
the middle-class he supposedly cares so much about.
In 2019, he openly
mocked
coal miners
and suggested they just get programming jobs once they're all fired. Watch:
BIDEN: I come from a family, an area where's coal mining – in Scranton. Anybody, that can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine,
sure as hell can learn how to program as well.
Learn to code! Hilarious. Joe Biden should try it. But there isn't time. The world is ending. Last summer, Sandy Cortez [AOC] did
the math and calculated we only have
12
years left to live
.
If that sounds bad, consider this -- Just four months after that warning, Sandy Cortez tweeted that we only have 10 years to "cut
carbon emissions in half."
Think about the math here. We lost two years in just four months. At that rate, we could literally all die unless Joe Biden wins
in November. Which is of course what they're saying.
On Tuesday, California Gavin Newsom pretty much said it Newsom abandoned science long ago. Science is too stringent, too western,
too patriarchal.
Newsom is a man of faith now. He's decided
climate
change caused all of this
, and that's final. He's not listening to any other arguments. Watch:
NEWSOM: I have no patience. And I say this lovingly, not as an ideologue, but as someone who prides himself on being open to
argument, interested in evidence. But I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers. It simply follows completely
inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground.
People like Gavin Newsom don't want to listen to any "climate change deniers." What's a "climate change denier?" Anyone who
thinks our ruling class has no idea how to run their states or protect their citizens.
Are we "climate change deniers" if we point out that California has failed to implement meaningful deforestation measures that
would have dramatically slowed the spread of these wildfires?
In 2018, a state oversight agency in California found that years of poor or nonexistent
forest
management policies
in the Sierra Nevada forests had contributed to wildfires.
One of the few Republicans who still hold elected office in California, state Assemblyman Heath Flora, last year called on
using the state's $22 billion budget surplus to implement vegetation management.
Fires don't spread as well without huge connected forests functioning as kindling. It's obvious, which is why it's
unthinkable to mention it in some Democratic circles."
Presumably, you're also a climate-change denier if you point out that six of the Oregon National Guard's wildfire-fighting
helicopters are currently in Afghanistan.
Instead of dropping water to suppress blazes, the Chinook aircraft are busy supplying a war effort that's been going on for
nearly 20 years. That seems significant. Has anyone asked Gavin Newsom or Jay Inslee about that? Do any of the Democrats who
control these states even care?
The answer, of course, is probably not. It was just last week that Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti admitted on-the-record that
his city has become completely third-world.
Of course, Garcetti didn't blame himself for this turn of events. He blamed you. Quote: "It's almost 3 p.m," Garcetti tweeted.
"Time to turn off major appliances, set the thermostat to 78 degrees (or use a fan instead, turn off excess lights and unplug any
appliances you're not using. We need every Californian to help conserve energy. Please do your part."
"Please do your part." Garcetti wants his constituents to suffer to try to solve a problem that Democrats in his state created.
Even now, as residents in Northern California are facing sweeping power outages in addition to wildfires.
In the meantime, Gavin Newsom has vowed that 50 percent of California's energy grid will be based on quote "renewable" energy
sources within a decade.
That means sources like wind and solar power -- which can't be dialed up to meet periods of extreme demand, like California is
seeing right now during its heatwave.
Newsom was asked last month whether he would consider revising this stance given the blackouts that have left millions of
Californians without power.
Newsom responded, quote, "We are going to radically change the way we produce and consume energy." In other words, The blackouts
will continue until morale improves. So will the wildfires. Get used to it.
Fox News
6.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's
everywhere and it's deadly.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
This is a direct result of Gavin Newsom eliminating forestation controls. Jerry Brown kept them in place, the only thing he
did correctly. Democrats are to blame for all of this.
When environmentalists pushed through their "leave forests alone, allow nature to be undisturbed" bs, California and other
states stopped clearing underbrush, also known as fire fuel and now we see a perfect example of cause and effect.
Don't get me wrong I am a conservatist , but with common sense , we can't conserve unless we protect and nurture nature to
thrive. In fact extremism in environmentalism destroys as we see. People dead, animals dead, homes destroyed, forest destroyed
because of extremism.
The narrative to leave forests alone happened long before Trump, believing otherwise makes you a useful idiot.
Congratulations.
You could Google this old narrative but will you find it, well it's Google, you have to find the people who heard and lived
the so called natural environmental push narrative, we remember and we remember the warnings. Congratulations, your ignorance
has caused harm.
As of Sep 20, the video has around one million views and this is another bad news for Creepy Joe. Biden clan is really
greedy and unprincipled. Hunter is definitely corrupt drug addict. That's undeniable.
While his China deal are highly suspicious, Creepy Joe Burisma corruption story is actually completely provable.
Should not children of high officials be restricted in their possible positions, so that they can't use the influence of their
fathers.
Notable quotes:
"... Uncover the secret world of Joe Biden and his family's relationship to China ..."
"... Hunter Biden is just like his father & the Obamas - never had a legit job, never had a position he deserved, always had people bribed to get him positions and paid way more than he's worth ..."
Uncover the secret world of Joe Biden and his family's relationship to China and the sinister business
deals that enriched them at America's expense.
5,909 Comments
T W 1 week ago
Never knew the Biden family has this many dirty secrets with communist China. They exchanged America's top secret for cash.
Pat K 6 days ago
Hunter Biden is just like his father & the Obamas - never had a legit job, never had a position he deserved, always had people
bribed to get him positions and paid way more than he's worth. Obama & Biden have to be the two most corrupt US politicians ever.
What's worse, they put our enemies' interests ahead of the US' & they aided our enemies. What I see are corrupt, greedy people
getting rich at the expense of Americans, consequences be damned. After watching this documentary, why aren't Joe & Hunter & possibly
Obama in jail?
Les Blat 2 weeks ago
Who needs nuclear weapons when you have so many demoncrats wanting to destroy America from within for cash.
Marjorie McDaniel 6 days ago
Personally, I think Joe Biden is faking his illness to get out of his evil doings. Biden is behind it along with Obama and
others. Pray for our nation and its people. Wake up and get on your knees.
Allan Gregoire 2 weeks ago
A vote for Biden is a vote for China. Elections have consequences. Biden supporters learn Mandarin now, you're going to need
it to communicate with your new overlords.
Another setback for Creepy Joe. Looks like he is out of luck. And note the comment: "Just
like the the BLM supporter who, yesterday, walked into a bar in Kentucky and executed three
people at point blank range. " It will also play out. Looks like Biden isn't going to make it to
November......
In the lead-up to the November election political investigator and author Peter Schweizer,
who currently heads the Florida-based Government Accountability Institute, has unveiled a
bombshell exposé presenting damning evidence of Hunter and his father Joe Biden's shady
and hidden financial dealings with China.
Directed by Matthew Taylor, whose prior works include Clinton Cash and Creepy Line , the
41-minute film entitled "Riding the Dragon: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets," details a pile of
corporate records, financial documents, legal briefings as well as court papers which tie
Hunter's firm with a major Chinese defense contractor, namely Aviation Industry Corp. of China
(AVIC), and multiple other PLA linked companies.
"It's a relationship that grew while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States and
shortly after he was appointed the point person on U.S. policy towards China," Schweizer, who
narratives the film,
described upon the documentary's release earlier this month. "This new firm started making
investment deals that would serve the strategic interests of the Chinese military."
"It's the story of the second most powerful man in the world at the time and how his family
was striking deals with America's chief rival on the global stage, the People's Republic of
China ," he added.
I don't need to view a feature-length film to realize that Joe and his whole family are
crooked as ****.
Make_Mine_A_Double , 12 minutes ago
Hence Trump's remark 'if Biden is elected China will OWN America'.
Clearly he knows all this and more. I watched the whole thing - nothing I didn't already
know in bits and peices, but taken together in chronological order is devastating. The whole
family should be executed.
2banana , 1 hour ago
Will be ignored by the fake legacy new media.
Just like the the BLM supporter who, yesterday, walked into a bar in Kentucky and executed
three people at point blank range.
Was smiling when the cops arrived.
platyops , 1 hour ago
We have Kamala the prostitute, Joe the smug cheat that handled "Corn Pop" so well and his
Cocaine driven son Hunter. If politics and the democrat party don't get any more sleazy than
this I don't know.
Joe Biden is asking you to vote for him for president. I for one say NO! As Judge Judy
once said "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining"
Joe Biden and his HO assistant make me ashamed to be an American.
The rest of the world laughs at us because of the democrat party pick to be our
leader!
Joe used to be a Catholic and hated abortion. But now he says sure kill all the babies you
want because I will sell my soul to be president.
Someday he will have to explain to our Lord Jesus Christ his behavior and just what he
thought selling his soul was worth. Not that many years away either dear Joe Biden.
I tried watching this and ended up being like, yeah, politicians are corrupt and they help
out their families and this goes on at the highest levels of all governments and it is really
bad and we should do something about it.
And then I turned it off, because people that didn't already know that don't belong in the
same room with the adults.
FUBAR2014 , 1 hour ago
In other words the whole Democratic party and anyone stupid enough to vote Biden.
Tom Green Swedish , 1 hour ago
Yea, read his wikipedia. This guy is the definition of corrupt. In fact he gives new
meanings to the word corrupt. What a bag of crap.
uhland62 , 1 hour ago
Manafort is the same, just revealed in trillion Dollar money laundering schams.
Touché - surprise - both parties learned from the same textbooks. One-party-rule,
two-party-rule - all the same.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
No one has ever thought that Manafort was anything other than a total sleaze. He was hired
to get Trump through a contested convention with Ted Cruz because Manafort is the only guy
around who's done it. He's responsible for Ford's successful convention fight against Reagan
in '76. Trump dropped him light a hot potato when the information about Manafort's business
in Ukraine came out.
Everyone thinks that Biden and Hunter are clean. You know, Uncle Joe. Now a lot of people
everywhere on the planet are contemplating a war with China. It'll be hard to sweep this one
under the rug like the one with Ukraine. Those deals were for dual-use technology and
required a sign off from the top dogs in the Obama administration. Getting Hunter in on the
action guaranteed smooth sailing.
I hope that Trump blasts Biden's *** with this and I don't even like Trump. Biden and his
crew are a bunch of ******* traitors and they should be outed.
hoytmonger , 1 hour ago
Who cares?
Both Bush 41 and Clinton got a pass on the drugs-for-arms being run out of Arkansas.
Barry Seal had Bush's direct White House phone number in his wallet when he was
murdered.
Then Bush became President.
Every single one of these politicians is dirty.
American2 , 1 hour ago
Bill Clinton certainly knew what was happening in Arkansas, and Bush wasn't even President
when Barry Seale was running drugs into and out of Arkansas, but Bill Clinton was the
Governor.
Shut. It. Down. , 58 minutes ago
Clinton was in on the skim to the tune of ten percent. Not to mention laundering the
profits through Dan Lasater, Jackson Stephens and the ADFA.
Air Cocaine: Poppy Bush, the Contras and a Secret Airbase in the Backwoods of Arkansas
Yup. As corrupt as they come. And creepy. And apparently suffering from early onset
dementia at the very least. And this, THIS MAN, is what the Democratic Party of the United
States of America, is putting up as a supposedly legitimate candidate for POTUS?!? This is
overly ridiculous, and proves TDS is a very real and very dangerous disease. Don't worry
about the wu¥flu, worry about the TDS.
Eastern Whale , 1 hour ago
All politicians is corrupt, lets get this straight. Naive to think Trump doesn't deal with
China.
Look at Jared Kushner's property promotion in China
pc_babe , 1 hour ago
Squirrel!
TahoeBilly2012 , 56 minutes ago
Cabal profits from there transformations and wars. They know whats coming.
Reaper , 1 hour ago
Hunter Biden has his price. It's easily negotiated lower.
Vivekwhu , 1 hour ago
So, now the Rep-Dems are accusing Biden of being a CCP agent? This will go nicely with the
Dem-Reps line that Trump is a Putin agent! Don't you love these farts while the US Plebs go
down the debt financial hole??? The rot in the Imperial DC cesspit is too deep and the coup
against Trump by the US Deep State will go kinetic very soon.
The 238-page document, written by the majority staff of the House Transportation
Committee, calls into question whether the plane maker or the Federal Aviation Administration
has fully incorporated essential safety lessons, despite a global grounding of the MAX fleet
since March 2019.
After an 18-month investigation, the report, released Wednesday, concludes that Boeing's
travails stemmed partly from a reluctance to admit mistakes and "point to a company culture
that is in serious need of a safety reset."
The report provides more specifics, in sometimes-blistering language, backing up
preliminary
findings the panel's Democrats released six months ago , which laid out a pattern of
mistakes and missed opportunities to correct them.
In one section, the Democrats' report faults Boeing for what it calls "inconceivable and
inexcusable" actions to withhold crucial information from airlines about one cockpit-warning
system, related to but not part of MCAS, that didn't operate as required on 80% of MAX jets.
Other portions highlight instances when Boeing officials, acting in their capacity as
designated FAA representatives, part of a widely used system of delegating oversight
authority to company employees,
failed to alert agency managers about various safety matters .
Boeing concealed from regulators internal test data showing that if a pilot took longer
than 10 seconds to recognise that the system had kicked in erroneously, the consequences
would be "catastrophic" .
The report also detailed how an alert, which would have warned pilots of a potential
problem with one of their anti-stall sensors, was not working on the vast majority of the Max
fleet . It found that the company deliberately concealed this fact from both pilots and
regulators as it continued to roll out the new aircraft around the world.
In Bed With the Regulators
Boeing's defense is the FAA signed off on the reviews. Lovely. Boeing coerced or bribed the FAA to sign off on the reviews now tries to hide behind
the FAA.
There is only one way to stop executive criminals like those at Boeing. Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all of
their stock and options and hand the money out for restitution.
adr , 1 hour ago
Remember, Boeing spent enough on stock buybacks in the past ten years to fund the
development of at least seven new airframes.
Instead of developing a new and better plane, they strapped engines that didn't belong on
the 737 and called it safe.
SDShack , 21 minutes ago
What is really sad is they already had a perfectly functional and safe 737Max. It was the
757. Look at the specs between the 2 planes. Almost same size, capacity, range, etc. Only
difference was the 757 requires longer runways, but I would think they could have adjusted
the design to improve that and make it very similar to the 737Max without starting from
scratch. Instead Boeing bean counters killed the 757 and gave the world this flying coffin.
Now the world bean counters will kill Boeing.
Tristan Ludlow , 1 hour ago
Boeing is a critical defense contractor. They will not be held accountable and they will
be rewarded with additional bailouts and contract awards.
MFL5591 , 1 hour ago
Can you imagine a congress of Criminals Like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer prosecuting
someone else for fraud? What a joke. Next up will be Bill Clinton testifying against a person
on trial for Pedophilia!
RagaMuffin , 1 hour ago
Mish is half right. The FAA should join Boeing in jail. If they are not held responsible
for their role, why have an FAA?
Manthong , 1 hour ago
"There is only one way to stop executive criminals like those at Boeing.
Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all
of their stock and options and hand the money out for restitution."
Correction:
There is only one way to stop regulator criminals like those in government.
Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all
of their pensions and ill gotten wealth a nd hand the money out for restitution.
Elliott Eldrich , 43 minutes ago
"There is only one way to stop executive criminals like those at Boeing.
Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all
of their stock and options and hand the money out for restitution."
Ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA! Silly rabbit, jail is for poors...
Birdbob , 1 hour ago
Accountability of Elite Perps ended under Oblaba's reign of "Wall Street and Technocracy
Architects" .White collar criminals were granted immunity from prosecution. This was put into
play by Attorney Genital Eric Holder. This was the beginning of having an orificial Attorney
Genital that facilitated the District of Criminals organized crime empire ending the 3 letter
agencies' interference. https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8310187817727287761/1843903631072834621
Dash8 , 1 hour ago
You don't seem to understand the basic principle of aircraft design...it must not require
an extraordinary response for a KNOWN problem.
Think of it this way; Ford builds a car that works great most of the time, but
occasionally a wheel will fall off at highway speeds...no problem, right? ....you just guide
the car to the shoulder on the 3 remaining wheels and all good.
Now, put your wife and kids in that car, after a day at work and the kids screaming in the
back.
Still feel good about your opinion?
canaanav , 1 hour ago
I wrote software on the 787. You are right. This was not a known problem and the Trim
Runaway procedure was already established. The issue was that the MAX needed a larger
horizontal stab and MCAS would have never been needed. The FAA doesnt have the knowledge to
regulate things like this. Boeing lost talent too, and gets bailouts and tax breaks to the
extent that they dont care.
Dash8 , 1 hour ago
But it was a known problem, Boeing admits this.
Argon1 , 41 minutes ago
LGBT & Ethnicity was a more important hiring criteria than Engineering talant.
gutta percha , 1 hour ago
Why is it so difficult to design and maintain reliable Angle Of Attack sensors? The
engineers put in layers and layers of complicated tech to sense and react to AOA sensor
failures. Why not make the sensors _themselves_ more reliable? They aren't nearly as complex
as all the layers of tech BS on top of them.
Dash8 , 1 hour ago
It's not, but it costs $$....and there you have it.
Argon1 , 37 minutes ago
Its the Shuttle Rocketdyne problem, the upper management phones down to the safety
committee and complains about the cost of the delay, take off your engineer hat and put on
your management hat. All of a sudden your project launches on schedule and the board claps
and cheers at their ability to defy physics and save $ millions by just shouting at someone
for about 60 seconds..
canaanav , 1 hour ago
Each AOA sensor is already redundant internally. They have multiple channels. I believe
they were hit with a maintenance stand and jammed. That said, AOA has never been a control
system component. It just runs the low-speed cue on the EFIS and the stick shaker. It's an
advisory-level system. Boeing tied it to Flight Controls thru MCAS. The FAA likely dictated
to Boeing how they wanted the System Safety Analysis (SSA) to look, Boeing wrote it that way,
the FAA bought off on it.
Winston Churchill , 43 minutes ago
More fundamental is why an aerodynamically stable aircraft wasn't designed in the first
place,love of money.
HardlyZero , 13 minutes ago
Yes. In reality the changed CG (Center of Gravity) due to the larger fan engine really did
setup as a "new" design, so the MAX should have been treated as "new" and completely
evaluated and completely tested as a completly new design. As a new design it would probably
double the development and test cost and schedule...so be it.
DisorderlyConduct , 1 hour ago
"Lovely. Boeing coerced or bribed the FAA to sign off on the reviews now tries to hide
behind the FAA."
No - what a shoddy analysis.
The FAA conceded many of their oversight responsibilities to Boeing - who was basically
given the green light to self-monitor. The FAA is the one that is in the wrong here.
Well, how the **** else was that supposed to end up? This is like the IRS letting people
self-audit...
Astroboy , 1 hour ago
Just as the Boeing saga is unfolding, we should expect by the end of the year other
similar situations, related to drug companies, pandemia and the rest.
8. The internet was invented by the US government, not Silicon Valley
Many people think that the US is ahead in the frontier technology sectors as a result of
private sector entrepreneurship. It's not. The US federal government created all these
sectors.
The Pentagon financed the development of the computer in the early days and the Internet
came out of a Pentagon research project. The semiconductor - the foundation of the
information economy - was initially developed with the funding of the US Navy. The US
aircraft industry would not have become what it is today had the US Air Force not massively
subsidized it indirectly by paying huge prices for its military aircraft, the profit of which
was channeled into developing civilian aircraft.
People believe that corporate executives are immune from prosecution and protected by the
fact that they are within the corporation. This is false security. If true purposeful and
intended criminal activities are conducted by any corporate executive, the courts can do what
is called "Piercing The Corporate Veil" . It is looking beyond the corporation as a virtual
person and looking at the actual individuals making and conducting the criminal
activities.
Science now is a highly politicized science and that's a huge problem. Ask USSR scientists
about possible consequences. Is Kapitsa noted long ago in his obitiary on Ernest Rutherford death
as soon as science become rich it lost its freedom. "
"The year that Rutherford died (1938) there
disappeared forever the happy days of free scientific work which gave us such delight in our
youth. Science has lost her freedom. Science has become a productive force. She has become rich
but she has become enslaved and part of her is veiled in secrecy. I do not know whether
Rutherford
would continue to joke and laugh as he used to.
Lysenkoism in Stalins's USSR was the first robin of this process. Now it became commonplace.
That's why we see so many pseudo-scientists -- politicians who pretend to be scientists like
Fauci. and so much corruption like among Professors of economics (all those neoclassical economic
scoundrels)
"...a permanent modern scenario: apocalypse looms and it doesn't occur."
- Susan Sontag, AIDs and its Metaphors
"I should not misuse this opportunity to give you a lecture about, say, logic. I call
this a misuse, for to explain a scientific matter to you it would need a course of lectures
and not an hour's paper. Another alternative would have been to give you what's called a
popular scientific lecture, that is a lecture intended to make you believe that you
understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be
one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the
latest discoveries of science. I rejected these alternatives."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, A Lecture on Ethics
If you're reading this, then you've probably been called a conspiracy theorist. Also
you've been derided and shamed for questioning the "science" of the Covid debacle.
The idea of science is now a badly corrupted idea. In a nation, today, (the USA) which in
educational terms ranks 25th globally in science skills and reading, and well below that in
math; all one hears is a clarion call to science. In reading skills the US placed below
Malta, Portugal, and right about the same as Kazakhstan.
But in a nation that no longer reads, and *can* no longer read, it is not surprising that
knowledge is absorbed via the new hieroglyphics of gifs (interestingly the creator of gifs
wanted it pronounced with a soft g the more to sound like a peanut butter brand) and
memes.
So-called 'response memes' are the new version of conversation, and most register and
communicate (sic) confusion. As beer ad marketers know, the state of your brain after
consuming a six pack is pretty much the standard target ideal for advertising. And it relays
a message that six pack confusion is actually a good and perhaps even sexy state in which to
find oneself.
Education is for those with money, those who can afford the proper foundational skills to
get into Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech and the Stanford. For everyone else science is Star Trek.
But I digress. The point is that most Americans imagine that they revere science, and they
ridicule anyone they think of as unscientific. But they think of it in cult terms, really.
Its a religion of sorts. The only people who don't are those 'real' religious zealots,
Dominionist and Charismatic Christians (like Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos
et al) who hold positions of enormous power in the US government under the least scientific
president in history.
The Christian right doesn't like any science, ANY science. But for most of that target
demographic (the educated mostly white 30%), the cry is to "trust the science" even the great
Greta says to "trust the science".
The problem is, science is not neutral, its as politicized as media and news and the
pronouncements of celebrities.
In May 2020, The Lancet published an article revisiting the 1957 and 1968 Influenza
pandemics.
The 1957 outbreak was not caused by a coronavirus -- the first human coronavirus would
not be discovered until 1965 -- but by an influenza virus. However, in 1957, no one could
be sure that the virus that had been isolated in Hong Kong was a new pandemic strain or
simply a descendant of the previous 1918–19 pandemic influenza virus.
The result was that as the UK's weekly death count mounted, peaking at about 600 in the
week ending Oct 17, 1957, there were few hysterical tabloid newspaper headlines and no
calls for social distancing. Instead, the news cycle was dominated by the Soviet Union's
launch of Sputnik and the aftermath of the fire at the Windscale nuclear reactor in the
UK.
By the time this influenza pandemic -- known colloquially at the time as "Asian flu" --
had concluded the following April, an estimated 20 000 people in the UK and
80 000 citizens in the USA were dead. Worldwide, the pandemic, sparked by a new H2N2
influenza subtype, would result in more than 1 million deaths.
To date, Covid 19 has not reached the million death marker in the US, and yet we are
seeing the most draconian lockdowns in modern history, the total suspension of democratic
process and a level of hysteria (especially in the U.S. and UK) unprecedented. I wrote about
some aspects of this on my blog here , mostly touching on the
cultural effects
Allow me to quote The Lancet again.
The subsequent 1968 influenza pandemic -- or "Hong Kong flu" or "Mao flu" as some
western tabloids dubbed it -- would have an even more dramatic impact, killing more than
30 000 individuals in the UK and 100 000 people in the USA, with half the
deaths among individuals younger than 65 years -- the reverse of COVID-19 deaths in the
current pandemic.
Yet, while at the height of the outbreak in December, 1968, The New York Times described
the pandemic as "one of the worst in the nation's history", there were few school closures
and businesses, for the most, continued to operate as normal.
I remember the 68 Hong Kong flu. I was in my last year of high school. The summer after
was Woodstock, the 'summer of love'. Not a lot of social distancing going on. But we are past
numbers and statistics having any real meaning. The Covid narrative is now in the realm of
allegory.
The media perspective is utterly predictable. Liberal outlets that have the inside track
to government are seen to be reinforcing the mainstream story (VOX, Slate, Huff Post, The
Guardian and Washington Post). In a recent VOX article the message was only a sociopath would
NOT wear a mask and that the 'science' was unanimous.
Of course its no such thing. But the message of sites like VOX, or Daily Beast, or Wa Po
or the truly reprehensible Guardian, are always going to be to hammer away 'on message'. The
same is true for what passes for moderate news organs like the NY Times, ABC News, The Hill,
and BBC. There has been virtually no dissenting opinions expressed in these rags.
All these news outlets are given clear messages by the spin doctors in government, by the
White House, and by contacts within the State Department and Pentagon. And by the advertising
firms employed by the state (such as Ruder Finn).
"Ad agencies are not in the business of doing science."
- Dr. Arnold S. Relman (Madison Ave. Has Growing Role In the Business of Drug
Research, NY Times 2002)
The WHO, the CDC, and most every other NGO or government agency of any size hires
advertising firms. The WHO, which is tied to the United Nations, is a reasonably sinister
organization, actually.
Just picking up a random publication from the WHO, on what they call 'the tobacco
epidemic' and you find on page 33 the following chapter heading "Objective: Effective
surveillance, monitoring and evaluation systems in place to monitor tobacco use."
Reading further and all this is really saying is that the populace of any country is best
put under surveillance. It's for their own good, you see.
Institutions of medicine, global and national possess
no more integrity than your average NGO (Amnesty International, Médecins Sans
Frontières, Oxfam et al). And that means not very much.
To understand the nature of institutional corruption one must understand Imperialism. The
institutions of Imperialist nations are going to further Imperialist ideology. (see Antonio
Gramsci, ideological hegemony). The US is not
in the business of helping Americans .
Modern monopoly forms better reflect that scientific knowledge, and its advanced
application to production, are concentrated, ultimately, not in physical objects but in
human beings and human interaction with those objects. It is monopoly of the labour power
of the most highly educated workers, by both imperialist states and Multi National
Corporations, that forms the ultimate and most stable base of imperialist reproduction.
– Sam King (Lenin's theory of imperialism: a defence of its relevance in the
21st century, MLR)
The idea of super-exploitation needs to be conceptually generalised at the necessary
level of abstraction and incorporated in the theory of imperialism. Super-exploitation is a
specific condition within the capitalist mode of production [ ] the hidden common essence
defining imperialism.
he working class of the oppressed nations/Third World/Global South is systematically
paid below the value of labour power of the working class of the oppressor nations/First
World/Global North. This is not because the Southern working class produces less value, but
because it is more oppressed and more exploited.
– Andy Higginbottom (Structure and Essence in Capital 1, quoted by John
Smith Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century)
The US jobless rate just hit 2.1 million. Officially. Making the total something over
forty million. Its much higher in reality. Nobody has work. There is no work and we are at
the start of a period of massive evictions, foreclosures, and delinquencies - and the
homeless population will soon reach Biblical proportions (in some cities, such as Los
Angeles, its already Biblical). Will be simply of a magnitude never before seen.
Hence the authoritarian policing of lockdowns in, for example, New Zealand, suggests
something like a practice run. The ruling class in western nations knows full well this is
coming. And one wonders if it's not, in fact, a part of the plan (oh here is where someone
says conspiracy theory probably Louis Proyect).
Yes it's a fucking conspiracy theory. It is a theory based on evidence, however.
Why are the US and UK and a host of other countries deliberately ensuring a massive
depression? Because they care about your health? They are worried we all might catch the flu?
Has the US ever demonstrated a concern with your health and well being before?
Remember how many discretionary tax dollars go to health care and how much to defense.
Conspiracies do occur. The denial of that fact seems to be a hallmark of the pseudo or false
left. Does the suspension of democratic process not cause this soft left any problems at all?
Look at Sweden, at Belarus no lockdown and no problem.
It should be noted that there are a great many terrific doctors in the US. Dedicated and
brilliant, often. But they are not the system. The system is run for profit.
With about three-fourths of Americans under lockdown, the unintended consequences will
be vast. There has been a notable decrease in the number of heart attack and stroke
patients arriving at hospitals, presumably because they are afraid of catching the
coronavirus or of not finding a hospital bed.
As the economy spirals downward, we can also expect an increase in mental health crises,
domestic violence and suicides. While lockdown supporters say that to have a functioning
economy, we must have good public health, the reverse is also true: To have good public
health, we must have a functioning economy.
– Alex Berezow PhD (Geopolitical Futures, 2020)
Alfred Willener wrote an interesting book in 1970, analysing May 68 in France. He analyses
the answers students gave to various questionnaires they responded to. The section regarding
science is worth quoting.
'The scandalous fact is that, for all the means that science has put at our disposal,
most people live not much better than in the Middle Ages'. The system benefits from science
in the following way: through the atom bomb, through 'the power of statistical research',
through computers, through the chemical industry being 'in the hands of the state', through
space research.
'In the end, you realize', concludes one reasonably logical reply, 'that technological
progress, which makes economic growth possible, does not satisfy the fundamental needs of
man and is used above all to maintain and strengthen the system'.
Lastly, I should like to quote one quite unexpected reply, which forms the extreme point
of pessimism: ' Everyone is oppressed by science.'
– Alfred Willener (The Action-Image of Society on Cultural
Politicization)
I doubt seriously one would get such responses today in any European or North American
country. The contemporary indoctrination regards science is acute. And the media abounds in
junk science. Click bait science. And this is where most people have their opinions formed
for them.
There is a paper put out by one of the founders of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab,
called The Great Reset. The conclusion of the book reads
...at a global level, if viewed in terms of the global population affected, the corona
crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the
last 2000 years."
In other words, a mortality of .06% is simply not commensurate with the extreme measures
the governments of the world (the West in particular) are taking.
There is no question, none, that those measures, the lockdown, the masks, the distancing,
and the attending *diseases of despair*, will kill more people by a factor of ten than the
virus itself.
This is not even to begin discussing the psychological harm done, in particular to
children. And not just harm to children, but severe
harm to the most vulnerable .
What is being internalized by children is three fold. One, there is something inherently
sick and contagious about ME. Two, everyone MIGHT be a threat to my health. And three, obey
authority, because you don't want to end up like those smelly homeless people were are trying
to hard to avoid.
Children take things personally. They tend to blame themselves. Even in the comparative
sanity of Norway, where I reside, children are increasingly anxious about the world. How
could they not be? All this for a health risk of .06%.
But it is more than just the decimation of the economy in the US and UK. It is a
dismantling of the culture. One in three museums closed because of Covid will not re-open.
Ever. Where does all that art go?
Just a guess but probably very wealthy collectors will gobble it up at wholesale
prices.
The predictable outcome of these lockdowns, certainly in the US, is a guaranteed minimum
income. Very minimum. Restrictions on travel, all freedom of movement in fact, will not soon
return to normal. Various forms of surveillance and tracking, as well as health
certifications, are the goal of the state.
Also, if this pandemic succeeded so well, with so little resistance, why not have another?
And there is another aspect to the SWAT mask police, and that is that western society is
becoming alarmingly hypochondriacal. Children are kept out of school for runny noses. If all
kids with snotty noses were kept out of class, nobody would get an education.
There is a dire future of two or three generations now developing and maturing with very
weak immune systems. So that if a natural mutation takes place one day, from a Corona virus
or any other, a genuinely serious pandemic could kill tens of millions.
It is not a speculation that there are people who prosper and even benefit during an
economic crisis -- as smaller business owners struggle, large corporations and banks
benefit from huge government subsidies, giving them more power to buy failing small
businesses, for example. And it is a fact that many of those people have enormous economic
power to shape the policies that can benefit themselves.
It is not a speculation that they would appreciate having strict measures of control
against the people by limiting their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to
travel, or by installing means of surveillance, check points and official certifications
for activities that might give freedom to the people beyond the capitalist framework.
It is not a speculation that they would benefit from moving our social interactions to
the digital realm, which can commodify our activities as marketable data for the
advertising industry, insurance industry and any other moneyed social institutions
Including education, political institution, legal institution, and financial
institution.
Such matters should be seen within the context of the western history being shaped by
unelected capitalists with their enormous networks of social institutions.
– Hiroyuki Hamada (Wrong Kind of Green, April 2020)
The collapse of retail is accelerating. This is emerging as a monopolization of retail.
Few shops will remain, in fact, except luxury stores in select gated areas. The rest will be
online and probably rudimentary. The culture and the economy are being strip-mined and
recreated for a select clientele. The collapse of the economy means the collapse of the
bottom 90% or so.
The very richest men and corporations on the planet are making huge profits.
And yet, there are precious few voices of dissent to the master narrative in the US. In
Norway, the lockdown was about five weeks. But its a sparsely populated country and one
hardly noticed it save for the kids being home and not in school. But schools reopened and
the Prime Minister actually made a speech apologizing, in effect, for an *unnecessary*
lockdown. She had been frightened.
But now, with a mild uptick in positive cases the country is considering stricter
limitations on travel. Why?
There is no uptick in deaths, only in positive test results. The fact remains the virus
attacks the aged and the already sick. But this is very telling, I think. The Norwegian
government doesn't want to be seen as disobedient. They don't want to not follow the grand
plan provided by western agencies and experts. Even if they seemingly don't really believe
it.
(The saddest aspect is the voice of Dr. Mads Gilbert, a known advocate for Palestinian
rights, who has weighed in on the side of fear. Why? I have no idea. But it is worth noting
his predictions
from March 2020 were staggeringly wrong.)
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
But clearly the groupthink pressure is powerful and small nations do not want to be
singled out for bucking the *science* . There are economic coercions threatened, tacitly, as
well. The pressure to conform is huge and it takes a Herculean effort -- both individually
and as a nation, to resist. And *experts* seem to have a hard time admitting they were
wrong.
The science has been consistently wrong from day one.
As I say, this is now allegory. Or fable. There is nothing reasonable or rational in the
lockdown measures of the US and UK and NZ. Or anywhere. And this is not even to touch upon
the criminality of the Gates Foundation and Bill Gates buying public influence and
visibility. Not trained in any medical discipline, Gates has somehow made himself one of the
faces of the pandemic.
And to deconstruct Gates' language is to find a disturbing quality of authoritarian
hubris. Gates utters declarations as if he were God speaking to his flock. All from a man who
has done little save steal from his partners and exploit the poor of India and Africa. One of
the most striking aspects of this whole last few months has been the enormous and coordinated
effort the Gates machine has put into rehabilitating his image.
If you google "Crimes of the Gates Foundation" for example, you will get ten different
fact-checkers officially denying any crimes and another half dozen articles ridiculing those
who question Gates motives, his profit from vaccines, or even his alignment with eugenicists
(depopulation adherents)– all are derided as, yes, conspiracy theorists.
If you dare to question the rushing of an untested vaccine you are called an
anti-vaxxer.
My children are vaccinated. I just don't like the idea of a hurried untested vaccine
produced for a virus that needs no vaccine. And one promoted by a creepy millionaire.
But clearly the Gates charm offensive is in overdrive. The pastel cardigan is everywhere.
And yet, his favorable rating in recent surveys is around 56%. That is actually not very high
given the amount of self-promotion involved. It's better than Mark Zuckerberg and Joe Biden,
though. Gates is not likeable. No amount of spin can change that.
The final factor to note is the Trump effect. Many liberals would literally rather see
dead in the street if it meant discrediting Trump. It is no longer quite a zero sum game,
though. But overall the hatred of Trump is now at a religious level, too.
And behold, the opposition is Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. If you want a window in the
black heart of Biden, watch and/or listen to his testimony around the Waco inferno. The
inherent sadism and lack of humanity is glaringly apparent.
As for Kamala Harris:
As a San Francisco social worker, I sat on the school district committee that met with
families of chronically truant students. Once, when we asked a student why he didn't go to
school, he said there was too much police tape and shootings at his school bus stop.
Harris, as CA Attorney General, was putting parents/caregivers in jail if their child
was chronically truant. Also as Attorney General, she denied a DNA test to Kevin Cooper, a
very likely innocent man who came within hours of execution in 2004.
– Riva Enteen (Counterpunch Aug. 2020)
These are the servants of capital.
The left should be emphasising the economic aspect of lockdown because it is the working
class who are the principal victims of lockdown."
- Phil Shannon (Lockdown Skeptics, June 2020)
A Downing street tweet today:
We're putting tougher measures in place to target serious breaches of coronavirus
restrictions. Fines for not wearing a face-covering will double for repeat offences, up to
£3,200."
This is a class-based assault. The wealthy will not be fined for not wearing a
face-covering on their private beaches, or dinner parties at the yacht club.
Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump VotersMark Thomason , Aug 20 2020 16:12 utc |
1
It is likely that U.S. President Donald Trump will soon says that he hardly knew his
former campaign manager and senior advisor Steve Bannon and that he had always suspected that
Bannon was a crook.
Today the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York
announced an indictment against Bannon and others:
Starting in approximately December 2018, BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO,
and TIMOTHY SHEA, and others, orchestrated a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of
donors, including donors in the Southern District of New York, in connection with an online
crowdfunding campaign ultimately known as "We Build The Wall" that raised more than $25
million to build a wall along the southern border of the United States. In particular, to
induce donors to donate to the campaign, KOLFAGE repeatedly and falsely assured the public
that he would "not take a penny in salary or compensation" and that "100% of the funds
raised ... will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose" because, as BANNON
publicly stated, "we're a volunteer organization."
Those representations were false.
The four indicted persons who ran the "We Build The Wall" campaign funneled donations into
their own pockets:
[STEVE] BANNON, through a non-profit organization under his control ("Non-Profit-1"),
received over $1 million from We Build the Wall, at least some of which BANNON used to
cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in BANNON's personal expenses.
Bannon and the other three accused persons are now under arrest.
Interestingly the indictments come from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern
District of New York which in June was involved in a
spat with Trump :
Geoffrey Berman, the powerful U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said
late Friday that he had not resigned after Attorney General William Barr said he would be
stepping down. Barr sent a letter to Berman on Saturday saying he had asked President Trump
to fire Berman, and the president had done so.
"I was surprised and quite disappointed by the press statement you released last night,"
Barr said in a statement. "Because you have declared that you have no intention of
resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so."
Berman's office had investigated some of President Trump's associates, including the
president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen.
There were at that time
several known cases in the Southern District that involved people somewhat associated
with Trump. But it still is not known why exactly Trump intervened in that office.
Could it have been because of the case against Bannon which was not publicly known at that
time?
Probably not. Bannon and the others defrauded people who want to build the wall and are
thereby on Trump's side. Trump is not probably not stupid enough to intervene in such a
case.
Then again ...
The advisory board of We
Build The Wall includes several other pro-Trump figures including mercenary salesman Erik
Prince.
CBS reports that Bannon was
taken into custody by US Postal Inspection Service agents. In the announcement of the
indictment Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
York, explicitly praises the USPIS for its support. In light of the recent dust up over
alleged Trump moves against the Postal Service that deserves a chuckle.
Bannon had recently worked with the Chinese crook Guo Wengui to build up a media company.
As we noted a year
ago :
A non-profit that "did not pay him" actually paid for services that
benefited him. There was just a nominal cut out between him and the payment by his
non-profit.
Bannon said this was wrong when the Clinton's did it. That is how the money got from their
non-profit Foundation to them, and in much larger amounts than what Bannon took.
Bannon said it was wrong then when the Clinton's did it. Democrats say it is wrong now
when Bannon did it. They are both correct.
Oligarchy owns the USA political system and tune it to their needs. Proliferation of NGO is one such trick that favor
oligarchy.
That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense—and it yields results. In April, Gates called for a nationwide total
lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn’t quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely
crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an all-time high.
Notable quotes:
"... Non-profit activity lets super-elites broker political power tax-free, reshaping the world according to their designs. ..."
"... The American tax code makes all of this possible. It greases the skids for the wealthy to use their fortunes to augment their political power. The 501(c)(3) designation makes all donations, of whatever size, to charitable nonprofits immune from taxation. ..."
"... For the super-wealthy, political power comes tax-free. ..."
"... No one ever elected Bill Gates to anything. His wealth, and not the democratic process, is the only reason he has an outsized voice in shaping coronavirus policy. The man who couldn't keep viruses out of Windows now wants to vaccinate the planet. That isn't an unreasonable goal for a man of his wealth, either. Gates's foundation is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization, providing some 10 percent of its funds . That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense -- and it yields results. In April , Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn't quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an all-time high . ..."
"... Eliminating the tax exemption for charitable giving would make it simple to heavily tax the capital gains that drive the wealth of America's richest one thousand people. One could also leave the exemption in place for most Americans (those with a net worth under $100 million), while making larger gifts, especially those over a billion dollars, taxable at extremely high rates close to 100%. Bill Gates wants to give a billion dollars to his foundation? Great. But he should pay a steep fee to the American people to purchase that kind of power. ..."
"... There is nothing socialist in these or similar tax proposals. We are not making an abstract commentary on whether having a billion dollars is "moral." These are simply prudential measures to put the people back in charge of their own country. Reining in billionaires and monopolists is a conservative free market strategy. ..."
"... An America governed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros will be -- arguably, already is -- a disaster for the middle class and everyday Americans. Cracking down on their "selfless" philanthropy, combined with antitrust enforcement and higher progressive tax rates, is a key way for Americans to leverage the power of the ballot box against the power of the banker's vault. ..."
"... The rotting edifice that is the United States is coming down one way or another. Just accept it. ..."
"... I would end tax exempt status for organizations. When everyone pays taxes we all become better stewards of how that money is used. ..."
"... To think both Mr. Dreher and Mr. Van Buren just recently posted about the superwealthy leaving the big cities, citing as the main reasons the Covid thing on the one hand, and "excessively high" income taxes on the other. Most comments that followed were in the line of "that's what happens when you let socialists run things" and "stop giving money to the poor, then they'll work and get rich." And here we have someone proposing more and higher taxes on the wealthy to bust their political nuts. ..."
"... It's an interesting proposal, but it seems that if you're worried about super-elites brokering political power tax-free, you might focus on direct brokering of political power. For example, we could pass a law requiring full disclosure of all sources of funding for any political advertising. ..."
Non-profit activity lets super-elites broker political power tax-free, reshaping the world
according to their designs.
America's super-wealthy have too much power. A republican regime based on the consent of the
governed cannot survive when a few hands control too large a sum of money and too much human
capital. A dominion of monopolists spells ruin for the common man.
The Federal Reserve calculates that, at present, America's total household wealth equals
$104 trillion .
Of that,
$3.4 trillion belongs to America's 600 billionaires alone. Put another way, 3% of the
nation's wealth belongs to 0.0002% of the population. Those 600 names control twice as much
wealth as the least wealthy 170 million Americans combined . This is a problem. Economic
power means political power. In an era of mass media, it has never been easier to manufacture
public opinion and to manipulate the citizenry.
Look no further than the consensus view of
Fortune 500 companies as to the virtues of Black Lives Matter. That movement's incredible
cultural reach is, in large part, a function of its cachet among American elites. In 2016, the
Ford Foundation began a
Black-Led Movement Fund to funnel $100 million into racial and social justice causes.
George Soros' Open Society Foundation immediately poured in $33 million in grants.
Soros and company received a massive return on investment. The shift leftward on issues of
racial and social justice in the last four years has been nothing short of remarkable.
Net public support for BLM , at minus 5 percent in 2018, has surged to plus 28 percent in
2020. The New York Times estimates that some 15 to
26 million Americans participated in recent protests over George Floyd's death.
And the money keeps flowing. In the last three months, hundreds of millions of dollars have
poured into social and racial justice causes.
Sony Music Group , the
NFL ,
Warner Music Group , and
Comcast all have promised gifts in excess of $100 million. MacKenzie Bezos has
promised more than a billion dollars to Historically Black Colleges and Universities as
well as other racial and social justice organizations. Yet, as scholars like Heather
MacDonald have pointed out -- America's justice system is not racist. Disquieting anecdotes
and wrenching videos blasted across cyberspace are not the whole of, or even representative of,
our reality. But well-heeled media and activism campaigns can change the perception. That's
what matters.
The American tax code makes all of this possible. It greases the skids for the wealthy to
use their fortunes to augment their political power. The 501(c)(3) designation makes all
donations, of whatever size, to charitable nonprofits immune from taxation.
A man can only eat so much filet mignon in one lifetime. He can only drive so many
Lamborghinis and vacation in so many French chalets. At a certain point, the longing for
material pleasures gives way to a longing for honor and power. What a super-elite really wants
is to be remembered for "changing the world." The tax code makes the purchasing of such honors
even easier than buying fast cars and luxury homes.
For the super-wealthy, political power comes tax-free.
No one ever elected Bill Gates to anything. His wealth, and not the democratic process, is
the only reason he has an outsized voice in shaping coronavirus policy. The man who couldn't
keep viruses out of Windows now wants to vaccinate the
planet. That isn't an unreasonable goal for a man of his wealth, either. Gates's foundation
is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization,
providing some 10 percent of its funds . That kind of influence over expert opinion is
immense -- and it yields results.
In April , Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn't quite
sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely crushed small
businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an
all-time high .
No one ever voted on those lockdowns, either. Like the mask-wearing mandates, they were
instituted by executive fiat. The experts
, many of them funded through donations given by tech billionaires like Gates , campaigned for policies that
radically altered the basic structure of society. Here lies the danger of billionaire power.
Without adequate checks and balances, the super-wealthy can skirt the normal political process,
working behind the scenes to make policies that the people never even have a chance to debate
or vote on.
A republic cannot be governed this way. America needs to bring its current crop of oligarchs
to heel. That starts with constraining their ability to commandeer their massive personal
fortunes to shape policy. Technically, the 501(c)(3) designation prevents political activities
by tax-exempt charities. Those rules apply only to political campaigning and lobbying, however.
They say nothing about funding legal battles or shaping specific policies indirectly through
research and grants. America's universities, think tanks, and advocacy organizations are nearly
universally considered tax-exempt nonprofits. Only a fool would believe they are not
political.
One solution to the nonprofit problem to simply get rid of the charitable exemption all
together. If there is no loophole, it can't be exploited by the mega-wealthy. Most Americans'
charitable giving wouldn't be affected. The average American gives between $2,000 and
$3,000 per year . That is well under the $24,800 standard tax deduction for married
couples. Ninety
percent of taxpayers have no reason to use a line-item deduction. Such a change likely
wouldn't affect wealthy givers either. In
2014 , the average high-income American (defined as making more than $200,000 per year or
having a million dollars in assets) gave an average of $68,000 to charity, and in 2018
93 percent said
their giving had nothing to do with tax breaks.
Eliminating the tax exemption for charitable giving would make it simple to heavily tax the
capital gains that drive the wealth of America's richest one thousand people. One could also
leave the exemption in place for most Americans (those with a net worth under $100 million),
while making larger gifts, especially those over a billion dollars, taxable at extremely high
rates close to 100%. Bill Gates wants to give a billion dollars to his foundation? Great. But
he should pay a steep fee to the American people to purchase that kind of power.
There is nothing socialist in these or similar tax proposals. We are not making an abstract
commentary on whether having a billion dollars is "moral." These are simply prudential measures
to put the people back in charge of their own country. Reining in billionaires and monopolists
is a conservative free market strategy.
Incentives to make more money are generally good. The libertarians are mostly right --
people are usually better judges of how to spend and use their resources than the
government.
But not always. The libertarian account does not adequately recognize man's political
nature. We need law and order. We need a regime where elections matter and the opinions of the
people actually shape policy. Contract law, borders, and taxes are all necessary to human
flourishing, but all impede the total and unrestricted movement of labor and money. At the very
top of the wealth pyramid, concentrated economic power always turns into political power. An
economic policy that doesn't recognize that fact will create an untouchable class that controls
both the market and the regime. There's nothing freeing about that outcome.
An America governed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros will be --
arguably, already is -- a disaster for the middle class and everyday Americans. Cracking
down on their "selfless" philanthropy, combined with antitrust enforcement and higher
progressive tax rates, is a key way for Americans to leverage the power of the ballot box
against the power of the banker's vault.
Josiah Lippincott is a former Marine officer and current Master's student at the Van
Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.
I'd like to thank the author for actually discussing policy proposals that actually
make sense. That's a rarity on TAC. However, he needs to keep a couple of things in
mind:
1. You can't just say something isn't socialist on a conservative website.
Conservatives have been conditioned for decades to believe that anything the GOP
considers to be bad is called by the name "socialism". And taxes are bad. Therefore
socialist. To bring any nuance to that word will be devastating to long-term conservative
ability to argue points.
2. This proposal won't just hurt the ability of left-leaning tech giants, but also
right-leaning oil and defense industry barons. A double-edged sword.
This is an interesting idea that might have had a shot, big maybe, 50 plus years ago.
America is too far gone to fix with political changes, not that you could make any major
changes like this in the current political environment.
The rotting edifice that is the United States is coming down one way or another. Just
accept it.
Certainly! Just so long as the word "organizations" encompasses churches as well, I
think lots of people on all sides of the political spectrum would agree.
Complicated argument. Basically, charitable people will always give charity, even from
taxed income. However, if people give charity from taxed income, the state can no longer
control what the institutions given money do with that money as long as salaries and
surplus are taxed.
Interesting proposal. Removing tax deduction should of course throw IRS out of
monitoring charitable giving. So less power to Lois Lerner and colleagues.
To think both Mr. Dreher and Mr. Van Buren just recently posted about the superwealthy
leaving the big cities, citing as the main reasons the Covid thing on the one hand, and
"excessively high" income taxes on the other. Most comments that followed were in the
line of "that's what happens when you let socialists run things" and "stop giving money
to the poor, then they'll work and get rich." And here we have someone proposing more and
higher taxes on the wealthy to bust their political nuts.
Note that the author carefully left out any mention of conservative megadonors shaping
public policy. Must be the quiet part, to avoid tarring and feathering by his own
side.
Say you like the game of Monopoly so much that you want it to last longer than
the few hours it takes for one player to dominate and beat the others. Well, you could
replace $200 as you pass Go with progessive taxation on income, assets, or a combination
thereof. If you do it right, you can make the game last into perpetuity by ensuring that
the dominance of any one player is only temporary.
It's an interesting proposal, but it seems that if you're worried about super-elites
brokering political power tax-free, you might focus on direct brokering of political
power. For example, we could pass a law requiring full disclosure of all sources of
funding for any political advertising.
If we wanted to be aggressive, we could even pass
a constitutional amendment to specify that corporations are not people. It seems odd to
worry about the political power exercised by institutions with no direct control over
politics, and ignore the institution whose purpose is politics.
Another approach to deal with the direct influence of the super-elite would be to make
lobbying expenses no longer tax deductible. I'm sure you could find support for that.
This is the 5th TAC article since May to take something word-for-word from a Bernie
Sanders-esque Leftist platform and call it something "Conservatives" want. GTFOOH.
Mr. Lippincott: That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense -- and it yields
results. In April, Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America
didn't quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get
absolutely crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits.
Microsoft stock is at an all-time high.
So the argument here is that the experts were not going to call for a lockdown, but
Mr. Gates' outsized influence made them do it? The experts weren't going to do it anyway?
Did that outsized influence extend to every other country in the world which imposed
lockdowns? Was there a secret communique between Mr. Gates and the NBA so they suspended
their season in mid-March? In the US, CA, Clark Cty in NV, Illinois, Kansas City, MA, MI,
NY, OR, and WI all began lockdowns in March. Around the world, 80 countries began
lockdowns in March. No matter what Mr. Gates said, lockdowns were deemed to be
appropriate. Plus, Mr. Lippincott admits that Mr. Gates' proposal was not followed. In
terms of "massive tech firms making out like bandits" v small businesses, might that have
anything to do with their value?
I very much agree with this article and I think we need another Teddy Roosevelt
Monopoly (oligarchy) buster but much has changed in the 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt
was President. The first thing that comes to mind is that the aristocracy was mostly
protestant and the business class was mostly domestic with high tariffs keeping foreign
competitors out so we could break up these companies without a foreign country purchasing
them and possibly creating a national security risk.
Today's aristocracy is much more diverse. Its more Jewish and it has much more
minority representation from African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc so that creates
the first problem in breaking up a monopoly or an oligarchy which would be the accusation
of targeting minorities for discrimination. The second problem is that many of the
aristocratic class in the US consider themselves global citizens and have dual
citizenship. They can live anywhere anytime they choose so if you target them the way say
Cuomo and DiBlasio and Newsom do then they will leave. Third problem is our global
society particularly the digital / virtual society. If you break that up without
safeguards then you will only be inviting foreign ownership then you will have a national
security issue and even less influence.
The biggest problem is the NGOs, nonprofits that the rich set up to usurp the
government on various issues from immigration to gender identity to politics. These NGO
nonprofits arent your harmless community soup kitchen doing good works. The anarchy,
arson, looting, rioting in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Baltimore these are paid for
by NGO nonprofits and they have the money to threaten local government, state government
and federal government. Trump was 100% correct when he started to tax college endowments
but he didnt go far enough. The tax laws have to be rewritten with a very strict and
narrow interpretation of what exactly constitutes the public good and is deserving on
non-profit status. If you say education then I will say you are correct but endowments
are an investment vehicle under the umbrella of an educational nonprofit. Thats like a
nonprofit hospital buying a mutual fund company or a mine or a manufacturing plan and
claiming its non-profit. For me its relatively simple unless someone has a some other
way. If you look at the non-profit community good...what are the budgets for say
hospitals, schools, orphanages, retirement homes, etc. Put monetary limits on nonprofits
which can vary depending on industry and the rest is taxed at a high rate. We simply
cannot have NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) using a nonprofit status to bring down a
country's financial system, over-throwing a country, financing civil strife and civil
war, usurping the government on things like immigration, etc.
"... Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all corrupt. ..."
"... Numerous polls (for examples, this and this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want "bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. ..."
"... That's the way America's Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives' filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way -- and, of course, none does. ..."
"... The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings . ..."
"... But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. ..."
The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how
America's billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its
opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening -- and then its
broader context will be discussed briefly:
2:45 : There is "this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves,
their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and
the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional
proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea
what it is that the people they've voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and
reality is enormous."
Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:
to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds' bombing of Yemen
to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty
On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes -
overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney's daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the
debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.
Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the
business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the
Parties. "The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated" by the press (in order to pump
up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and
internationally, the lie that America is a democracy -- actually represents the interests of
the voters).
16:00 : The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- which writes the nearly $750B
annual Pentagon budget -- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing's
Washington State.
"The majority of his district are people of color." He's "clearly a pro-war hawk" a
consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.
"This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed
Services Committee -- someone with this record."
He is "the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military
spending."
He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the "defense industry opened up their
coffers" and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.
That's the opening.
Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are
almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all
corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters,
such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the
'defense' contractors and the 'news' media etc., campaign for Democrats' votes by emphasizing
how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about
than they do about America's destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine,
and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela
and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings
of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to
vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent 'defense' contractors and other
profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most
corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again -- by deceived voters. And -- as
those nearly unanimous committee votes display -- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is
profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore: Adam Smith's opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no
relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith's neoconservative voting-record, but
the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to
keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage
from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that "Sarah Smith
mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy
approach," and that she "routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign
donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign," only very few of the
voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in
the pocket of 'defense' billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon's big weapons-making firms defeated
a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from
selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better
education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and
everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a
fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more
important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah
Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish
voting-record, which that district's voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually
had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).
Of course, Greenwald's audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them
of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same
way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different
priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and
atrocities.
Numerous polls (for examples,
this and
this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want
"bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does
have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In
fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality.
That's the way America's
Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media
don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its
billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the
public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil
their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they
actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's
hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the
billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives'
filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can
function this way -- and, of course, none does.
Patmos , 8 hours ago
Eisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Was probably still when Congress maybe had a few slivers of integrity though.
As McCain's wife said, they all knew about Epstein.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
And now we suffer the Medical Industrial Complex on top of it.
Question_Mark , 1 hour ago
Klaus Schwab, UN/World Economic Forum - power plant "cyberattack" (advance video to 6:42
to skip intro):
please watch video at least from minute 6:42 at least for a few minutes to get context,
consider its contents, and comment:
Vot3 for trump but don't waste too much energy on the elections. All Trump can do is buy
us time.
Their plan has been in the works for over a century.
1) financial collapse with central banking.
2) social collapse with cultural marxism
3) government collapse with corrupt pedophile politicians.
EndOfDayExit , 7 hours ago
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Humans are just not wired for eternal vigilance. Sheeple want to graze and don't want to
think.
JGResearch , 8 hours ago
Money is just the tool, it goes much deeper:
The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far
worse than your darkest visions and fears.'
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear
'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are
not behind the scenes' *
- Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This information helps understand the shift to the bias we are witnessing at The PBS
Newshour and the MSM. PBS has always taken their marching orders from the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Judy Woodruff, and Jim
Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS ) is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. John McCain (United States Republican Senator
from Arizona , 2008
Republican Party nominee for the Presidency), William F. Buckley, Jr
(commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review ), Jeffery E Epstein
(financier)
The Council on Foreign Relations has historical control both the Democratic establishment
and the Republican establishment until President Trump came along.
Until then they did not care who won the presidency because they control both parties at
the top.
FYI: Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ).
Until Trump both Republicans and Democrats control by the Eastern Establishment.There
operational front was the Council on Foreign Relations. Historically they did not care who
one the election since they controlled both parties from the top.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nation's wealth.
The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every
Presidential Administration and cabinet since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform
the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American
People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members
of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders.
Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on
the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International
Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets
include British and American citizens.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the
identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They
surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
KuriousKat , 8 hours ago
there are 550 of them in the US..just boggles the mind they have us at each others throat
instead of theirs.
jmNZ , 3 hours ago
This is why America's only hope is to vote for Ron Paul.
x_Maurizio , 2 hours ago
Let me understand how a system, which is already proven being disfunctional, should
suddenly produce a positive result. That's craziness: to repeate the same action, with the
conviction it will give a different result.
If you would say: "The only hope is NOT TO TAKE PART TO THE FARCE" (so not to vote) I'd
understand.
But vot for that, instead of this.... what didn't you understand?
Voice-of-Reason , 6 hours ago
The very fact that we have billionaires who amass so much wealth that they can own our
Republic is the problem.
Eastern Whale , 8 hours ago
all the names mentioned in this article is rotten to the core
MartinG , 5 hours ago
Tell me again how democracy is the greatest form of government. What other profession lets
clueless idiots decide who runs the business.
Xena fobe , 4 hours ago
It isn't the fault of democracy. It's more the fault of voters.
quikwit , 3 hours ago
I'd pick the "clueless idiots" over an iron-fisted evil genius every time.
_triplesix_ , 8 hours ago
Am I the only one who noticed that Eric Zuesse capitalized the word "black" every time he
used it?
F**k you, Eric, you Marxist trash.
BTCtroll , 7 hours ago
Confirmed. Blacks are apparently a proper noun despite being referred to as simply a
color. In reality, no one cares. Ask anyone, they don't care expert black lies matter.
freedommusic , 4 hours ago
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people,
inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret
proceedings .
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official
censorship and concealment.
Our way of life is under attack.
But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of
invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political
operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not
headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No
rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime
discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
...I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country
to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the
present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint, which that danger imposes upon us
all.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation and obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the
American people, to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and
understand them as well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the
choices that we face.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help
in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete
confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully
informed.
... that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in
America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it
wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to
indicate our crises, and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger,
public opinion.
"... Some of the neoliberal countries may be at the stage of the collusion; some of them may find themselves at the stage of oligarchy; some of them may be at the stage of corruption culture. ..."
"... In Japan, since 1957, there were twenty-one prime ministers of whom 75% were one-year or two-year prime ministers despite the four-year term of prime ministers. The short life span of Japanese prime ministers is essentially due to the short term interest pursued by the corrupted golden triangle composed of big business, bureaucrats and politicians. Unless, Japan uproots the corruption culture, it will be difficult to save the Japanese economy from perpetual stagnation. ..."
"... In the U.S. the big companies are spending a year no less than $2.6 billion lobbying money for the promotion of their interests, while the Congress spends $ 2.9 billion and the Senate, $860 million for their respective annual operation. Some of the big companies deploy as many as 100 lobbyists. ..."
"... It is unbelievable that the amount of lobbying is as much as 70% of the annual budget of the whole legislative of the U.S. ..."
"... Under such lobbying system, each group should deploy lobbyists to promote their interests. The immigrants, the native Indians, the Afro Americans, the alienated white people and other marginal groups cannot afford lobbyists and they are often excluded from fair treatment in the process of making laws and policies ..."
"... In the case of the U.S. its rank increased from 18 in 2016 to 22 in 2019. Thus in three years, the degree of corruption increase by 22.2% ..."
"... The U.S. is the richest country in the world, but it is also a country where income inequality is the most pronounced. I will come back to this issue in the next section. In relation to the corona virus crisis, income inequality means an army of those who are most likely to be infected and who are unable to follow CDC guidelines of testing, self quarantine and social distancing. Finally, the privatization of public health services has made the whole country unprepared for the onslaught of the virus. ..."
"... The experience of Japan shows how this can happen. The economic depression after the bubble burst of 1989, Japan had to endure 30-year deflation. The government of Japan has flooded the country with money to restore the economy, but the money was used for the bail-out of big corporations neglecting the healthy development of the SMEs and impoverishing the ordinary Japanese people. South Korea could have experienced the Japanese-type economic stagnation, if the conservative government ruled the country ten more years. ..."
"... The neoliberal pro-big company policy of Washington has greatly depleted consumer demand and SMEs even before the onslaught of the coronavirus. ..."
"... Fourth, the U.S. economy is shaken up so much that the neoliberal regime will not able to recover the economy. Thus, the survival of neo-liberalism looks uncertain. But, if the coronavirus crisis continues and destroys SMEs and if only the big corporations survive owing to bailout money, neo-liberalism may survive and we may end up with authoritarian governance ruled by the business-politics oligarchy. ..."
For the last forty years, neo-liberalism has dominated economic thinking and the formulation of economic policies Worldwide.
But the corona virus crisis has exposed, in a dramatic way, its internal contradictions, its incapacity to deal with the corona
crisis and its incompetence to restore the real economy ruined by the crisis.
In this article, we will focus on the relationship between Neoliberalism and the Corona Crisis:
Neoliberalism has prevented the governments from controlling effectively the initial outbreak of the corona virus.
Neoliberalism has made the wave of virus propagation higher and wider, especially in the U.S.
Neoliberalism can shake the foundations of the U.S. economy.
Neoliberalism may not survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.
To save democracy and the global economy, We need a new economic model which supports the future of humanity, which sustains human
livelihood Worldwide.
1. Neoliberalism and the initial Outbreak of the Corona Virus
The most important part of neoliberalism is the relation -often of a corrupt nature- between the government and large corporations.
By corruption, we mean illegal or immoral human activities designed to maximize profit at the expense of people's welfare. In this
relation, the government may not be able to control and govern the large corporations. In fact, in the present context, the corporations
govern and oversee national governments.
Hence, when the corona virus broke out, it was difficult for the government to take immediate actions to control the virus break-out
to save human lives; It was quite possible that the price of stocks and large corporations' profit had the priority.
The theory known as neoliberalism distinguishes itself from the old liberalism prevailing before the Great Depression.
It became widely accepted mainly because of its adoption, in the 1970s and 1980s, by Ronald Reagan , president of the U.S. and
Margaret Thatcher , prime minister of Great Britain as an economic policy agenda applied nationally and internationally.
The justification of neoliberalism is the belief that the best way to ensure economic growth is to encourage "supply activities"
of private sector enterprises.
Now, the proponents of neoliberalism argue that public goods (including health and education) can be produced with greater efficiency
by private companies than by the State. Therefore, "it is better" to let the private enterprises produce public goods.
In other words, the production of public goods should be "privatized". Neoliberals put profit as the best measure of efficiency
and success. And profit can be sustained with government support. In turn, the private companies' policy is that of reducing the
labour costs of production.
Government assistance includes reduction of corporate taxes, subsidies and anti-labour policies such as the prohibition of labour
unionization and the abolition of the minimum wage.
Reduction of labour cost can be obtained by the automation of the production of goods
Under such circumstances, close cooperation between the government and the private corporations is inevitable; even it may be
necessary.
But, such cooperation is bound to lead to government-business collusion in which the business receives legal and illegal government
support in exchange of illicit money such as kick-backs and bribes given to influential politicians and the people close to the power.
As the collusion becomes wider and deeper, an oligarchy is formed; it is composed of corporations, politicians and civil servants.
This oligarchy's raison d'être is to make money even at the expense of the interests of the people.
Now, in order to protect its vested interests, the oligarchy expands its network and creates tight-knit political community which
shares the wealth and privileges obtained.
In this way, the government-business cooperation can be evolved by stage to give birth to the corruption culture.
Some of the neoliberal countries may be at the stage of the collusion; some of them may find themselves at the stage of oligarchy;
some of them may be at the stage of corruption culture.
South Korea
When the progressive government of Moon Jae-in took over power in 2017, South Korea under the 60-year neo-liberal rule by the
conservatives was at the stage of corruption culture.
The progressive government of Moon Jae-in has declared a total war against the corruption culture, but it is a very long way to
go before eliminating corruption.
In South Korea, of six presidents of the conservative government, four presidents were or are in prison for corruption and abuse
of power. This shows how deeply the corruption has penetrated into the fabrics of the Korea society
In Japan, since 1957, there were twenty-one prime ministers of whom 75% were one-year or two-year prime ministers despite the
four-year term of prime ministers. The short life span of Japanese prime ministers is essentially due to the short term interest
pursued by the corrupted golden triangle composed of big business, bureaucrats and politicians. Unless, Japan uproots the corruption
culture, it will be difficult to save the Japanese economy from perpetual stagnation.
Lobbying and "Corruption Culture"
Many of the developed countries in the West are also the victims of corruption culture. In the U.K. the City (London's Wall Street)
is the global center of money laundry.
In the U.S. the big companies are spending a year no less than $2.6 billion lobbying money for the promotion of their interests,
while the Congress spends $ 2.9 billion and the Senate, $860 million for their respective annual operation. Some of the big companies
deploy as many as 100 lobbyists.
It is unbelievable that the amount of lobbying is as much as 70% of the annual budget of the whole legislative of the U.S.
True, in the U.S., lobbying is not illegal, but it may not be morally justified. It is a system where the law makers give privileges
to those who spend more money, which can be considered as bribes
Under such lobbying system, each group should deploy lobbyists to promote their interests. The immigrants, the native Indians,
the Afro Americans, the alienated white people and other marginal groups cannot afford lobbyists and they are often excluded from
fair treatment in the process of making laws and policies
Some of the developed European countries are also very corrupted. The international Transparency Index rank, in 2019, was 23 for
France, 30 for Spain and 51 for Italy.
In the case of the U.S. its rank increased from 18 in 2016 to 22 in 2019. Thus in three years, the degree of corruption increase
by 22.2%
What is alarming is that, in the corruption culture, national policies are liable to be dictated by big businesses.
In South Korea, under the conservative government, it was suspected that the national policies were determined by the Chaebols
(large industrial conglomerates), not by the government.
As matter of fact, during the MERS crisis in 2015, the anti-virus policy was dictated by the Samsung Group. In order to save its
profit, Samsung Hospital in Seoul hid the infected so that the number of non-MERS patients would not decrease.
In Japan, the Abe government made the declaration of public health emergency as late as April 6, 2020 despite the fact that the
infections were detected as early as January, 2020.
This decision was, most likely, dictated by Keiretsu members (grouping of large enterprises) in order to save investments in the
July Olympics. Nobody knows how many Japanese had been infected for more than three months.
Similarly, Trump was well aware of the sure propagation of the virus right form January, but he waited until March 13, 2020 before
he declared the state of effective public health emergency. The obvious reason was the possible fear of free fall of stock price
and the possible loss of big companies' profits.
The interesting question is: "The delayed declaration of public health emergency, was it Trump's decision or that of his corporate
friends?" It doesn't matter whose decision it was, because the government under neoliberal system is controlled the big businesses.
So, as in Japan, Italy, Spain, France and especially, the U.K, Trump lost the golden time to save human lives to keep profit of
enterprises.
God knows how many American lives were sacrificed to save stock price and company profit!
Thus, the neoliberal governments have lost the golden chance to prevent the initial outbreak of the dreadful virus.
2. Neo-liberalism and the Propagation of Corona-Virus
We saw that the initial outbreak of the virus was not properly controlled leading to the loss to golden time of saving human lives,
most likely because of the priority given to business and political interests.
The initial outbreak of the virus was transformed into never-ending propagation and, even now, in many states in the U.S. the
wave of the virus is getting higher and wider.
This tragic reality can be explained by four factors:
people's mistrust in the government,
unbounded competition,
inequitable income distribution,
the absence of public health system.
These four factors (above) are all the legacies of neoliberalism.
The people know well that the corrupted neoliberal government's concern is not the welfare of the people but the interest of a
few powerful and the rich. The inevitable outcome is the loss of people's trust in the unreliable government.
This is demonstrated by Trump's indecision, his efforts of ignoring the warning of the professionals, his fabricates stories and
above all, his perception of who should be given the right to receive life-saving medical care at the hospital.
Under such circumstances, Americans do not trust the government directives and guidelines, allegedly implemented to protect people
from the virus.
The guideline of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) for self quarantine, social distancing and wearing face masks has little
effect. There is another product of neoliberalism which is troublesome. I mean its credo of unbounded competition.
It is true that competition promotes efficiency and better quality of products. However, as competition continues, the number
of winners decreases, while that of losers rises. The economy ends up being ruled by a handful of powerful winners. This leads to
the segregation of losers and leads to the discrimination of people by income level, religion, race and colour of skin.
In the present context, largely as a result of government policy, there is little to no social solidarity; each individual has
to solve his or her own problems. I was sad when I saw on TV a young lady in California saying:
"To be killed by the COVID-19 or starve to death is the same to me. I open my shop to eat!"
This shows how American citizens are left alone to fight the coronavirus. Furthermore, neoliberalism has another unhappy legacy;
it is the widening and deepening income inequality.
The U.S. is the richest country in the world, but it is also a country where income inequality is the most pronounced. I will
come back to this issue in the next section. In relation to the corona virus crisis, income inequality means an army of those who
are most likely to be infected and who are unable to follow CDC guidelines of testing, self quarantine and social distancing. Finally,
the privatization of public health services has made the whole country unprepared for the onslaught of the virus.
In fact, in the U.S. there is no public health system. For three months after the first breakout of the virus, the country lacked
everything needed to fight the virus.
There was shortage of testing kits and PPE (personal protective equipment);
there were not enough rooms to accommodate the infected;
there was shortage of qualified medical staff;
there was lack of face masks.
Thus, neoliberalism has made the U.S not only to lose the golden time to prevent the initial breakout but also it has let the
wave of virus to continue. Nobody knows when it will calm down. As a matter of fact, on July 4, there were 2.9 million infected and
132,000 deaths; this gives a death rate of 4.6%. Given U.S. population of 328 million, we have 402.44 deaths per million inhabitants
which is one of highest among the developed countries. The trouble is that the wave of virus is still going higher and wider. On
July 4, the confirmed cases increased by 50% in two weeks in 12 states and increased 10% to 50% in 22 states.
3. Neo-liberalism and the very Foundation of the U.S. Economy
The message of this section is this. The foundation of the American economy is the purchasing power of the consumers and the job
creation by small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The consumer demand is 70% of the GDP, the SMEs create 66% of jobs. Unfortunately,
because of neoliberalism, the consumers have become very poorer and the SMEs have been neglected in the pro-big-company government
policies. The COVID-19 has destroyed the SMEs and impoverished the consumers. Nobody would deny the contribution of neo-liberalism
to globalization of finance, the creation of the global value chain and, especially the free trade agreement.
All these activities have allowed GDP to grow in developed countries and some of new industrial countries. However, the wealth
created by the growth of GDP has gone to countries already developed, some developing countries and a small number of multinational
enterprises (MNE). The rich produced by GDP growth has led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few privileged. What
is more serious is this. If the skewed income distribution in favour of a decreasing number of people continues for long, the GDP
will stop growing and decades-long deflation is quite possible, as it has happened in Japan.
According to the OECD data, in the period, 1975-2011, the GDP share of labour income in OECD countries fell by 13.8% from 65%
to 56%. In the case of the U.S., in the same period, 1970-2014, it fell by 11%. The falling labour-income share is necessarily translated
into unequal household income distribution. There are two popular ways of measuring income distribution: the decile ratio and the
Gini coefficient.
The decile ratio is obtained by dividing the income earned by the top 10% income earners by the income earned by the bottom 10%
income earners . The decile ratio in 2019 was 18.5 in the U.S. as compared to 5.6 in Finland. The decile ratio of the U.S. was the
highest among the developed countries. Thus, in the U.S. the top 10 % has an income 19 times more than the bottom 10%, while, in
Finland, the corresponding ratio is only 6 times. This shows how serious the income gap is in the country of Uncle Sam.
The Gini coefficient varies from zero to 100. As the value of the Gini increases, the income distribution becomes favourable to
the high-income households. Conversely, as the value of the Gini decreases, the income distribution becomes favourable to low-income
households. There are two types of Gini: the gross Gini and the net Gini. The former refers to Gini before taxes and transfer payment,
while the latter refers to Gini after taxes and transfer payment. The difference between the gross and the net Gini shows the government
efforts to improve the equality and fairness of income distribution The gross U.S.- Gini coefficient in 2019 was 48.6, one of the
highest among the developed countries.
Its net Gini was 38.0 so that the difference between the gross and the net Gini was 12.3%. In other words, the U.S. income distribution
improved only by 12.3% by government efforts as against, for example, an improvement of 42.9% in the case of Germany, where the gross
Gini was 49.9 while the net Gini was 28.5 The net Gini of the U.S. was the highest among the developed countries. The implication
is clear. The income distribution in the U.S. was the most unequal. To make the matter worse, the government's effort to improve
the unequal income distribution was the poorest among the developed countries. There are countless signs of unfortunate impacts of
the inequitable income distribution in the country called the U.S. which Koreans used to admire describing it as "mi-gook- 美國미국 –
Beautiful Country". Now, one wonders if it is still a "mi-gook".
The following data indicates the seriousness of poverty in the U.S. (data below prior to the Coronavirus crisis).
In the U.S. the richest 1% of the population has 40% of all household wealth. (2017 data)
More than 20% of the population cannot pay monthly bills.
About 40% do not have savings.
31% of private sector worker do not have medical benefits.
57% of the workers in the service sector have no medical benefits.
These data give us an idea on how so many people have to suffer from poverty in a country where per capita GDP is $65,000 (2019
estimate), the richest country in the world. Most of the Americans work for small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs). In the U.S.,
there are 30 million SMEs. They create 66% of jobs in the private sector. The SMEs are more severely hit than big companies by the
coronavirus.
In fact, 66% of SMEs are adversely affected by the virus against 40% for big firms. As much as 20% of SMEs may be shut down for
good within three months, because of the virus. Under the forty years of neoliberal pro-big corporation policies, available financial
resources and the best human resources have been allocated to big firms at the expense of the development of SMEs.
The most damaging by-product of neoliberalism is no doubt the widening and deepening unequal income distribution for the benefit
of the big corporations and the uprooting of SMEs. This trend means the shrinking domestic demand and the disappearance of jobs for
ordinary people.
The destruction of the domestic market caused by the shrinking consumer demand and the disappearance of SMEs can mean the uprooting
of the very foundation of the economy.
The experience of Japan shows how this can happen. The economic depression after the bubble burst of 1989, Japan had to endure
30-year deflation. The government of Japan has flooded the country with money to restore the economy, but the money was used for
the bail-out of big corporations neglecting the healthy development of the SMEs and impoverishing the ordinary Japanese people. South
Korea could have experienced the Japanese-type economic stagnation, if the conservative government ruled the country ten more years.
The neoliberal pro-big company policy of Washington has greatly depleted consumer demand and SMEs even before the onslaught of
the coronavirus. But, the COVID-19 has given a coup de grâce to consumer demand and SMEs To better understand the issue, let us go
back to the ABC of economics. Looking at the national economy from the demand side, the economy consists of private consumer demand
(C), the private investment demand (I), the government demand (G) and Foreign demand represented by exports of domestic products
(X) minus domestic demand for imported foreign products (M).
GDP=C + I + G + (X-M)
In 2019, the consumer expenditure (C) in the U.S. was 70% of GDP, whereas the government's spending (G) was 17%. The investments
demand (I) was 18%. The net exports demand (X-M) was -5%.
In 2019 the composition of Canadian GDP was: C=57%; I=23 %; G=21 %; X-M=-1%.
Thus, we see that the U.S. economy heavily depends on the private domestic consumption, which represents as much as 70% of GDP
compared to 57% in Canada. The government's contribution to the national demand is 17% as against 21% in Canada. In the U.S. a small
government is a virtue according to neoliberals. In the U.S. the private investments account for only 18% of GDP as compared to as
much as 23% in Canada. In the U.S., off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and the global value chain under neo-liberalism have decreased
the need for business investments at home. It is obvious then that to save the American economy, we have to boost the consumers'
income. But, the consumer income comes mainly from SMEs. We must remember that the SMEs create 66% of all jobs in the U.S. Therefore,
if consumer demand falls and if SMEs do not create jobs, the US economy may have to face the same destiny as the Japanese economy.
This is happening in the U.S. The corona virus crisis is destroying SMEs and taking away the income of the people.
The coronavirus crisis is about to demolish the very foundation of the American economy.
4. Corona Virus Crisis and the Survival of Neoliberalism
The interesting question is this. Will neo-liberalism as economic system survive the corona virus crisis in the U.S.?
There are at least four indications suggesting that it will not survive.
First, to overcome major crisis such as the corona virus invasion, we need strong central government and people-loving leader.
One of the reasons for the successful anti-virus policy in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore was the strong central government's
role of determining and coordinating the anti-virus policies. As we saw, the gospel of neo-liberalism is the minimization of the
central government's role. Having little role in economic policies, the U.S. federal government has proved itself as the most incompetent
entity to fight the crisis. It is more than possible that the U.S. and all the neoliberal countries will try to get away from the
traditional neoliberal governance in which the government is almost a simple errand boy of big business.
Second, the people's trust in the neoliberal leaders has fallen on the ground. It will be difficult for the neoliberal leaders
to be able to lead the country in the post-corona virus era.
Third, the corona virus crisis has made the people aware of the abuse of power by the big companies; the people now know that
these companies are interested only in making money. So, it may be more difficult for them to exploit the people in the era of post-COVID-19.
Fourth, the U.S. economy is shaken up so much that the neoliberal regime will not able to recover the economy. Thus, the survival
of neo-liberalism looks uncertain. But, if the coronavirus crisis continues and destroys SMEs and if only the big corporations survive
owing to bailout money, neo-liberalism may survive and we may end up with authoritarian governance ruled by the business-politics
oligarchy.
5. Search for a New Economic Regime: Just-Liberalism
One thing which the corona-virus crisis has demonstrated is the fact that the American neo-liberalism has failed as sustainable
regime capable of stopping the virus crisis, restore the economy and save the democracy. Hence, we have to look for a new regime
capable of saving the U.S. economy and democracy. We would call this new regime as "Just-liberalism " mission of which is the sustainable
economic development and, at the same time, the just distribution of the benefits of economic development. Before we get into the
discussion of the main feature of the new regime, there is one thing we should discuss. It is the popular perception of large corporation.
Many believe that they make GDP grow and create jobs. It is also the popular view that the success of these large corporations is
due to the innovative managing skills of their founders or their CEOs. Therefore, they deserve annual salary of millions of dollars.
This is the popular perception of Chaebols in South Korea.
But, a great part of Chaebols income is attributable to the public goods such as national defence, police protection, social infrastructures,
the education system, enormous sacrifice of workers and, especially tax allowances, subsidies and privileges. In other words, a great
part of the Chaebols' income belongs to the society, not the Chaebols. Many believe that the Chaebols create jobs, but, in reality,
they crate less than 10% of jobs in Korea. We may say the same thing about large corporations in the U.S. In other words, much of
the company's income is due to public goods. Hence, the company should equitably share its income with the rest of the society. But
do they?
The high ranking managers get astronomical salaries; some of them are hiding billions of dollars in tax haven islands.
We ask. Are large corporations sharing equitably their income with the society? Are the corporate tax allowances they get too
much? Is the wage they pay too low? Is CEO's income is too high?
It is difficult to answer these questions.
But we should throw away the mysticism surrounding the merits of large corporations; we should closely watch them so that they
do not misuse their power and wealth to dictate national policies for their own benefit at the expense of the welfare of the people.
The new regime, just-liberalism, should have the following eight features.
First, we need a strong government which is autonomous from big businesses; there should be no business-politics collusion; there
should be no self-interest oligarchy of corruption.
Second, it is the time we should reconsider the notion of human right violation. There are several types of human right violation
in developed countries including the U.S. For example, the racial discrimination, the inequality before the law, the violation of
the right of social security and the violation of the right of social service are some cases of violation of human rights defined
by the U.N. The Western media have been criticizing human right violation in "non-democratic countries", but, in the future, they
should pay more attention to human right violation in "democratic countries."
Third, the criterion of successful economy should not be limited to the GDP growth; the equitable distribution of the benefits
of GDP growth should also be a criterion; proper balance between the growth and the distribution of growth fruits should be maintained.
Fourth, market should not be governed by "efficiency" alone; it must be also "equitable". Efficiency may lead to the concentration
of resources and power in the hands of the few at the expense of social benefit; it must be also equitable. As an example, we may
refer to the Chaebols (big Korean industrial conglomerates) which kill the traditional village markets which provide livelihood to
a great number of poor people. The Chaebols may make the market efficient but not equitable. The Korean government has limited Chaebols'
penetration into these markets to make them more equitable.
Fifth, we need a partial direct democracy. The legislative translates people's wish into laws and the executive makes policies
on the basis of laws. But, in reality, the legislative and the executive may pass laws and policies for the benefit of big companies
or specific group of individuals and institutions close to the power. Therefore, it is important to provide a mechanism through which
the people – the real master of the country – should be allowed to intervene all times. In South Korea, if more than 200,000 people
send a request to the Blue house (Korean White House) to intervene in matters judged unfair or unjust, the government must intervene.
Sixth, those goods and services which are essential for every citizen must be nationalized. For example, social infrastructure
such as parks, roads, railways, harbours, supply of electricity should not be privatized. Education including higher education should
be made public goods so that low income people should get higher education as do high income group.
This is the best way to maximize the mass of innovative minds and creative energy to develop the society. Above all, the health
service should be nationalized. It is just unbelievable to see that, in a country where the per capita GDP is $63,000, more than
30 million citizens have no medical insurance, just because it is too expensive. Politicians know quite well that big companies related
to insurance, pharmaceutical products and medical professions are preventing the nationalization of medical service in the U.S. But,
the politicians don't seem to dare go over these vested interests groups and nationalize the public health system. Remember this.
There are countries which are much poorer than the U.S. But, they have accessible universal health care insurance system.
Seventh, the economy should allow the system of multi- generational technologies in which not only high-level technologies but
also mid-level technologies should be promoted in such a way that both high- tech large corporations and middle-tech SMEs can grow.
This is perhaps only way to insure GDP growth and create jobs.
Eighth, in the area of international relations, it is about the time to stop wasteful ideological conflict. The difference among
ideologies is narrowing; the number of countries which have abandoned the U.S. imposed democracy has been rising; the ideological
basis of socialism is weakening. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 48% of countries are democratic, while 52% are not.
According to Freedom House, in 2005, 83 countries had net gain in democracy, while 52 countries had net loss in democracy.
But in 2019, only 37 countries had net gain while 64 countries had net loss. Between 2005 and 2018, the number of countries which
were not free increased by 26%, while those which were free fell by 44%. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more difficult
to find authentic socialism. For example, Chinese regime has lost its pure socialism long time ago. Thus, the world is becoming non-ideological;
the world is embracing ideology-neutral pragmatism.
To conclude, the corona virus pandemic has given us the opportunity to look at ourselves; it has given us the opportunity to realize
how vulnerable we are in front of the corona virus attack.
Many more pandemics will come and challenge us. We need a world better prepared to fight the coming pandemics. It is high time
that we slow down our greedy pursuit for GDP growth; it is about the time to stop a wasteful international ideological conflict in
support of multibillion dollar interests behind Big Money and the Military industrial complex.
It is therefore timely to find a system where we care for each other and where we share what we have .
***
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co- director of the Observatoire de l'Asie de l'Est (ODAE) of the Centre
d'Études de l'Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Center
of Research on Globalization (CRG).
Growing Social and
Wealth Inequality in America
On Monday, Gilead disclosed its pricing plan for Gilead as it prepares to begin charging for
the drug at the beginning of next month (several international governments have already placed
orders). Given the high demand, thanks in part due to the breathless media coverage despite the
drug's still-questionable study data, Gilead apparently feels justified in charging $3,120 for
a patient getting the shorter, more common, treatment course, and $5,720 for the longer course
for more seriously ill patients. These are the prices for patients with commercial insurance in
the US, according to Gilead's official pricing plan.
As per usual, the price charged to those on government plans will be lower, and hospitals
will also receive a slight discount. Additionally, the US is the only developed country where
Gilead will charge two prices, according to Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day. In much of Europe and
Canada, governments negotiate drug prices directly with drugmakers (in the US, laws dictate
that drug makers must "discount" their drugs for Medicare and Medicaid plans).
But according to O'Day, the drug is priced "far below the value it brings" to the
health-care system.
However, we'd argue that this actually isn't true. Remdesivir was developed by Gilead to
treat Ebola, but the drug was never approved by the FDA for this use, which caused Gilead to
shelve the drug until COVID-19 presented another opportunity. Even before the first study had
finished, the company was already pushing propaganda about the promising nature of the drug.
Meanwhile, the CDC, WHO and other organizations were raising doubts about the effectiveness of
steroid medications.
Months later, the only study on the steroid dexomethasone, a cheap steroid that costs less
than $50 for a 100-dose regimen, has shown that dexomethasone is the only drug so far that has
proven effective at lowering COVID-19 related mortality. Remdesivir, despite the fact that it
has been tested in several high quality trials, has not.
So, why is the American government in partnership with Gilead still pushing this
questionable, and staggeringly expensive, medication on the public?
Another bombshell! The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine have been caught
red-handed publishing completely fabricated, fraudulent data in a study that claims
hydroxychloroquine was dangerous.
The data came from a fake company that's a front for fabricated data, run by a science
fiction writer and an adult content person, none of whom have any experience in real science.
The whole thing was made up!...
lysias @ 109
... Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please
excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting
for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian convictions to the pursuit of expansive
politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships they
introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or
improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed,
imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources
that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are
instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, con- sumes the largest percentage of
the nation's annual budget. Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and
the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose fiscal discipline and
accountability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous
type of corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind
of ruthless power relations it fosters in domestic politics. As many observers have noted,
politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity as the
hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political
party; the efforts to consolidate executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting
role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy
and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the
tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature
of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. In the
eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the
advancement of Athenian hegemony de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm
and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall of Athens was
attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for
ill-conceived adventures. As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics
became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by
pro\posing ever wilder schemes of conquest.
In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites, abetted by the Spartans,
succeeded in temporarily abolishing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
...and while I am at it: lysias @ 106
Let's deconstruct what you've said. Even if he resisted arrest (by what degree was he
resisting?) that is not cause for applying deadly force on someone. Clearly he was restrained
and was going no where. Furthermore, the application of restraint should be one that ought
not induce death in someone with a previous health condition. By your rationale, you have no
business of walking the streets if you are not an able-bodied person and that death by
restraint by a police officer is excusable if you happen to be in bad health.
Although you don't explicitly say it, somehow it feels like you are saying that he had it
coming to him when you write "Floyd had a lengthy criminal record." Does that mean just
because he had a lengthy record he deserved to be roughed up like that? This sounds like
victim blaming, which is something commonly done in this country to continue to oppress
people who have no power.
So not only ambulance service was destroyed by private equity, they now added other specialties. I wonder is those criminals who
insert unnecessary stents in patients are connected to private equity.
Images removed
Notable quotes:
"... "You can't serve two masters. You can't serve patients and investors" ..."
"... Morganroth's defense of pandemic Botox might seem odd, but it made perfect sense within the logic of the U.S. health-care system, which has seen Wall Street investors invade its every corner, engineering medical practices and hospitals to maximize profits as if they were little different from grocery stores. At the center of this story are private equity firms, which saw the explosive growth of health-care spending and have been buying up physician staffing companies, surgery centers, and everything else in sight. ..."
"... But some doctors say that the private equity playbook, which involves buying companies, drastically cutting costs, and then selling for a profit -- the goal is generally to make an annualized return of 20% to 30% within three to five years -- creates problems that are unique to health care. "I know private equity does this in other industries, but in medicine you're dealing with people's health and their lives," says Michael Rains, a doctor who worked at U.S. Dermatology Partners , a big private equity-backed chain. "You can't serve two masters. You can't serve patients and investors." ..."
"... Yet over the past decade, lawyers devised a structure that allows investors to buy a medical practice without technically owning it: the MSO, or management service organization. Today, when an investment firm buys a doctor's office, what it's actually buying are the office's "nonclinical" assets. In theory, physicians control all medical decisions and agree to pay a management fee to a newly created company, which handles administrative tasks such as billing and marketing. ..."
"... Businessweek ..."
"... When individual doctors sell, they generally receive $2 million to $7 million each, with 30% to 40% of that paid in equity in the group. After the acquisition, doctors get a lower salary and are asked to help recruit other doctors to sell their practices or to join as employees. ..."
"... Patients, for the most part, are in the dark. Unlike when your mortgage changes hands, you usually aren't notified when a big investment firm buys your doctor. Sometimes the sign on the door bearing the physician's name stays put, and subtle changes in operations or unfamiliar fees may be the only clues that anything has happened. ..."
"... At Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery , the largest private equity-backed group in the field, with more than 150 locations across the U.S., that sense of discomfort came shortly after Audax Group bought a controlling stake in what was then a much smaller chain in 2011. The new management team introduced a scorecard that rewarded offices with cash if they met daily and monthly financial goals, according to a lawsuit filed in 2013 against the company by one of its dermatologists. The doctor alleged that the bonus program encouraged staff to do as many procedures as possible, rather than strictly addressing patients' medical needs. ..."
"... Most dermatologists use outside labs and pathologists, but private equity-owned groups buy up existing labs and hire their own pathologists. Then doctors are encouraged to refer patients within the group and send biopsy slides to the company-owned labs, keeping the entire chain of revenue in-house. ..."
"... Now comes the cost-cutting. This is supposed to be the hallmark of private equity, and, done right, it can work to the benefit of doctors and patients. But there are pitfalls unique to medicine, where aggressive cuts can lead to problems, some of them merely inconvenient and some potentially dangerous. ..."
"... A doctor at Advanced Dermatology says that waiting for corporate approvals means his office is routinely left without enough gauze, antiseptic solution, and toilet paper. Even before the great toilet paper shortage of 2020, he would travel with a few rolls in the trunk of his car, to spare patients when an office inevitably ran out. The company declined to comment. ..."
"... One paradox of the Covid-19 pandemic has been that even as the virus has focused the entire country on health care, it's been a financial disaster for the industry. And so, while emergency room doctors and nurses care for the sick -- comforting those who would otherwise die alone, and in some cases dying themselves -- private equity-backed staffing companies and hospitals have been cutting pay for ER doctors. These hospitals, like the big medical practices, make a large portion of their money from elective procedures and have been forced into wrenching compromises. ..."
"... For investors with capital, on the other hand, the economic fallout from the virus is a huge opportunity. Stay-at-home orders have left small practices more financially strained than they've ever been. That will likely accelerate sales to private equity firms, according to Marc Cabrera, an investment banker focused on health-care deals at Oppenheimer & Co. Independent doctors or groups that previously rebuffed offers from deep-pocketed backers "will reconsider their options," he says. ..."
"... Many doctors may ultimately come to regret cashing out, but it's hard to get out once you're in. As part of an acquisition, the private equity groups typically require doctors to sign yearslong contracts, with noncompete clauses that prevent them from working in the surrounding area. ..."
Not long after Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, ordered the state's 40 million residents to stay home to stop the spread
of the new coronavirus, Dr. Greg Morganroth called his team of doctors and said their dermatology group was staying open.
Morganroth is chief executive officer of the California Skin Institute
, which he founded in 2007 as a single office in Mountain View. He's since expanded to more than 40 locations using a financing
strategy that's become exceedingly common in American health care: private equity. In this case, he took out a loan from
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that could eventually convert to an
equity stake. CSI is now the largest dermatology chain in California.
But the Covid-19 pandemic
put Morganroth in a precarious position. Most medical procedures were characterized as
nonessential by government officials and practitioners. Doctors were closing offices, and patients were staying away to limit
their potential exposure to the virus.
CSI took a different approach. Morganroth explained his thinking on April 2 in a Zoom call with more than 170 dermatologists from
around the country organized by the Cosmetic Surgery Forum, an industry conference. Contrary to what they might have heard, Morganroth
told them, they should consider staying open during the pandemic. "Many of us are over-interpreting guidelines," he said.
For a moment there was an awkward silence. Doctors had thought they were signing up for advice on how to apply for
government money that would help them meet payroll while they were shut down; they hadn't expected to be told not to shut down
at all. Morganroth continued: "We are going to be in a two-year war, and we need to make strategic plans for our businesses that
enable us to survive and to rebound."
Back at CSI, the company's front-office staff was working the phones, calling patients in some of the worst-hit areas and reminding
them to show up for their appointments, even for cosmetic procedures such as Botox injections to treat wrinkles. During the videoconference,
Morganroth argued that offering Botox in a pandemic wasn't so different from a grocery store allowing customers to buy candy alongside
staples.
"If I had a food supply company and had to stay open, and I had meat, bread, and milk, would I stop making lime and strawberry
licorice?" Morganroth asked. "I would make everything and go forward."
From a public-health point of view, some of the doctors believed, this was questionable. Common reasons for visiting a dermatologist's
office -- skin screenings, mole removals, acne consultations -- aren't particularly time sensitive. Serious matters, such as suspected
cancers and dangerous rashes, can be handled, at least initially, with
telemedicine consultations . Then doctors can weigh the risks for their patients and determine who needs to come in. In a statement,
CSI says that it followed local and state laws for staying open, while providing "necessary care" for patients, and that it had not
required doctors to come to work.
"You can't serve two masters. You can't serve patients and investors"
Morganroth's defense of pandemic Botox might seem odd, but it made perfect sense within the logic of the U.S. health-care system,
which has seen Wall Street investors invade its every corner, engineering medical practices and hospitals to maximize profits as
if they were little different from grocery stores. At the center of this story are private equity firms, which saw the explosive
growth of health-care spending and have been buying up physician staffing companies, surgery centers, and everything else in sight.
Over the past five years, the firms have invested more than $10 billion in medical practices, with a special focus on dermatology,
which is seen as a hot industry because of the aging population. Baby boomers suffer from high rates of two potentially lucrative
conditions: skin cancer and vanity. Some estimates suggest that private equity already owns more than 10% of the U.S dermatology
market. And firms have started to expand into other specialties, including women's health, urology, and gastroenterology.
There's nothing inherently wrong with any of this. But some doctors say that the private equity playbook, which involves
buying companies, drastically cutting costs, and then selling for a profit -- the goal is generally to make an annualized return
of 20% to 30% within three to five years -- creates problems that are unique to health care. "I know private equity does this in
other industries, but in medicine you're dealing with people's health and their lives," says Michael Rains, a doctor who worked
at
U.S. Dermatology Partners , a big private equity-backed
chain. "You can't serve two masters. You can't serve patients and investors."
Investment firms, and the practices they fund, say these concerns are overblown. They point out that they're giving doctors a
financial shelter from the rapidly changing medical environment, a particularly attractive prospect now, and that money from private
equity firms has expanded care to more patients. But they've also made it next to impossible to track the industry's impact or reach.
Firms rarely announce their investments and routinely subject doctors to nondisclosure agreements that make it difficult for them
to speak publicly. Bloomberg Businessweek spoke to dozens of doctors at 10 large private equity-backed dermatology groups.
Those interviews, along with information obtained from other employees, investors, lawyers, court filings, and company records, reveal
how the firms operate, and why they sometimes fail patients.
The process is never exactly the same, but there are familiar patterns, which tend to play out in five steps.
Step 1: Marriage
The strange thing about private equity money in medicine is that for-profit investors have long been prevented from buying doctor's
offices. Corporate ownership goes against a doctrine set by the American Medical
Association , the main trade group for doctors in the U.S., and is prohibited by law in many states, including Texas and New
Jersey. For most of the past 100 years, if you wanted to make money on a medical practice, you needed to have a medical license.
Yet over the past decade, lawyers devised a structure that allows investors to buy a medical practice without technically owning
it: the MSO, or management service organization. Today, when an investment firm buys a doctor's office, what it's actually buying
are the office's "nonclinical" assets. In theory, physicians control all medical decisions and agree to pay a management fee to a
newly created company, which handles administrative tasks such as billing and marketing.
In practice, though, investors expect some influence over medical decision-making, which, after all, is connected to profits.
"When we partner with you, it's a marriage," said Matt Jameson, a managing director at BlueMountain Capital, a $17 billion firm that
recently invested in a women's health company, while speaking at a conference in New York in September. "We have to believe it. You
have to believe it. It's not going to be something where clinical is completely not touched." (When contacted by Businessweek
, Jameson asked to clarify his comments. "Doctors and other qualified healthcare professionals at the providers we've invested
in make medical decisions," he said in a statement.)
The typical buyout starts with the acquisition of a big, popular practice, often with multiple doctors and several locations,
for as much as $100 million. (Investors typically pay between 9 and 12 times annual profit.) This practice functions as an anchor,
like a name-brand department store at a shopping mall, attracting patients and doctors to the new group as it expands. Then comes
the roll-up: The private equity firm purchases smaller offices and solo practices, giving the group a regional presence.
As part of the new structure, investors deal with paperwork and save money by buying medical supplies in bulk. Crucially they
also negotiate higher insurance reimbursement rates. One dermatologist who sold her practice to the California Skin Institute says
she was surprised to find out the bigger group's payouts from insurers were $25 to $125 more per visit.
When individual doctors sell, they generally receive $2 million to $7 million each, with 30% to 40% of that paid in equity in
the group. After the acquisition, doctors get a lower salary and are asked to help recruit other doctors to sell their practices
or to join as employees.
At first, doctors are generally thrilled by all of this. They have financial security and can focus on treating patients without
the stress of running a business. Patients, for the most part, are in the dark. Unlike when your mortgage changes hands, you usually
aren't notified when a big investment firm buys your doctor. Sometimes the sign on the door bearing the physician's name stays put,
and subtle changes in operations or unfamiliar fees may be the only clues that anything has happened.
Step 2: Growth
The promise of more patients is a big draw for doctors. By sharing marketing costs and adding locations, the new companies can
advertise more and attract customers. Private equity-owned practices have been diligent users of social media, announcing newly added
doctors and posting coupons on Twitter and Instagram. But these practices can be aggressive in ways that make some doctors uncomfortable.
At Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery , the largest
private equity-backed group in the field, with more than 150 locations across the U.S., that sense of discomfort came shortly after
Audax Group bought a controlling stake in what was then a
much smaller chain in 2011. The new management team introduced a scorecard that rewarded offices with cash if they met daily and
monthly financial goals, according to a lawsuit filed in 2013 against the company by one of its dermatologists. The doctor alleged
that the bonus program encouraged staff to do as many procedures as possible, rather than strictly addressing patients' medical needs.
In some of the company's Florida offices, the doctor alleged, medical assistants responded to the bonus structure by ticking extra
boxes on exam reports, stating that doctors checked many more areas of the body than they actually had. That led to higher patient
bills, defrauding the government under its Medicare program, according to the lawsuit. The federal government declined to join the
case, and it was dismissed about a year after it was filed. Advanced and Audax declined to comment.
One-Stop Skin Care
By buying up labs and adding specialists, private equity-owned dermatology groups get paid at every step of a patient's treatment.
Data: Estimated Medicare reimbursement rates for the Miami area, Sensus Healthcare sales presentation
Private equity-backed practices also try to increase revenue by adding more-lucrative procedures, according to doctors interviewed
by Businessweek . In dermatology, this means more cosmetics, laser treatments, radiation, and especially Mohs surgeries
-- a specialized skin cancer procedure that removes growths from delicate areas like the face and neck one layer at a time, to limit
scarring. The surgery involves expensive equipment and specialized doctors, so some large medical groups keep costs down by assembling
traveling Mohs teams, who fly in from other states. Others create mobile labs in vans that set up in clinics' parking lots.
Most dermatologists use outside labs and pathologists, but private equity-owned groups buy up existing labs and hire their own
pathologists. Then doctors are encouraged to refer patients within the group and send biopsy slides to the company-owned labs, keeping
the entire chain of revenue in-house. This takes advantage of a regulatory quirk that has made dermatology, and a handful of other
specialties, attractive to private equity. Under the 1989 Stark Law, doctors aren't allowed to make patient referrals for their own
financial gain. An exception was made for some fields because it's more convenient for patients, explains Dr. Sailesh Konda, a Mohs
surgeon and professor at the University of Florida. "But that can be abused."
Step 3: Synergy
Now comes the cost-cutting. This is supposed to be the hallmark of private equity, and, done right, it can work to the benefit
of doctors and patients. But there are pitfalls unique to medicine, where aggressive cuts can lead to problems, some of them merely
inconvenient and some potentially dangerous.
A doctor at Advanced Dermatology says that waiting for corporate approvals means his office is routinely left without enough gauze,
antiseptic solution, and toilet paper. Even before the great
toilet paper shortage of 2020, he would travel with a few rolls in the trunk of his car, to spare patients when an office inevitably
ran out. The company declined to comment.
At the country's second-biggest skin-care group, U.S. Dermatology
Partners , a former doctor says a regional manager switched to a cheaper brand of needles and sutures without consulting the
medical staff. The quality was so poor, she says, they would often break off in her patients' bodies. Mortified, she'd have to dig
them out and start over. She complained to managers but couldn't get better supplies, she says. Paul Singh, U.S. Dermatology's CEO,
says the company uses a "reputable, global vendor for medical supplies." "While our group may have standardized purchasing processes,
individual providers have the autonomy to procure specific supplies that they need for a particular patient situation or patient
population," he says in a statement.
Doctors who join a private equity-backed group generally sign contracts that state they'll never have to compromise their medical
judgment, but some say that management began to intervene there, too. Dermatologists at most of the companies say they were pushed
to see as many as twice the number of patients a day, which made them feel rushed and unable to provide the same quality of care.
Others were forced to discuss their cases with managers or medical directors, who asked the doctors to explain why they weren't sending
more patients for surgery. Multiple practices also encouraged doctors to send home Mohs surgery patients with open wounds and have
them come back the next day for stitches -- or to have a different doctor do the closure the same day -- because that would allow
the practice to collect more from insurers.
That's if doctors are performing the procedures at all. At Advanced Dermatology, several doctors say they were asked to claim
that physician assistants, or PAs, were under their supervision when they weren't seeing patients in the same building, or even the
same town. Because PAs are paid less than dermatologists, this allowed the company to keep costs low while growing the business.
In a statement, Eric Hunt, Advanced's general counsel and chief compliance officer says that having PAs on staff enables the company
to "provide access to quality dermatological care to more patients."
Step 4. Rolling Up the Roll-Up
Advanced Dermatology was sold in 2016 by Audax to Harvest
Partners LP , following a pattern that's typical in the industry. At some point, after costs have been cut and profits maximized,
most private equity-owned medical groups will be sold, often to another private equity firm, which will then try to somehow make
the company even more profitable.
Having reduced most of the obvious costs, Advanced Dermatology began skimping on more important supplies, including Hylenex, according
to doctors and other employees. The drug is an expensive reversal agent used when cosmetic fillers, which are supposed to make skin
look plumper, go wrong. Not having enough is dangerous: Patients who get an injection that inadvertently blocks a blood vessel can
be left with dead sections of skin or even go blind if they don't get enough Hylenex in a matter of hours. The company says that
it stocks Hylenex in every office that performs cosmetic procedures, and that it "has no records of any provider being denied an
order for this medication."
Advanced Dermatology also started giving even more authority to PAs, according to doctors and staff. Without enough oversight
some were missing deadly skin cancers, they say. Others were doing too many biopsies and cutting out much larger areas of skin than
necessary, leaving patients with big scars. Doctors who complained about the bad behavior say they saw PAs moved to other locations
rather than fired or given more supervision. Hunt, the company's lawyer, says that all PAs get six months of training and are supervised
by experienced doctors.
The staff coined a new medical diagnosis, "pre- pre- pre-cancer"
Advanced Dermatology also put more pressure on doctors to send biopsies to in-house labs. The move made sense financially, but
some of the doctors didn't trust the lab. One of its two pathologists in Delray Beach, Fla., Steven Glanz, had a history of misdiagnosing
benign tumors, which led patients to undergo surgeries that were later found to be unnecessary, according to doctors who worked with
him. Dermatologists who warned that Glanz was a danger to patients say that their complaints to Dr. Matt Leavitt, the group's founder
and CEO, were ignored. More procedures, doctors knew, brought in more money.
Glanz, who had been with the practice since its early days, was known to read slides under a microscope with a pistol on his desk.
After he was arrested with a handgun, a folding knife, and a vial of methamphetamine crystals, he was fired and Florida's state medical
board fined him $10,000, requiring him to complete a five-hour course on ethics before he could resume practicing. But his former
colleagues were unsettled; they knew Glanz's signature was on years of reports that determined treatment for patients. Some slides
were reevaluated, and pathologists noticed mistakes. Managers told some doctors and their staff that patients, even those who'd been
misdiagnosed and had unnecessary procedures, were not to be told. Glanz pleaded guilty to stalking and a firearms violation and was
sentenced to probation. When a reporter called his office and identified herself, the receptionist hung up. Further attempts to reach
Glanz were unsuccessful. Advanced's Hunt says that he was "formally released from employment three years ago," but did not comment
further.
Of course, some doctors pushed ethical boundaries long before private equity came into the picture. But critics of the industry,
including doctors and investors, say management teams put in place by private equity firms tend to look the other way as long as
a medical practice is profitable. Of the dermatologists with the highest biopsy rates in the country (between 4 and 11 per patient,
per year), almost 25% were affiliated with private equity-backed groups, according to Dr. Joseph Francis, a Mohs surgeon and data
researcher at the University of Florida.
Medical providers may have also been blurring ethical lines at U.S. Dermatology Partners, which was until recently on its second
private equity owner, Abry Partners LLC . At four of the
company's offices in Texas, a doctor and his PAs were doing more biopsies than necessary, according to employees. These employees
say the staff routinely called patients with benign lichenoid keratosis, small brownish blotches that usually go away on their own,
and told them the growths should be removed. Under instruction from the doctor, the staff coined a new medical diagnosis, "pre- pre-
pre-cancer," and then talked patients into coming in for removal, employees say. Singh, the U.S. Dermatology CEO, says that the company
trusts doctors to make the right decisions and that it monitors them through routine audits.
Step 5: Sell-Off
In some cases the cost-cutting either becomes impossible or leads to compromises in care too obvious to ignore. In 2016 a
DermOne LLC office in Irving, Texas, had been using a faulty
autoclave machine to sterilize surgical equipment -- the state and county health departments identified 137 patients that needed
to get tested for blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. By 2018, DermOne's backer, Westwind Investors, wanted out.
Westwind had been one of the earliest firms to build a big dermatology business -- with practices in five states -- but others
had grown larger. After the debacle in Irving, the Nevada-based firm sold DermOne's medical records and patient lists, as well as
some of its offices, to other groups. It dissolved the remaining offices, leaving some patients abruptly without care. Westwind did
not respond to repeated requests for comment. Two other private equity-backed groups, TruDerm and Select Dermatology LLC, have also
gone out of business in the past two years.
The surviving chains have been saddled with large piles of debt they're now struggling to repay. In January, U.S. Dermatology
Partners defaulted on a $377 million loan, meaning the private equity backer, Abry Partners, had to hand over the keys to its lenders,
Golub Capital ,
Carlyle Group , and
Ares Management , which will now oversee a chain with almost
100 locations, receiving 1 million visits from patients a year. Abry did not respond to requests for comment .
For the medical groups that make it, the game plan is to eventually sell to the largest players, such as
KKR ,
Blackstone Group , and
Apollo Global Management . Pioneering investors, including Audax,
are now buying practices in other fields -- a concerning development to critics who note that the areas that are currently attracting
investment, such as urology, generally involve more invasive procedures. Should doctors performing vasectomies be thinking about
the dollar-rate returns for KKR -- or any private investor?
"It's ultimately going to backfire," says Dr. Jane Grant-Kels, a veteran dermatologist and professor at the University of Connecticut
School of Medicine. "There's a limit to how much money you can make when you're sticking knives into human skin for profit."
One paradox of the Covid-19 pandemic has been that even as the virus has focused the entire country on health care, it's been
a financial disaster for the industry. And so, while emergency room doctors and nurses care for the sick -- comforting those who
would otherwise die alone, and in some cases
dying themselves
-- private equity-backed staffing companies and hospitals have been
cutting pay for ER doctors. These hospitals, like the big medical practices, make a large portion of their money from elective
procedures and have been forced into wrenching compromises.
For investors with capital, on the other hand, the economic fallout from the virus is a huge opportunity. Stay-at-home orders
have left small practices more financially strained than they've ever been. That will likely accelerate sales to private equity firms,
according to Marc Cabrera, an investment banker focused on health-care deals at Oppenheimer & Co. Independent doctors or groups that
previously rebuffed offers from deep-pocketed backers "will reconsider their options," he says.
Many doctors may ultimately come to regret cashing out, but it's hard to get out once you're in. As part of an acquisition, the
private equity groups typically require doctors to sign yearslong contracts, with noncompete clauses that prevent them from working
in the surrounding area.
As governors throughout the nation ease restrictions on businesses, Advanced Dermatology is opening its most profitable offices
first. The company received an undisclosed sum under the Cares Act, as part of the government relief package intended for health-care
workers. Hunt, Advanced's chief compliance officer, told employees in an email earlier this month that the money would be used for
protective gear, such as masks, and to replace "millions of dollars" in lost revenue.
The group had closed most of its offices since the stay-at-home orders were issued in March, cutting pay for doctors and furloughing
staff. With cities and states beginning to consider reopening, doctors and PAs say they've been told they should be prepared for
a full schedule. Hunt says the company is following the appropriate safety measures, but employees fear it will be nearly impossible
to keep patients apart in waiting rooms. Opening in a reduced capacity, they understand, is not an option.
Former Trump attorney John Dowd says it's "staggering" that former
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "so-called Dream Team would put on such a fraud," after the
Wednesday release of the investigation's "scope memo" revealed that Mueller was tasked with
investigating accusations from Clinton-funded operative Christopher Steele which the DOJ
already knew were debunked . "In the last few days, I have been going back through my files
and we were badly misled by Mueller and his senior people , particularly in the meetings that
we had," Dowd told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday.
The scope memo also revealed that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was
previously known - including "allegations that Carter Page committed a crime or crimes by
colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to
interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United
States law," yet as John Solomon of
Just The News noted on Wednesday - the FBI had already:
fired Steele as an informant for leaking;
interviewed Steele's sub-source, who disputed information attributed to him;
ascertained that allegations Steele had given the FBI specifically about Page were
inaccurate and likely came from Russian intelligence sources as disinformation;
been informed repeatedly by the CIA that Page was not a Russian stooge but, rather, a
cooperating intelligence asset for the United States government.
" There's no question it's a fraud I think the whole report is just nonsense and it's
staggering that the so-called 'Dream Team' would put on such a fraud ," Dowd said, according to
Fox News .
"Durham has really got a load on his hands tracking all this down," Dowd said.
Durham was appointed last year by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the events
leading up to Trump's inauguration. However, Durham has since expanded his investigation to
cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017, when Mueller was appointed as
special counsel. - Fox News
"Nancy's Liar"
Dowd also circled back to a claim by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that
there was "direct evidence" that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016
election, despite the fact that transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews proving
otherwise .
"Schiff doesn't release these interviews because they're going to make him a liar," said
Dowd, adding "They're going to expose him and he'll be run out of town."
"He lied for months in the impeachment inquiry. He's essentially Nancy [Pelosi]'s liar and
he's now going to be exposed."
This is a weak article. Indignation as for excesses of neoliberal social system that exists in the USA is a good thing only if
there is a plan to change the system. Eric Zuesse has none. Also for top 10% the US healthcare is very efficient; it is probably the best on the planet.
OK neoliberalism is bad. But what is the alternative? Return to the New Deal capitalism is impossible as management now
is allied with the capital owners and that destroyed fragile coalition of trade unions and apart of professional management that
existed during the new deal as a countervailing force for political power of the capital. Such coalition could exist if financial
oligarchy is suppressed and if taxes of millionaires income (especially income from stocks) were around 80%. As soon as JFK
lowered the taxed that was a writing on the wall: the New Deal is doomed. Financial oligarchy was suppressed and it did not like
it. So in 20180 they staged coup d'état and the New Deal was over.
The question is: what political coalition can take on financial oligarchy. There is no such coalition yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Americans generally are desperate to go to work even if they might be spreading the coronavirus-19. They need the pay and the insurance coverage in order to be able to buy medical care. If they don't pay for it they won't get it. So: whomever does show up for work might reasonably be especially inclined to fear likely to catch the disease from a co-worker there. This is one of the many reasons why socializing the healthcare function is vastly more efficient than leaving it to market forces . ..."
"... Furthermore, prisons are among the institutions that especially increase the spread of an epidemic such as Covid-19. And the United States has a higher percentage of its residents in prison than does any other country in the world . In fact, almost all of the Americans who are in prison are poor (since 100% of the poor cannot afford a lawyer), and the poorer a person is, the likelier that the individual is to get coronavirus-19. ..."
"... America has 655 per 100,000, or 4.5 prisoners for every 1.0 prisoner in the entire world), America has vastly more production of coronavirus-19 that's generated by its being a police-state than any other country does -- and this isn't even taking into consideration the rotten, overburdened, health-care system, and the billionaire-propagandized public contempt for the poor, that characterize America's culture, and that make those prisons, perhaps, the worst amongst industrialized nations. ..."
"... Furthermore, in America, "Approximately 95 percent of criminal cases are plea-bargained, in part because public defenders are too overwhelmed to take them to trial. 'That means the state never even has to prove you did anything. They hold all the cards.'" So, the Constitutional protections, such as trial-by-jury and all of the other on-paper protections, don't even apply, in reality, to at least 95% of criminal defendants. And, in many U.S. states, convicts -- and even ex -convicts -- aren't allowed to vote. America's billionaires also use many other ways to keep down the percentage of the poor who vote. ..."
"... In addition, prior to the coronavirus challenge, both America and UK have been reducing, instead of increasing, their social protections; and, therefore, they were the only industrialized nations where life-expectancies were declining even before the coronavirus-19 hit. The recognition and concern about this decline started in UK, but has now started to be published even in the U.S. ..."
"... In other words: coronavirus hit UK at a time when the Government was already moving away from socializing and into privatizing health care; and, as a consequence, the death-rates had already started increasing in 2015. Coronavirus kills mainly people who already have bad health; and, so, their population were maximally vulnerable to it at the time when this epidemic struck. ..."
"... Even prior to 2015, the U.S. was wasting around half of its entire public-and-private spending for health care -- it was the most inefficient healthcare system on the planet -- and therefore had significantly lower life-expectancies than all other industrialized countries did. But, now, those remarkably low life-spans are actually getting even lower. ..."
"... This is the reason why America is designed so as to fail the coronavirus-19 challenge. The power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country. It controls both Parties and their respective media, so the public don't know (and certainly cannot understand) the types of realities that are being reported (and linked-to) here. ..."
"... The fact [the existence of ] corporate prisons exist is pretty much an open declaration that we're a kleptocracy, run by the uniparty. ..."
"... We give an EQUAL vote to children, imbeciles, hostiles, and those who don't even speak the language ..."
"... Democracy is not about efficiency but to keep a check on those in power. It preventing the concentration of powers. It all about checks and balances to preserve the citizens freedoms. ..."
Virtually all other industrialized countries have social-welfare systems in place, such as
health-insurance covering 100% of the population; and, consequently, the residents there don't
lose their health insurance if they lose their job -- they therefore aren't desperate to show
up for work even when they are sick or can spread an epidemic.
Americans generally are desperate to go to work even if they might be spreading the
coronavirus-19. They need the pay and the insurance coverage in order to be able to buy medical
care. If they don't pay for it they won't get it. So: whomever does show up for work might
reasonably be especially inclined to fear likely to catch the disease from a co-worker there.
This is one of the many reasons why socializing
the healthcare function is vastly more efficient than leaving it to market forces .
On April 23rd, Reuters
reported that, "U.S. workers who refuse to return to their jobs because they are worried
about catching the coronavirus should not count on getting unemployment benefits, state
officials and labor law experts say."
In such states, the unemployment-benefits system is being used as a cudgel so as to force
employees back to work, and therefore to increase the percentage of the population who will
become infected by the coronavirus-19.
Furthermore, prisons are among the institutions that especially increase the spread of an
epidemic such as Covid-19. And the United States has a higher percentage of its residents in
prison than does any other country in the world . In fact, almost all of the Americans who
are in prison are poor (since 100% of the poor cannot afford a lawyer), and the poorer a person
is, the likelier that the individual is to get coronavirus-19.
This is yet another reason why prisons are a prime place for the spread of the disease. And
on April 26th, the New York Times headlined "As Coronavirus Strikes Prisons, Hundreds of Thousands Are
Released: The virus has spread rapidly in overcrowded prisons across the world, leading
governments to release inmates en masse." Since America has more of its population in prison
than any other country does (lots more: whereas
"The world prison population rate, based on United Nations estimates of national population
levels, is 145 per 100,000" , America has 655 per 100,000, or 4.5 prisoners for every 1.0
prisoner in the entire world), America has vastly more production of coronavirus-19 that's
generated by its being a police-state than any other country does -- and this isn't even taking
into consideration the rotten, overburdened, health-care system, and the
billionaire-propagandized public contempt for the poor, that characterize America's culture,
and that make those prisons, perhaps, the worst amongst industrialized nations.
Taken all together (and to list the other details would fill a book), America's systematized
intense discrimination against the poor constitutes virtually an invitation to this country's
having exceptional vulnerability to any epidemic. The fact that America now has 33.3% of
the world's coronavirus-19 cases , though only 4.2% of the world's population, is actually
systemic, and not merely particular to this moment in this country, and in the entire world.
Donald Trump, and the current U.S. Congress, are part of a system of oppression, not really
exceptions to it (such as the billionaires' media pretend -- with Democratic billionaires
blaming "the Republicans," and Republican billionaires blaming "the Democrats"). The way this
Government performs is actually somewhat normal for this country since at least 1980 .
In addition, prior to the coronavirus challenge, both America and UK have been reducing,
instead of increasing, their social protections; and, therefore, they were the only
industrialized nations where life-expectancies were declining even before the coronavirus-19
hit. The recognition and concern about this decline started in UK, but has now started to be
published even in the U.S.
In other words: coronavirus hit UK at a
time when the Government was already moving away from socializing and into privatizing health
care; and, as a consequence, the death-rates had already started increasing in 2015.
Coronavirus kills mainly people who already have bad health; and, so, their population were
maximally vulnerable to it at the time when this epidemic struck.
Political-science studies that are based
upon decades of reliably reported data have established that ever since around 1980, the
United States has been a dictatorship: what the public wants (and even needs ) is basically
ignored, but what the super-rich (the country's actual dictators) simply want becomes reflected
in governmental policies. That's the very definition of a "dictatorship." The U.S. national
Government is responsive to the wants of its billionaires, not to the needs of the public (such
as protecting their health, education, and welfare, even when the billionaires don't want it
to).The findings in one of these studies are summarized well in a six-minute video, here .
Although the billionaires who fund America's liberal Party, the
Democratic Party, oppose the billionaires who fund the Republican Party (the conservative
Party -- the one that's overtly in favor of the existing wealth-inequality), this is purely for
PR purposes. Whenever the issue becomes their own wealth versus improving the wealth and
economic opportunity for the poor, they all go for expanding their own empire (sometimes by
funding a tax-exempt 'charity' that will increase, even more, their personal control over the
total empire -- by using that tax-exemption to leverage the operation, which will be controlled
by themselves instead of by the public tax-funded government). Such 'charities' are mainly
tax-dodges.
This is even proud policy ('fiscal
responsibility', etc.) in the Republican Party. Bailing-out investors is 'necessary', but
bailing out employees and consumers is 'fiscally irresponsible'. For example, on April 27th,
the Democrat David Sirota headlined "Red States Owe Workers More
Than $500 Billion -- The GOP Is Trying to Steal The Money: Trump is boosting a McConnell
plan to help states renege on promised retirement and health benefits to millions of workers
and retirees." And he is correct.
However, his Party is going to be compromising with that
(instead of adamantly refuse to accept it and then go on the political hustings shaming the
Republican President and Congress-members so as to break them on their blatantly scandalous
whoring to the entire billionaire-class, who want their investments to be bailed out before the
public is -- which might turn out to be never). It's a "good cop, bad cop," routine, to protect
the super-rich. It accepts holding the public hostage to what the big political donors want,
instead of focuses against that as being the central political issue of the moment, and of at
least post-1980 America.
They're just
trying to deceive their suckers into voting for Joe Biden, or else not voting at all; and, so,
their ad doesn't even so
much as just mention Biden. It's a Biden ad that makes no mention of Biden. It hides its true
motive. That's typical.
This is the reason why America is designed so as to fail the coronavirus-19 challenge. The
power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country. It controls both Parties
and their respective media, so the public don't know (and certainly cannot understand) the
types of realities that are being reported (and linked-to) here.
A "good cop, bad cop" government is, in reality, all bad cop.
(I therefore proposed an Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution in order to rectify some of the reasons behind this structural failure of the
U.S. Government. Perhaps the only alternative to that would be violent revolution, but it would
probably make things even worse, not better.)
desertboy , 23 minutes ago
The fact [the existence of ] corporate prisons exist is pretty much an open declaration that we're a
kleptocracy, run by the uniparty.
Reign in Fact, 28 minutes ago
" The power of big-money (concentrated wealth) is destroying this country... This is
'democracy'-as-political-scam... "
No the scam is democracy itself. We give an EQUAL vote to children, imbeciles, hostiles,
and those who don't even speak the language, while allowing wholesale vote-buying bribery of
public unions.
No such system has ever thrived anywhere in the animal kingdom - equality without merit,
or rule by will of the laziest, weakest and dumbest - no matter how small the "society",
team, family, gang, union, band, corporation, religion or nation.
It can't and won't end well.
youshallnotkill , 15 minutes ago
Democracy is not about efficiency but to keep a check on those in power. It preventing the
concentration of powers. It all about checks and balances to preserve the citizens
freedoms.
The fact that you don't understand these where basics of why we have a republic is
testament to our failed school system.
Deep In Vocal Euphoria , 30 minutes ago
Demoracy...usa was a constitutional republic..........
AVmaster , 30 minutes ago
This hasn't been the american "design" since 23DEC1913......
Dragonlord , 1 minute ago
America's design to disable the freedom of state secession has ruined it. As a result, we
are facing the possibility of another civil war.
The case of General Flynn, which has dragged on for years now, may finally be reaching a
denouement. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI
during the Russian collusion hoax. For reasons that have not been clear, he was never
sentenced. Now it appears he may never see jail and will instead see his case dropped and his
guilty plea vacated. New evidence shows he was framed by members of the FBI and Department of
Justice.
As is standard procedure in this age, state media has been silent on the matter, but
alternative media sources are
reporting on the release of classified documents hidden by the government from Flynn's
defense team in violation of the law.
Thousands of documents held by his former defense team and hidden from Flynn and his new
attorney's until now have also been released in what appears to be a damage control operation
by the law firm Covington & Burling.
What these new FBI documents reveal is the FBI and Department of Justice carefully planned
to entrap General Flynn by tricking him into making inaccurate statements about his
activities during the campaign. They did this because they wanted to remove him from his post
in the White House and hoped he could be manipulated into making accusations against other
administrative officials. Then they systematically lied about what Flynn said to them in his
interview with the FBI.
Compounding this is the fact that the FBI and Departmental of Justice systematically
withheld all documents that could be used by Flynn in his defense. One way they did this was
to hide them in the special counsel operation. This prevented anyone, not just Flynn's
defense team, from discovering the plot. The sudden release of long withheld documents by
Covington & Burling suggest they may have been part of the plot to entrap Flynn and get
him to plead guilty to a crime.
At this stage, only a partisan fanatic thinks the principals in this whole Russian
collusion caper were operating in good faith. You could make the argument that their behavior
was unethical, but not necessarily illegal. Even if their actions violated the law, you could
argue they did so in the belief they were within the bounds of the law. With these new
revelations, it is clear they knew they were breaking the law in an effort to frame General
Flynn as part of a much larger conspiracy.
One thing that is now confirmed with these new revelations is that the Special Counsel was
always just part of a larger effort to cover-up this conspiracy. In fact, that was the whole
point of it. The FBI and DOJ officials involved in the conspiracy would hide all of the
evidence inside the counsel's operation. This would make it impossible for the defense
lawyers to access and very difficult for Congress to access. It would also prevent the
administration from looking into it.
Another outrageous aspect to this case is that it appears that Flynn's original defense
team, Covington & Burling, may have been in on the plot to frame him. It's not all that
clear at this point, but the best that can be said of their actions on behalf of their client
is they are the worst law firm in the country. They exist because they have resources and
know how things work in Washington. Despite this, they made the sorts of errors TV writers
would find too ridiculous for a legal drama.
There's also the fact that this sort of behavior by the FBI and DOJ is business as usual,
which underscores the corruption. This is not a couple of renegades. This is just how things
are done by the government. They frame people for crimes then work to prevent them from
getting a proper defense. The FBI has a long history of framing the innocent, but it was
always confined to the field offices. Now it is clear that the institution is rotten from the
head to the tail. It is hopelessly corrupt.
It is also increasingly clear that the weaselly Rod Rosenstein was the man tasked with
orchestrating the cover-up after the election. He manipulated Sessions and Trump into firing
Comey and then agreeing to the Mueller charade. The only purpose to that operation was to
cover up the illegal spying. Then there is Comey, who claimed under oath to be the guy who
ordered the Flynn investigation. He may have arrogantly admitted to initiating multiple
Federal crimes.
Of course, the big question in all of this is whether Washington is so hopelessly corrupt
that none of this amounts to anything. In banana republics, the judge in the case would be
assassinated or intimidated into ignoring the facts and sentencing Flynn to jail. We may not
be there yet, but the lack of any substantive investigation into the FBI corruption suggests
no one will be charged with anything. The principals in this scandal are now in high six
figure positions in Washington, living the good life.
Now, it is possible that Bill Barr was not prepared for the scale of corruption that has
been revealed in this case . He may have truly thought it was a few bad apples that went off
on their own. Once the scale of the corruption was known, he had to change course and bring
in outside help. It's just as possible that he is part of the problem. He is friends will
most of these people. His role in this could simply be part of the how Washington is
neutralizing Trump and preparing him for expulsion.
There is one puzzle that gets no attention. Why would the government keep delaying Flynn's
sentencing after he agreed to the deal? They said he was cooperating, but he had nothing to
offer them and they knew it. Perhaps he was just a prop to maintain the greater narrative of
the Russian hoax. By dragging out his process they could feed fake news to state media,
claiming it was from Flynn. That's seems to be a too cute by half, given the reality in
Washington, but it is possible.
Ineptitude is always a possibility. There's also the fact that highly corrupt institutions
tend to have lots of internal intrigue and conflict. The old line about thieves sticking
together is a myth. The corrupt man has no honor. As a result, the last stage for the corrupt
institution is when the people inside beginning to scheme against one another to the point
where they undermined their mutual efforts. Maybe that's where things are in Washington now.
It's just one big game of liar's poker.
xxx Radiant. 3 minutes ago
What did Flynn plead guilty to?
"Now, it is possible that Bill Barr was not prepared for the scale of corruption that
has been revealed in this case."
Really? Anyone who has been in Washington awhile must realize how things are there.
Anyway, remove those people from their posts, allow them their benefits and pensions and
let them keep their security clearance. That will teach them a lesson.
You both lack critical thinking when analyzing sources.
First of all, we live in the age of the academia. Never before in the history of humanity,
becoming a scientist was so easy. Most Americans, for example, can have a college degree.
Many can pursue a Ph.D.
But that doesn't mean they are all high quality - or even real scientists. Science was
somewhat democratized, but not because the capitalists are science-loving neoathenians. No,
they democratized through massification, commodification: you pay to play and you pay to
win.
Unless you have a chair in one of the top universities around the capitalist world, your
average Ph.D. is probably a semi-unemployed peon who needs to publish periodically in order
to receive a grant from the university and/or attract funds (generally, from big business).
He/she will also probably not be working on his/her own research, but on a research of a
local top dog. Frequently - because of publication quotas and the desperate need to attract
sponsorships from the private sector - modern scientists resort to full-fledged absurd
extrapolations and outright adulteration of their experiments (which often include
lying).
The volume of published research nowadays is so big that universal consensus is all but
impossible. You'll always be able to find some 50-100 Ph.D.s who'll be against any quarantine
effort, or in favor of a half-baked quarantine. For example, I can find many legitimate
Ph.D.s who obtained their degrees defending eugenics and the concept of race in
Anthropology.
That's why finding an academic who goes against the tide is not definitive evidence
against the enforced scientific consensus. That's why there is a concept of scientific
consensus in the first place.
And what the scientific consensus about the measures against the COVID-19 tells us - what
the doctors on the front line, who are putting their degrees on the line of fire, as millions
of lives are in their hands - is that what happened in Wuhan is the gold standard. The more
restrictive the quarantine, the better; no one in, no one out. The chief Italian doctor in
charge of the whole mess in his country, when answering the reporter's question about what
Italy should've done differently, was blunt: we should've imitated Wuhan, regardless of the
petit-bourgeois crying and moaning about "the economy".
Many of you see the evils of Capitalism gone bad. For some reason you seem unable to
fathom that Science has been captured by the worst sort of Capitalism, as is the Public
Health agencies you rely on for statistics on diseases and health
Medicine is dominated by corporate interests -- physicians, academic institutions, and
government agencies -- whose financial interests are intertwined with drug and vaccine
manufacturers. Physicians, professional associations, medical institutions, and government
agencies are collaborating partners in the business of medicine in Public-Private
Partnerships
The government and industry have a cozy relationship and the public health arena offers no
exception. One aspect of this: the revolving door. There are many examples. One is Julie
Gerberding, the former head of the CDC, resigned from her government-appointed position in
January 2009 and was named the president of Merck Vaccines in December 2009. Gerberding began
her new job in January 2010, one year after leaving the CDC, which is the minimum amount of
time she was legally required to wait before joining an industry that she previously
regulated. It is clear that Dr. Gerberding received a professional reward for expanding
universal immunization policies and, in effect, pharmaceutical company profits, for
marginalizing the plight of victims of adverse reactions to vaccines. In January Julie sold
off close to 10 million of her Merck Stock. Half of her holdings in Merck alone.
The National Science Foundation was established in 1950 and began disbursing grants for
basic scientific research.
The government began throwing money at basic research and thus transformed it into a
bureaucracy. Research became high-tech-and incredibly expensive.
In 1961 Eisenhower warned at the same time he warned of the MIC that this could result in
the capture of the nation by a (pseudo) scientific-technocratic elite. Indeed this elite has
become a branch of the MIC.
The first scientific journal... began publication in 1665. By 1800 there were 100
journals; by 1900, 10,000 journals. By 1986, an unreadable total of nearly 140,000 papers
were being published each year just by U.S. scientists,about one-third of the world total.
Today that number is 2.5 million, and a total of 50 million since 1665
Most of these journals depend on industry for advertising revenues to keep them alive. In
Medicine Big Pharma provides most of their revenue. They are careful not to publish anything
that might offend Big Pharma. This is true outside medicine as well.
Such overgrowth in scientific ranks produces regression to the
mean. Competition among large numbers of scientists for one or a few central sources of
funding restricts freedom of thought and action to a mean that appeals to the majority. The
scientist who is very productive, most able to sell research, and well liked for not
offending his peers with new hypotheses and ideas is selected by
his peers for funding. These peers cannot afford a nonconformist, or unpredictable, thinker
because every new, alternative hypothesis is a potential threat to their own line of
research.
Consensus science not Science. Driven by vast infusions of federal and commercial money,
it has grown into an enormous and powerful bureaucracy that greatly amplifies its successes
and mistakes all the while stifling dissent. Such a process can no longer be called science,
which by definition depends on self-correction by internal challenge and debate.
Albert Einstein would not get funded for his work by the peer review system, and Linus
Pauling did not (for his work on vitamin C and cancer even though he received two Nobel
Prizes). The only benefit of the numerous cascades of competitive tests and reviews set up by
peer review is the elimination of unsophisticated charlatans and real incompetence. In sum,
the review of too many by too many achieves but one result with certainty: regression to the
mean. As these armies of new scientists flood the peer review system, they even act to
suppress any remaining dissension by the few remaining thoughtful researchers.
Peer review can never check the accuracy of experimental data; it can only censor
unacceptable interpretations. A scientist's grants, publications, positions, awards, and even
invitations to conferences are entirely controlled by his competitors. As in any other
profession, no scientist welcomes being out competed or
having his pet idea disproved by a colleague.
Few scientists are any longer willing to question, even privately, the consensus views in
any field whatsoever.
NIH research grants not only fund some in-house labs, but they now provide the basic
source of funding for universities and other institutes, including research
conducted in other nations. Half the total federal research spending on universities and
colleges for all subjects combined is now provided by the NIH. NIH grants have now become a
major source of income for the larger and increasingly dependent universities. According to a
1990 article in the Journal of NIH Research, "When NIH sneezes, it is the academic community
that catches cold."
Academic science was not content with grants , so they sought profits and wealth. The
Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was written to make it easier for federally funded academic research to
receive patent protection that would allow the ready licensing of the of valuable R&D to
private businesses. It has enabled university technology transfer offices all over the world
to generate billions of dollars of licensing revenue - especially in the life sciences -- by
licensing patents from federally funded university research to corporate partners. Bayh-Dole
has effectively turned research into big business for many universities and transformed
technology transfer offices into important profit centers at academic institutions all over
the world.
Dave Eggers' gem of a book, "A Hologram for the King," is a parable about the decadence, fragility and heartlessness of late, decayed
corporate capitalism. It is about the small, largely colorless men and women who serve as managers in our suicidal outsourcing of
manufacturing jobs and the methodical breaking of labor unions. It is about the lie of globalization, a lie that impoverishes us
all to increase corporate profits.
"A Hologram for the King" tells the story of Alan, a lackluster 54-year-old consultant who is desperately trying to snag one
final big contract in Saudi Arabia for Reliant, a corporation that is "the largest I.T. supplier in the world," to save himself
from financial ruin. Alan has come to realize that managers like him who made outsourcing possible will be discarded as human refuse
now that the process is complete, left to wander like ghosts-or holograms-among the ruins. And Eggers' novel is a subtle, deft and
poignant look at the horrendous toll this corporate process takes on self-esteem, on family, on health, on community and finally
on the nation itself. It does so, like parables from Greek tragedy or George Orwell, by finding the perfect story to make a point
that is universal.
Company lacks consistent leadership, 'cohesive strategy,' Yahoo exec writes
Eric Auchard
Today's
Top Stories
or
November 20, 2006 (Reuters) -- Yahoo Inc.
needs a dramatic organizational shake-up and cuts in its workforce of up to
20%, according to an internal memo written last month by Senior Vice President
Brad Garlinghouse.
Garlinghouse, a second-tier Yahoo executive who has taken increasingly powerful
roles in the company since joining three and a half years ago, argued that Yahoo
suffers from a lack of consistent leadership, business focus and a "single cohesive
strategy."
"We lack a focused, cohesive vision for our company," Garlinghouse wrote.
"We want to do everything and be everything -- to everyone."
The document was published in the Saturday edition of The Wall Street
Journal. A Yahoo spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined
to comment directly on details contained in the memo or in the newspaper story.
The Journal story also describes rumors that Chief Operating Officer
Dan Rosensweig and Chief Financial Officer Sue Decker could be elevated to become
co-presidents, in preparation for the retirement of Chairman and CEO Terry Semel,
64, who joined Yahoo five years ago.
The call for restructuring follows a series of embarrassments that have caused
Yahoo shares to lose 31.5% of their value so far this year. It is struggling
with a slowdown in parts of its advertising business while racing to keep pace
with far-faster-growing rival Google Inc.
The memo -- known as "the peanut butter manifesto" because it compares Yahoo's
investment strategy with spreading peanut butter too thinly on bread -- argues
for a "radical reorganization" of the 12-year-old Internet media giant.
Job cuts urged
"I hate peanut butter," Garlinghouse wrote.
The executive said the company should cut its workforce by 15% to 20% as
part of a plan to reshape its current business-unit structure and eliminate
the bureaucratic duplication of functions that exist across Yahoo.
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company has nearly 10,000 employees worldwide.
"There are so many people in charge (or believe that they are in charge)
that it's not clear if anyone is in charge," Garlinghouse said.
"I believe we must embrace our problems and challenges and that we must take
decisive action," the memo states bluntly.
Garlinghouse named a variety of duplicative groups that pit established business
units against new initiatives, including music, photos, search, applications,
social networks, global strategy and even who controls the Yahoo home page.
In a statement, Yahoo's leadership has defined three areas of focus for its
business.
During the company's quarterly financial conference call last month, Semel
described efforts to close the gap with Google in how much revenue it generates
from its search business, increase its lead in brand advertising and get a jump
on emerging markets like video, mobile and social networks.
"The memo itself highlights that we have an open, collaborative culture and
a senior management team that is intensely committed to helping Yahoo fulfill
its potential as an Internet leader," the statement said.
The Journal said the memo has received support from Yahoo senior management
and that Garlinghouse had been asked to lead an internal committee to investigate
the issues he raised.
"All is not well," Garlinghouse wrote. The memo itself was written in response
to an Oct. 11 New York Times article that he described as "a painful
public flogging."
"While it lacked accurate details, its conclusions rang true, and thus was
a much needed wake-up call," the Yahoo executive wrote. "It's time for us to
get back up."
Philip Greenspun's site has the following
quotation [greenspun.com]:
See Charles Ferguson's
High Stakes, No Prisoners [amazon.com] (1999) for a longer explanation
of how hired-gun CEOs manage to kill software products companies.
Since that page was written, there have been other examples.
This happened to me. What I would recommend anybody in a similar
situation is to read Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince. The book is advice
to Princes of small states in Italy in how they should keep control
of their states. It was written 500 years ago – but equally applies
to Software Start-ups. It is most famous
for the quote the "The end justifies the means".
Any venture capital company should read the chapter "On Troops and Mercenaries"
– substitute – Mercenary for Hired Gun Management. Machiavelli say's
"Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous" – further on
he says "they [Mercenaries] are brave among friends [read the board
and head-hunters]; among enemies they are cowards ……… they keep no faith
with men; and your downfall is deferred only so long as the attack is
deferred; and in peace you are plundered by them, in war by your enemies."
Basically what Machiavelli goes on to say is that troops don't really
fight for money, but for vision and belief in the Prince. If an employee
does not believe that the CEO is in for the long haul why should he
be?
I did OK money wise, but this did not stop me going into massive depression
for about a year after I was replaced. It feels like somebody messing
up your toys….
Having worked at Metricom at the time of the "management change",
I watched as the core founders and technologists (many of whom were
still in engineering, some of whom were management but continued to
provide expertise/experience) who developed the Ricochet get pushed
out by the fast ripple of change brought on by Vulcan Ventures' appointments.
I followed suit, watching the sh*t roll downhill and hoping to dodge
it (which I did, successfully...although I left before the big MCI stock
jump, wah. No options exercising for me!)
Then again, can't be as bad as a company I later worked for -- 22 VP's
ran a ~100 person company (and multiple directors had no employees they
directed.)
There are certainly examples of successful companies that
ousted their founders (Cisco being probably one of the biggest successes.)
The question is, what would Cisco have been if the founders were kept?
Generally, engineers (and scientists) make poor managers, but engineers
and scientists can make senior researchers/architects/designers alongside
the MBA's to make sure the books add up and the sales force brings in
business. Most VC's, as the author pointed out, are looking for quick
profit and bumping off the people with the $.25/share options and seniority
is a quick way to make it.
I really like Cringley's article. That said there's something important
that was left out:
The wealth of a business owner does not come from income but from the
value of his or her stake in the business. Ultimately this wealth is
"paper" wealth untill the company is sold.
That means if it is best for owners to sell, they'll "package" the company
for sale (this often involves actually reducing the value of the company
to a level that someone will buy it). What's more, a lot of the actions
that appear shortsighted are acutally long term maneuvers to sell out.
Closing down R&D to make your books look attractive is one way to do
this. With businesses, "let the buyer beware" is the rule, not the exception.
One condition that universally sucks is when something happens that
makes it appear that the owners of a company's wealth is at risk. Then
owners pressure managers to make shortsighted decisions to protect their
wealth and often attempt to prematurely sell the company. The results
are often mass layoffs and the buyer gets a firm that is cancerous and
consumes their company or personal wealth as well.
At present I own a company. I know my employees will not like it when
I decide to sell it. I can't guarantee that they will all come out ahead,
but I'll try my best. The reason I started this company was to build
it up, and then sell it so that I and my fellow investors could get
rich. My employees benefit by having great jobs and some, through ownership
options, will be rewarded when the sale happens.
Much of the management behaviors decried in Cringley's article are
due to the way the Stock Market works today.
The original idea behind stock was as a way for the company to get money
to grow. The stock buyer was counting on getting an annuity - the dividends
of the stock. As a result, the upper bound on the current value of the
stock was set by the interest rate and the dividends the company paid
out - if the interest rate was 10%, and the stock paid $1 in dividends
per year, then if the stock cost less than $10/share it was undervalued.
If the stock cost more than $10/share, you would do better to invest
your money in a bank.
Thus, stock holders were looking at the long
term - what is the company doing to increase the dividends?
But then people noticed that if they could make a short-term change
in the expected return on the stock, the current value would move. Thus,
they began to change the short-term operations of the company, to change
the estimated dividends (and thus the current price of the stock), then
SELL and move on.
Thus stocks became trading cards, and the current era began. Buy
into a company, manipulate the stock price, sell, repeat. (OK, PROFIT!
there, I said it, you don't have to.)
Now, consider this - What if the capital gains tax worked like this:
If the gain is realized in less than 6 months, then the gain is taxed
at 90%.
If the gain is realized in 6 months to 1 year, then the gain is taxed
at 75%.
If the gain is realized in 1 year to 5 years, then the gain is taxed
at 50%.
If the gain is realized in more than 5 years, then the gain is taxed
at 0% (i.e. not taxed).
Now, consider these scenarios:
You buy into an IPO, sell when the stock peaks a month later, sell.
You get nailed for 90%. Since that is the case, there would be MUCH
less demand for the stock, and it wouldn't shoot up so much.
You buy into a company, manipulate the stock price by gutting it, and
pop that golden parachute a year and a day later. You get nailed to
the tune of 50%. You are STILL discouraged from these games.
You buy a house. Five years later, you move from Silly-con Valley to
Wyoming, and from a $500,000 house to a $250,000 ranch. You pocket the
$250,000, since it isn't taxed.
I was watching a show several years ago on PBS, wherein a representative
of the Federal Reserve was debating a person who's position was "The
Fed should just leave the damn interest rates alone and let the market
correct itself." The Fed guy said "But we have all this information,
and it would be wrong for us not to provide feedback to the system".
When he said "feedback to the system" I had an epiphany - I am an electrial
engineer, control systems are something I've studied at length. Unlike
an economist, engineers are trained in mathematical tools to examine
systems for stability. One of the things that will make a system unstable
is too much lag from stimulus to feedback response - it's called "phase
margin". The economy has a very LARGE phase lag - making a change to
interest rates today will not take effect tomorrow. Also, there is "gain
margin" or frequency response - the higher the frequency response the
faster the system will react, but too much will cause oscillation. Systems
with a large phase lag need to have a very low bandwidth, or they will
oscillate. What my proposed cap gains tax would do is reduce the bandwidth
of the system by reducing the gain at high frequencies.
Now, you can apply a simple check to my proposal - who will it piss
off? The Republicans won't like it, since it prevents the very sort
of short-term market manipulation that makes money for fatcats. The
Democrats won't like it, because it allows middle-class folks to make
money long term (so they can retire without relying on the government
for assistance).
And I assert that anything that pisses off both the Republicans
and Democrats cannot be a bad thing.
I signed on to a very small privately held company several years
ago. It had survived a number of years, reinventing itself as necessary.
A good place to work, interesting engineering, good relationship with
customers & suppliers. It was fun.
Then we went public, lots of money burned, but the product didn't
fly high, and the grey-haired managers showed up. The VCs & large
institutional investors that now controlled the company brought in management
to wring as much money out of the company as possible. Since we weren't
a high flyer the large investors didn't care about keeping us
alive anymore, they just wanted as much money as possible extracted
from it.
By this point I had bailed, I didn't like the way things were going.
As fate would have it, I jumped from the frying pan into the fire, but
that's another story.
It survived for a few more years. Pieces of the company were spun
off & sold off. The large investors had gotten a sweet deal on stock,
but had to hold it for a several years. A few months after they could
legally sell it I noticed the company's stock skyrocket -- then drop.... for 3 days it rachetted up on low volume then dropped on high
volume. Several times the outstanding share volume changed hands over
those few days.
One of the essential problems is that, by law the management
are required to maximise shareholder's value. There are lots of things
that management can do that will increase shareholder's value (i.e.
the value of the stock) in the short-term but may be detrimental over
the long-term. Acquiring other companies is a typical action. Alternatively
they might try to boost profit in the short-term by slashing staff or
research budgets and then angling for a buy-out by a big multinational.
All these things are easily defensible. The stock goes up, the shareholder's
see their "value" increase and everyone is happy.
On the other hand we have long-term actions such as basic research
that are far harder to justify to shareholders used to the instant returns
of recent years.
If the stock market has less speculators we'd probably see less of
the fast money which in term might lead to shareholder's valuing long
term actions more. However there will always be people who attempt to
make short-term returns, and while this is the case there will always
be the urge to cash-in as soon as possible.
The Ars Digita story is a classic example of what Cringely is talking
about- a company run into the ground by "professional" managers brought
in by the VCs. Here's the story, as told by one of the company's founders:
Even though it's "just one side of the story," the consensus is that
it's pretty close to what really happened.
In the end, the VCs cut a deal with Redhat, who hired a few of Ars'
staff to make it look like the company was successfully sold. Fortunately,
Ars' great products live on as open source software,
OpenACS [openacs.org],
and Redhat's CCM
[arsdigita.com]. Though Ars' incompetent management pushed CCM as the
next, great version of their software, it was never more than vaporware.
Redhat has continued to develop it, but it's still not finished.
Sometimes I have the feeling that the modern American workplace
has regressed into a sort of feudal structure, where management is the
aristocracy. The MBA is like a patent of nobility, and once you've got
it, you're of the blood, and must never again really worry about your
existence. If you toady to higher ranking nobility, you'll get a fief
(management job) of your own complete with productive serfs (programmers,
etc). If your fief is big enough, you can parcel out sub fiefs (lower
tier management) to lower nobles (your business school/ frat chums)
and be a liege lord.
And just like back in the day during feuds and other conflicts nobles
who lost were almost always treated well by the victors and often were
offered chances to switch allegience, today you can easily climb into
a good job even if your company tanks (lacking a distinct skill set,
managers are fungible; just look at the utterly disparate types of businesses
that many CEOs have managed in their careers) and if that fails, there's
always the golden parachute.
Back in the day, there were rarely serious consequences to the behavior
of nobility as long as it didn't involve treachery towards those above
you, and today this seems to be so with our manager class, at least
as far as business decisions go. Being noble was enough.
Are the world class managers actually MBAs? Does a MBA make you
to some "liege lord"? This is the assumption most aspiring MBA seem
to have.
Let's have a look at some world class companies.
The management board of Daimler-Chrysler:
1x Engineering and Economics
1x Engineering and MBA
2x Economics
2x MBA
2x Law
4x Engineering
John Palmisano, President of IBM, is has graduated with a Bachelor
in social and behavioural sciences.
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Chairman of the Board, has a bachelor in engineering
and a MBA.
The first non-engineer CEO at Sony was Nobuyuki Idei, in 1995. He graduated
with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics.
The president of Sony from 1989 to 1995 was Norio Фga, graduate of Tфkyф
National University of Fine Arts and Music.
The prime requisit of the best managers are very good social skills
and a good judgement. A good knowledge of economics is plus, without
doubt, but a good knowledge of the matter at hand, too.
Of course, this doesn't negate your quite correct observation, that
there are several managers, which jump of the sinking ship, with their
"golden parachute".
It makes me wonder, how many of those managers are MBAs.
The MBA is like a patent of nobility, and once you've got it,
you're of the blood, and must never again really worry about your existence.
Ha ha ha. You're very funny. Banks and consulting firms are laying off
MBAs left right and center. I don't know whether NYC or London has more
unemployed MBA/sq km, but they're both pretty high. Lots of people are
even leaving the MBA off their CVs now, leading to embarassing silences
when you interview them and ask about the gap in their employment history.
This sort of nonsense might go over well with people who've already
decided that they hate corporations and everything about the capitalist
system, but it's not backed by a shred of truth. You might as well say
that an MS in CS makes someone one of the tech nobility and these people
make all the tech decisions - it simply isn't true.
To be fair to managers, not all of them are complete gits. To for
a technology company to suceed it is not enaugh for it to be run by
a 24 carat geek with a high as it gets IQ and who loves to hakck code
etc... I have seen a number of companies end up living of 2-3 projects,
often all of these projects are financed by the same sposor and when
that sponsor needs to downsize... Well what you get then is what the
Germans are getting now, as Siemens, BMW, MBB and others cancel projects
and we see 45000 bankrupcys happen in one year, which in Germany is
a post WWII record. What is really needed is a bunch of geeks, marketing
people and managers working together. Then and only then will a company
do well. If you take a look at alot of those companies he cites as examples
of companies who have not been managed to death it is either because
their leadersip is well balaced in these three departments or because
they happen to have a leader who has a flair for more than just the
tecchnical side but also marketing and management.
That's true, but it's always nice to get into a field on the ground
floor. See, one of the problems with professionalism (in the sense of
a field's "going professional" and creating, for instance, professional
managers) is that it raises the bar for entry, sometimes far too high.
For instance, I'm pretty sure it was a lot easier to get started in
business 100 years or so ago -- you had a trade, and you did it, and
"managing" wasn't something that you did as a career, it was
something that you did to enable yourself to do all that other
stuff you wanted to do (say, in Walt Disney's case, making cartoons).
Now, with so many fields professionalizing so rapidly, it's very hard
to get into them at all unless you've got the appropriate professional
credentials and/or (usually and) experience. (Oh, yeah, having friends
in high places helps too.) Woe betide you if you don't have these things,
because you will suddenly find yourself having to be twice as good as
the existing competition to even get into the field, which can be tough
when you're competing against people with 20 years' experience.
And sometimes having your field taken over by august sages and avocationists
is not a good thing, either. To use an example I'm most familiar with,
look at how dynamic, prolific and vibrant SF publishing was in the 1960s
and 1970s. Now that it's been professionalized and commoditized so much,
all that dynamism, exuberance (and not necessarily even youthful
exuberance), and prolificness (prolixity? although not in the
strictest literary sense) has gone out, and it's damn near impossible
for a newcomer (of any age) to get published.
All fields need newcomers, beginners, and dabblers, so professionalism
is not necessarily a good thing 100% of the time, especially since the
trend lately in technology (and other fields) has been to refine, as
opposed to innovate. Where are the innovators going to come from, if
we don't encourage people to start doing something? You'd be
surprised what novel approaches the "beginner mind" can come up with.
Ask me about it sometime...
Death imminent (Score:4, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25, @05:24AM (#4528259)
I work for a major Dutch cable company, in the tech support department.
About two years ago, we had about 10,000 customers, built up over a
year or two, and were therefore relatively small. Service was fairly
good (except for a bad choice in cable modem systems), and improving.
Then the mother company, French, decided that they wanted to sell us.
So, they set a goal for 100,000 customers by the end of the year. That's
a lot of growth. Somewhere down the line, they even hired to consulting
managers (*expensive*!) to guide tech support and the like.
The result is obviously guessed: The company is now nearly bankrupt,
though a buyer has been found ("Look! Over 100,000 customers!"), and
the layoffs have begun to keep the company afloat long enough for fresh
capital.
They destroyed a perfectly functioning company that could have handled
quite a bit of painless expansion, simply to increase its value for
a sale. Can someone explain to me why this sort of thing would be good
for the economy?
The Case Against Professionalism
How We Have Managed Industry Almost to Death
By Robert X.
Cringely
Two weeks ago in this column, we were lamenting the decline
of industrial basic research, and last week, it was the decline of science at
all in the absence of threats like Hitler and Stalin. But this week, in the
culmination of our tragedies of the technical, we lay blame for both phenomena
where it clearly and obviously belongs -- on the shriveled hearts and addled
brains of professional management. We have managed our technical industries
almost to death.
It is easy to forget that professionalism is the enemy of the high-tech startup.
If these companies were operated by professionals, they would never have been
founded. Nor would a professional tolerate the conditions necessary for startup
survival. Michael Eisner never emptied a wastebasket at work, but I'll bet Walt
Disney did.
Here is a scene that happens at some point in almost every young company. The
founder/CEO/technical visionary meets with his board and finds him or herself
out of a job. How could this happen? Well, the company has grown to the point
where the board feels that "professional management" is required, so they are
bringing in a new management team. The new team is composed of old friends and
classmates of the board, and the new team costs five to 10 times as much, but
that's okay because the company is "hiring for growth." This new team cuts staff,
cuts costs and outsources everything that can be outsourced, with the result
that earnings are improved and the stock goes up or the company makes itself
look better for an Initial Public Offering. The professional managers get big
bonuses, they exercise mountains of stock options, sell those option shares,
then go on to some other, even bigger, job having "saved" the company, which
then stagnates, goes into a slow decline, and is eventually acquired by a competitor.
In the PC industry, this is the path followed by almost every company. On the
software side look at Borland, Broderbund, Personal Software, Lotus, WordPerfect
and hundreds of others. The similarly afflicted hardware companies are so many
that the names become a blur. All these companies, even though some of their
names may remain, are effectively dead. Certainly, they bear no resemblance
at all to what they once were. And every one of these companies had something
else in common: At the time their management was displaced, they were profitable
and had money in the bank.
So what happened? Well, in some cases the founders were at fault and should
properly have been replaced, but in many cases it was something very different
at work -- simple greed on the part of the financiers and venture capitalists.
Here is the same scenario from the perspective of the typical VC member of the
board. The founder is no longer doing exactly as he or she is told. The company
is moving toward an IPO or the stock is not performing to the satisfaction of
the larger shareholders. So the founder is forced out, then his or her shares
are diluted to make room for the new managers, who are cronies of the financiers.
This dilution eliminates the founder as a voice of opposition. The stock price
is pushed up, the board sells out, the new management leaves, and nothing of
the original company remains.
Sometimes the result of the ensuing crash can have effects beyond belief. The
Learning Company, for example, pretty much destroyed the U.S. consumer software
business in the 1990s, and then went on to destroy the U.S. toy industry as
well by taking down mighty Mattel. Now THAT's professional managment.
This is all a trick promulgated by people who do not in any way care about the
company or its people. But visit most any business school and what I just described
is taught in case studies as examples of good management. It is maximizing shareholder
value, they'll say.
Pity the poor MBAs, for they know not what they do, nor do they seem to care.
In the last two weeks, I've been hearing from people who spent decades at places
like IBM and AT&T Bell Labs only to be laid off or have their division sold.
Some saw it coming years before, like the IBMer who noticed in 1986 that the
company was cutting back subscriptions to technical journals for its library.
He immediately began looking for a new career. But most just felt an increasing
ache as their company slowly changed into something they no longer liked.
This might not matter if it didn't also mean that our long-term competitiveness
is threatened by such shortsighted action. Seeking short-term gains, we have
sacrificed not just the futures of our enterprises, but also their characters.
Often all that's left is the logo.
Here's one example from a jaded reader:
"In 1965, I went to work for Celanese Chemical Company as a Mechanical Engineer.
In 1971, I was transferred to their research center in Corpus Christi."
"This center was never really noted for basic research. Instead, their forte
was to really improve a process that had been licensed from some other company
and also to figure out how to purify a chemical better than any other company
could. As an example, Celanese licensed a process from Monsanto to make methanol.
Over a span of many years, the process was drastically improved and the improvements
were covered with patents. It got to the point where Monsanto almost couldn't
recognize what we had and we greatly outperformed their own plant."
"Each of our chemists was given a little time each week to work on something
that caught his/her fancy. One of them came up with a novel approach to the
manufacture of acetominophine (Tylenol). This led to the extension of the basic
chemistry and on to the most efficient and cost effective way to manufacture
ibuprofen (Advil). Commercial plants were built for both and, at one time, the
ibuprofen plant was supplying most, if not all, of the North American and European
markets."
"Hoechst A.G., who owned Celanese at the time, decided in 1997 that the research
center cost too much. They wanted to specialize in pharmaceuticals. A massive
layoff followed. The center was kept open, but with a greatly reduced staff.
Last year, it was announced that even the little remaining was too expensive
and it would be totally shuttered by the end of 2002."
"There will be no further research for Celanese on process improvement, new
markets, cheaper ways to run existing processes, etc. If I owned Celanese stock,
I'd sell it because the company will be down the drain in 10 to 15 years."
Think about it. From the perspective of the Hoescht executive who decided to
close the Corpus Christi plant AND FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HIS OR HER CAREER,
shutting down that research center was absolutely the right thing to do. It
improved the appearance of corporate performance at a cost that won't be felt
for years. And when that cost is felt, it won't felt by Hoechst at all, since
Celanese has been spun-off and is on its own.
Does current Celanese management even know what they had in that Corpus Christi
research center? Probably not, because any sense of corporate history has probably
been lost.
We're lucky in the computer industry that the companies are young and many of
them are still run by their founders. I may not always agree with what Scott
McNealy does as CEO of Sun Microsystems, but I know McNealy understands what
Sun is about because he was there at the beginning and built the first few Sun
workstations by hand. Certainly, as long as Microsoft and Dell and Oracle and
Adobe have been around, there has been a founder at the helm, and it shows.
Love them or hate them, at least these companies have identifiable characters.
And sometimes, that combination of technical expertise and business success
combines to create something even greater -- an organization that has a love
of learning for its own sake. That's what appears to be happening at Research
In Motion, makers of the Blackberry handheld e-mail appliance, where three of
the top corporate officers have put $120 million of those shrunken Canadian
dollars -- their own money, not the company's -- into the study of particle
physics.
Looks like both Yovanovich and Hill are connected to Soros and did his bidding instead of pursuing Trump policies as for
Ukraine. Yovanovich was clearly dismiied due to her role in channeling damaging to Trump information during 2016 elections,
the fact that she denies (as she denied the exostance of "do not procecute list"). And nothing can be taken serious from a
government official until she denied it.
Notable quotes:
"... Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a hate figure on the far right. ..."
"... This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros." ..."
"... "My entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties." ..."
"... "When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to "this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well." ..."
"... Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role. ..."
Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security
Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including
antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a
hate figure on the far right.
In her testimony to Congress, Hill described a climate of fear among administration
staff.
The UK-born academic and biographer of Vladimir Putin said that the former ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was the target of a hate campaign, with the aim of driving her from
her post in Kyiv, where she was seen as an obstacle to some corrupt business interests.
Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine in May on Trump's orders. In a 25 July conversation
with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump described Yovanovitch as "bad news"
and predicted she was "going to go through some things". The former ambassador has testified
she felt threatened by the remarks.
Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, led calls for Yovanovitch's dismissal, as did two of Giuliani
business associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. All three are under scrutiny in hearings being
held by House committees looking at Trump's use of his office to put pressure on the Ukrainian
government to investigate his political opponents.
"There was no basis for her removal," Hill testified. "The accusations against her had no
merit whatsoever. This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be
baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros."
"I had had accusations similar to this being made against me as well," Hill testified. "My
entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls,
conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been
giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with
all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties."
She added that the former national security adviser, HR McMaster "and many other members of
staff were targeted as well, and many people were hounded out of the National Security Council
because they became frightened about their own security."
"I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbours
reported somebody coming and hammering on my door," Hill said, adding that she had also been
targeted by obscene phone calls. "Now, I'm not easily intimidated, but that made me mad."
"When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to
"this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to
basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well."
In Yovanovitch's case, Hill said: "the most obvious explanation [for the smear campaign]
seemed to be business dealings of individuals who wanted to improve their investment positions
inside of Ukraine
itself, and also to deflect away from the findings of not just the Mueller report on Russian
interference but what's also been confirmed by your own Senate report, and what I know myself
to be true as a former intelligence analyst and somebody who has been working on Russia for
more than 30 years."
Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy
theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role.
WASHINGTON -- After realizing there were still judicial appointments that needed to be
filled during a meeting with the conservative think tank, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell reportedly pointed to a valet in the Heritage Foundation parking lot Thursday and
asked him if he wanted to be a federal judge. "Hey, kid, how'd you like a lifetime appointment
on the Ninth Circuit, huh?" asked McConnell, interrupting the 19-year-old temp worker's
protests that he didn't know anything about the law to tell him that all he needed was "wipe
that dumb look off your face" and he could be delivering rulings by the end of the week.
"You over 18? You got an ID? That'll do. Now just hop in this car with me and we'll head
over to the Capitol right now.
Remember, abortion's bad, corporations are good, and as for everything else, you just
shut the fuck up and do as your told. Got it?"
At press time, after the valet nervously informed McConnell that he was hungover and had
illegal drugs in his system, the laughing Senate leader assured him that wouldn't be an
issue.
Russia interfered on a massive scale and is doing it again as we sit here! Just how
massive? They spent $100,000 on clickbait ads from a company owned by a man who was in a
photo with the evil mastermind!
How evil? Well do the math. $43,000 to $46,000 of that was spent during the election and
of those ads 8.4 percent were political. That's $3,684 dollars.
But the political ads were aimed in both directions so that's roughly $1,932 spent
"promoting" Trump.
And now Mueller tells us the evil mastermind is at it again -- as we sit here -- probably
spending even more this time. Let us know when he's spent a full thousand dollars Bob and
we'll start loading the bombs.
Oh, and we found all this out for around thirty million dollars.
think about it! with the myriad of problems we must contend with: growing social
inequality, huge tax breaks for the rich, government deregulation of private business, a
climate catastrophe, unending wars, nuclear annihilation spurred on especially by u.s.
imperialism, the gutting of what little social safety net we have left and so on and so so
on. and we are supposed to be outraged at supposed foreign interference with our supposed
democratic process? please, this is total insanity!!!
Of course, relatively speaking, it’s a nothing. Every knowledgeable person knows
that we in the US orchestrated both the financing and the strategy of the 1996 Yeltsin
campaign -- a political rescue so efficiently carried out that our operatives bragged
brazenly about it to Time Magazine, which made it the cover story for its July 14, 1996
edition (“Yanks to the Rescue”).
The Lamestream Corporate media always underplayed the fact that Yeltsin ordered the
execution of 1,100 demonstrators who protested the IMF backed “reforms”, and that
Clinton approved of his deadly and heavy hand in implementing a neoliberal economic order.
Clinton never threatened to suspend aid to the Russian Federation despite its numerous abuses
of human rights.
Also forgotten is that Yeltsin ordered the Russian Parliament (Duma) shelled before it
could vote on Yeltsin’s economic “reforms”, which were implemented at the
point of a gun. At various times between 1993 and 1997, it was Yeltsin who declared martial
law, suspended the Duma, and declared himself possessed of dictatorial powers.
How many Americans ever knew this? 20%? How many remember it today? Maybe 5%? That means
there is no context for gauging Muellers’ testimony.
But, it is, by MSNBC standards, Vladimir Putin who is Evil Incarnate. Has Maddow ever
mentioned Yeltsin, a tyrant of the first order? No, because at GE, Comcast, and NBC, tyranny
in the name of enforcing neoliberalism is perfectly acceptable.
This post is a bit off topic, and is a bit relativistic, as I know we should be concerned
if it is really true that Manafort was giving internal polling data to a Russian Federation
person so that the IRA could better target swing states in our Midwest.
Bob Van Noy , July 26, 2019 at 08:26
John Wolfe, your comment is not off topic at all, it’s crucial to further
understanding of the totality of the Russia did it mentality, and That is well documented in
a small but powerful book called “Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive
Dissonance” by F. William Engdahl which I will link.
The American People have been propagandized so thoroughly that they can hardly recognize
the truth any longer.
Too, I will link an article in Off Guardian this morning that is worth mentioning if one
wants to see Real Reporting On MH-17.
"... On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions ..."
"... John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy despite his explicit campaign promises to do so. ..."
"... More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of Americans is totally unacceptable. ..."
On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they
disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC
to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions. These three entities have been linked to various kinds of corruption
including sanctions evasion for Iran, money laundering on behalf of drug cartels, provision of banking services to backers of Islamic
terror organizations and controversial donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The financial ties between Bolton and these institutions highlight serious ethical concerns about his suitability for the position
of National Security Advisor.
I. Victor Pinchuk Foundation
John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including
one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy
despite his explicit campaign promises to do so.
The Victor Pinchuk Foundation was blasted in 2016 over their donation of $10 to $25 million to the
Clinton Foundation between 1994 and 2005. The donations lead to accusations
of influence peddling after it emerged that Victor Pinchuk had been invited
to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her tenure as Secretary of State.
Even more damning was Victor Pinchuk's participation in activities that constituted evasions of sanctions levied against Iran
by the American government. A 2015 exposé by Newsweek highlighted the fact
that Pinchuk owned Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors. A now-removed
statement on Interpipe's website showed that they
were doing business in Iran despite US sanctions aimed to prevent this kind of activity.
Why John Bolton, a notorious war hawk who has called for a hardline approach to Iran, would take money from an entity who was
evading sanctions against the country is not clear. It does however, raise serious questions about whether or not Bolton should
be employed by Donald Trump, who made attacks on the Clinton Foundation's questionable donations a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign.
II. HSBC Group
British bank HSBC paid Bolton $46,500 in June and August 2017 to speak at two gatherings of hedge fund managers and investors.
HSBC is notorious for its extensive ties to criminal and terror organizations for whom it has provided illegal financial services.
Clients that HSBC have laundered money for include Colombian drug traffickers
and Mexican cartels who have terrorized the country and recently
raised murder rates to the highest levels in Mexico's history . They have
also offered banking services to Chinese individuals
who sourced chemicals and other materials used by cartels to produce methamphetamine and heroin that is then sold in the United
States. China's Triads have helped open financial markets in Asia to cartels
seeking to launder their profits derived from the drug trade.
In 2012, HSBC was blasted by the US Senate for for allowing money from
Russian and Latin American criminal networks as well as Middle Eastern terror groups to enter the US. The banking group ultimately
agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine for this misconduct as well as their involvement
in processing sanctions-prohibited transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.
Some of the terror groups assisted by HSBC include the notorious Al Qaeda. During the 2012 scrutiny of HSBC, outlets such as
Le Monde , Business Insider
and the New York Times revealed that HSBC had maintained ties to Saudi
Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank. Al Rajhi Bank was one of Osama Bin Ladin's "Golden Chain" of Al Qaeda's most important financiers. Even
though HSBC's own internal compliance offices asked for the bank to terminate their relationship with Al Rajhi Bank, it continued
until 2010.
More recently in 2018, reports have claimed that HSBC was used for illicit
transactions between Iran and Chinese technology conglomerate Huawei. The US is currently seeking to extradite Huawei CFO Meng
Wanzhou after bringing charges against Huawei related to sanctions evasion
and theft of intellectual property. The company has been described as a "backdoor" for elements of the Chinese government by certain
US authorities.
Bolton's decision to accept money from HSBC given their well-known reputation is deeply hypocritical. HSBC's connection to
terror organizations such as Al Qaeda in particular is damning for Bolton due to the fact that he formerly served as the chairman
of the Gatestone Institute , a New York-based advocacy group that purports
to oppose terrorism. These financial ties are absolutely improper for an individual acting as National Security Advisor.
III. Deutsche Bank
John Bolton accepted $72,000 from German Deutsche Bank to speak at an event in May 2017.
Deutsche Bank has for decades engaged in questionable behavior. During World War II, they
provided financial services to the Nazi Gestapo and financed construction
of the infamous Auschwitz as well as an adjacent plant for chemical company IG Farben.
Like HSBC, Deutsche Bank has provided illicit services to international criminal organizations. In 2014
court filings showed that Deutsche Bank, Citi and Bank of America had all
acted as channels for drug money sent to Colombian security currency brokerages suspected of acting on behalf of traffickers.
In 2017, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $630 million fine after working with
a Danish bank in Estonia to launder over $10 billion through London and
Moscow on behalf of Russian entities. The UK's financial regulatory watchdog
has said that Deutsche Bank is failing to prevent its accounts from being used to launder money, circumvent sanctions and
finance terrorism. In November 2018, Deutsche Bank's headquarters was raided
by German authorities as part of an investigation sparked by 2016 revelations in the "Panama Papers" leak from Panama's Mossack
Fonseca.
Two weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush administration signed
an executive order linking a company owned by German national Mamoun Darkazanli to Al Qaeda. In 1995,
Darkazanli co-signed the opening of a Deutsche Bank account for Mamdouh
Mahmud Salim. Salim was identified by the CIA as the chief of bin Laden's computer operations and weapons procurement. He was
ultimately arrested in Munich, extradited to the United States and
charged
with participation in the 1998 US embassy bombings.
In 2017, the Office of the New York State Comptroller opened an investigation into accounts that Deutsche Bank was operating
on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is defined by both the United States and the European
Union as a terrorist organization. It is ironic that Bolton, who is a past recipient of the "Guardian of Zion Award" would accept
money from an entity who provided services to Palestinian groups that Israel considers to be terror related.
IV. Clinton-esque Financial Ties Unbecoming To Trump Administration
Bolton's engagement in paid speeches, in some cases with well-known donors to the Clinton Foundation, paints the Trump administration
in a very bad light. Donald Trump criticized Hillary Clinton during his
2016 Presidential campaign for speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs that were
labeled by her detractors as "pay to play" behavior. John Bolton's acceptance of money from similar entities, especially the Victor
Pinchuk Foundation, are exactly the same kind of activity and are an embarrassment for a President who claims to be against corruption.
More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches
hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly
flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National
Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of
Americans is totally unacceptable.
It is embarrassing enough that Donald Trump hired Bolton in the first place. The next best remedy is to let him go as soon
as possible.
WASHINGTON -- Saying he just wants to fit in with his colleagues, shy Rep. Harold Olsen confided to reporters Wednesday that he often
feels left out of all the illegal activities going on in Congress and wishes his fellow lawmakers would include him in their crimes.
"I see everyone around me committing these...
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those
scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social
status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic..."
Bubble Trouble: This week's Barron's cover story by Mike Santoli proclaims
"Yes,
its a bubble."
Before we delve into the article, recognize that 1)
This is not your mainstream publication, so it has no validity as a contrary
indicator; 2) the definition of social is rather stretched, including Pandora
and Zillow, which are not really pure social plays.
That said, let's look at Barron's:
Depending on how you carve up the industry, eight leading companies
that have either gone public, filed plans for an initial stock offering
or are widely expected to do so by the end of next year are now estimated
to be worth a combined $200 billion. Together, these eight companies-Facebook,
Groupon, Zynga, LivingSocial, Twitter, LinkedIn (ticker: LNKD), Pandora
Media (P) and Zillow (Z)-collected $3.5 billion in 2010 revenue. That's
$1 billion less than, say, Washington Post (WPO), whose market value
is $3.4 billion. Leaving aside Facebook, which seems to have the best
shot at supporting its hypothetical $100 billion value through its market
position, growth and profit margins, the rest have negligible profits
at this point."
Preface: I have been using Linux since around 1998, when I installed Debian
from scratch in my old Pentium II. I am more end-user than power user, but the
computer I use most often (my netbook) has Linux in it by default. Also, my
office computer is a Linux computer. And I am writing this in my MacBook. Which
is not Linux, but at least it is Unix. What comes now is a personal rant, after
a fight with my netbook. Probably not completely a Linux fault as an Acer one.
But anyway, be warned this is a rant.
Linux is a time waster. It can come in two time-wasting
fashion:
Good: you find a new command/application and play with it.
Bad: you try to configure something (or install a package from scratch).
But the bad part...
this always gets on my nerves. I don't mean that Windows is better in the bad
part... but Mac OS is. Mac OS just works, but they have the best thing to be
that way: all Mac computers are Apple controlled. Thus they can test everything
and say 'OK'. Every hardware part will work perfectly and smoothly with Mac
OS version N.
Linux has to work in almost all strange configurations possible... And this
means big hardware fuss. You have a
winmodem? You can't use
a dial-up connection (that happened in my Pentium II days). More recently, you
have an internal SD card reader? You can't hotplug it.
All started with an upgrade from Ubuntu 9.10 to 10.04. I assumed dist-upgrade
was a good option, I wanted to upgrade my distribution. Then I learned, and
was advised that it was a bad idea... But how could I know it beforehand? It
was the first time I had to upgrade, in my office this is automatic, and previously
I had so little content that overwriting with a newer version was not a problem.
It looked like the best tool for the job. The ~6 hours process began, and finally,
ended.
Using the model of the railroad companies after the Civil War - there was a
huge ramp-up in railroad infrastructure because the railroads derived a lot
of their values by destroying local commodity monopolies. In the same sense,
the IT infrastructure companies derive their value by destroying local information
monopolies. But there's a finite value there.
The railroads grew along an
S-curve, accelerating their investments into related industries - iron mining,
steel production, etc, creating a lot of secondary economic activity until they
reached the inflection point, the point at which a new track of railroad cost
more than it could return. Railroad industry peaked and consolidated, profit
margins shrank and eventually something like 25-30% of employment disappeared.
i expect the same thing to happen in IT. It has, to some degree and I was
hoping that the initial crash of 2001 had blunted what would happen in the second
crash. I may have been wrong, though. As near as I can tell from my dice, careerbuilder
and monster listings, this is at least as bad as 2003 for IT jobs.
Amazon.com How many times has your PC crashed today? While Gordon Moore's
now famous law projecting the doubling of computer power every 18 months has
more than borne itself out, it's too bad that a similar trajectory projecting
the reliability and usefulness of all that power didn't come to pass, as well.
Advances in information technology are most often measured in the cool numbers
of megahertz, throughput, and bandwidth--but, for many us, the experience of
these advances may be better measured in hours of frustration.
The gap between the hype of the Information Age and its reality is often
wide and deep, and it's into this gap that John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid
plunge. Not that these guys are Luddites--far from it. Brown, the chief scientist
at Xerox and the director of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), and Duguid,
a historian and social theorist who also works with PARC, measure how information
technology interacts and meshes with the social fabric. They write, "Technology
design often takes aim at the surface of life. There it undoubtedly scores lots
of worthwhile hits. But such successes can make designers blind to the difficulty
of more serious challenges--primarily the resourcefulness that helps embed certain
ways of doing things deep in our lives."
The authors cast their gaze on the many trends and ideas proffered by infoenthusiasts
over the years, such as software agents, "still a long way from the predicted
insertion into the woof and warp of ordinary life"; the electronic cottage that
Alvin Toffler wrote about 20 years ago and has yet to be fully realized; and
the rise of knowledge management and the challenges it faces trying to manage
how people actually work and learn in the workplace. Their aim is not to pass
judgment but to help remedy the tunnel vision that prevents technologists from
seeing larger the social context that their ideas must ultimately inhabit.
The Social Life of Information is a thoughtful and challenging read that
belongs on the bookshelf of anyone trying to invent or make sense of the new
world of information. --Harry C. Edwards--This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.
From Publishers Weekly
From the chief scientist of Xerox Corporation and a research specialist in cultural
studies at UC-Berkeley comes a treatise that casts a critical eye at all the
hype surrounding the boom of the information age. The authors' central complaint
is that narrowly focusing on new ways to provide information will not create
the cyber-revolution so many technology designers have visualized. The problem
(or joy) is that information acquires meaning only through social context. Brown
and Duguid add a humanist spin to this idea by arguing, for example, that "trust"
is a deep social relation among people and cannot be reduced to logic, and that
a satisfying "conversation" cannot be held in an Internet chat room because
too much social context is stripped away and cannot be replaced by just adding
more information, such as pictures and biographies of the participants. From
this standpoint, Brown and Duguid contemplate the future of digital agents,
the home office, the paperless society, the virtual firm and the online university.
Though they offer many insightful opinions, they have not produced an easy read.
As they point out, theirs is "more a book of questions than answers" and they
often reject "linear thinking." Like most futurists, they are fond of long neologisms,
but they are given to particularly unpronounceable ones like "infoprefixification"
(the tendency to put "info" in front of words). The result is an intellectual
gem in which the authors have polished some facets and, annoyingly, left others
uncut. (Mar.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.
From The Industry Standard
In his 1996 book The Road Ahead,Bill Gates invited business executives to take a ride
with him into the gee-whiz techno-future. In the photo on the cover of his book,
Gates stands on a two-lane road reminiscent of Route 66, which disappears into
a clear, crisp horizon. Except for Gates and the road, there is nothing around.
John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid would decline the offer of a lift on this
road. In their new book, The Social Life of Information, they say they
prefer to slowly and steadily explore the road's surrounding terrain. They'd
make a stop here and there to check out a tourist trap or converse with the
locals at a dusty cafe.
As they note, "The way forward is paradoxically not to look ahead but to
look around." They're concerned with the "practice" of knowledge rather than
the "process" of information, making them more akin to information archeologists
than information technologists.
To them, looking around means considering the context of information rather
than simply its content. Marshall McLuhan argued much the same in the 1960s
when he proclaimed that the medium (context) was really the message (content).
The authors' different specialties make them interesting tour guides. Brown
is chief scientist at
Xerox and director of its Palo Alto Research
Center. Duguid is a history professor at the
University of California at Berkeley and a social theorist affiliated
with PARC.
They see the modern world cluttered with institutions, media and structures
that futurologists and technopromoters predicted would be extinct by now: the
paperless office, the home office, the smaller entrepreneurial firms, to name
a few in their long list.
The rise of the information age has likewise brought about a good deal of
"endisms," among them the end of: the press, television and mass media; brokers
and other infomediaries; firms, bureaucracies and universities; government,
cities, regions and nation states.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF INFORMATION
One reason futurist predictions have been off target, according to Brown
and Duguid, is the mythology that envelops information. As they note, this mythology
"overpower[s] richer explanations" of the consequences of information and blinds
us to the forces behind technological change.
Information mythology is the fuel for "infoenthusiasts" and futurists. This
group, according to the authors, rages "against the illogic of humankind and
the primitive preferences that lead it astray" while they "continue to tell
us where we ought to go."
By "taking more account of people and a little less of information, they
might instead tell us where we are going." The authors suggest it's one thing
to argue that many of our old structures will not survive the onslaught of the
new information economy, but it's another to argue that we don't need them in
the new economy.
The most relevant chapter for the business world is "Practice Makes Process,"
which relates information mythology to the early 1990s re-engineering management
fad. According to Brown and Duguid, re-engineering was based on the information-friendly
process view of an organization rather than a contextual, social practice view.
Information - without the context of a social life - fits well into process
but has trouble when put into practice.
The authors' examples of how knowledge and learning is created informally
in corporations (particularly Julian Orr's research at Xerox) merit the price
of admission. Readers learn that collaboration, narration and improvisation
are important (yet relatively hidden) methods that result in information that
becomes corporate knowledge.
The university system is another key area where information mythology exists.
Many people have predicted that virtual universities would replace brick-and-mortar
institutions. This has not happened because universities do far more than deliver
information to passive learners.
But the problems that information mythology has caused are minor compared
with the ones that loom in the future as information becomes a more ubiquitous
part of the Internet's "DNA infrastructure." The gap continues to narrow between
smart "bots" and humans, with bots increasingly taking on human names like "personal
assistants" and "agents." At the same time, human activities like "brokering"
and "negotiating" sound robotic.
These agents perform "collaborative filtering," the familiar product-brokering
activity: They match past activity with product suggestions. While the agents
are supposed to represent buyers, they often act as double agents and represent
sellers, too. For example, recall the publisher-paid endorsements on
Amazon.com or how American Airlines' Sabre
reservation system was revealed to be weighted toward American.
It's increasingly difficult to determine whose interests agents represent.
As Brown and Duguid note, "We might be able to use agents, but how many are
able to understand their biases among the complex mathematics of dynamic preference
matching?"
Confusion between knowledge and information underlies many of the problems
information mythology causes. As Brown and Duguid note, knowledge entails a
"knower," but people treat information as independent and self-sufficient. It
sounds right to ask "Where is information?" but not right to ask "Where is knowledge?"
The authors argue it's difficult to separate knowledge from information: It
can't be picked up, passed around, found or compared.
THE PROFESSIONAL DEBUNKER
While Brown and Duguid make a compelling argument against information mythology,
they can also be placed in a growing category of "information age debunkers."
Witness books like
Lawrence Lessig's Code, Douglas Rushkoff's
Coercion, John Willinsky's Technologies of Knowing, David Shenks'
Data Smog and Clifford Stoll's Silicon Snake Oil.
Certainly the past few years have seen an abundance of "cyber-snake oil"
promotion. In this sense, the information debunkers' criticisms give a welcome
breath of fresh air. Yet one can argue criticism of information mythology often
goes too far in promoting its own cause.
For example, while Web-based universities aren't exactly all they're cracked
up to be, neither is brick-and-mortar academia, which Brown and Duguid idealize.
For proof, look at the growing connection between universities and business.
A recent story in the Atlantic Monthly, "The Kept University," describes
how corporations are providing more and more of the money that supports academic
research - especially at Duguid's UC Berkeley.
And the bare "content" of information is not always a bad thing. The subliminal
context that surrounds brands - slick advertising images and packaging - often
obscures the mediocre "content," the product itself. Information wrapped in
context is a "hidden persuader" - the backbone of America's consumer culture
- rather than the friendly communities of "practice" Brown and Duguid suggest.
Despite these minor criticisms, The Social Life of Information is
an important book. Unlike many other "information age debunkers," Brown and
Duguid wisely stand back from prescription. "We do not have solutions to offer,"
they note at the end. "We only know that solutions will be much harder to find
if we drive at the problems with tunnel vision" and if "peripheries and margins,
practices and communities, organizations and institutions are left out or swept
out of consideration."
The authors face a formidable opponent in an age more entranced with information-based
answers than context-based questions. If you have a problem, they note, redefine
it in terms of information and you have an answer. "It allows people to slip
quickly from questions to answers," they write.
This brings us back to Bill Gates on the cover of The Road Ahead.Microsoft plays it both ways: It asks a question
and simultaneously proffers an answer. Its advertisements ask "Where do you
want to go today?" The images in these ads, however, are of people sitting eagerly
at computers. The subtle suggestion is that digital information is enough. In
a world of ready-made answers, it's refreshing that authors like Brown and Duguid
are instead asking the important questions.
John Fraim is president of the GreatHouse, a publisher and consulting firm
in Santa Rosa, Calif.--This text refers to the
Hardcover edition.
UML is one of the current "silver bullets" - Every application manager (not
the people actually developing, but the people looking to herd the developers)
talks about "looking to start using UML". I have talked to at least 6 of them
making this observation. Worse still, it is the most inane diagrams that seem
to get attention, like the worse than nothing "use case" diagrams (these things
are such spectacular wastes of space that it boggles the mind).
Yet we all pull an anoop and nod our head in agreement.
This industry is such a fraud.
Yeah, the same everywhere. My point wasn't that I don't understand UML, but
rather that it is an absolutely classic "cargo cult" technology - someone, somewhere
used UML to great effect, so every anoop parrots how great and important it
is.
... In many cases, that means political issues
have direct consequences -- for example, the president's recent decision to
have Dick Cheney read the riot act to Beijing is going to affect your technology
job because it is part of a strategy to reduce the imbalance in the flow of
technology and manufacturing jobs from the United States to China.
Don't kid yourself about this; the high-level
management decisions that ultimately determine whether you keep your job or
whether your favorite technology makes it in the market can be much more heavily
dependent on politics than on technology.
Politics and Tech
That's usually easy to see at the operational
level, where the personalities and preferences of individual players are known,
but a kind of increased "nebulosity factor" manifests as you trace things upward
in terms of both players and scale. As a result, it's generally not possible
to know with any degree of certainty what the actual impact of national politics
is on technology decisions; only that there is an impact.
Sometimes the impact is pretty clear. For example,
I think you should be out there supporting any elected, or wannabe elected,
representative who promises to support making it illegal to export personal
data on Americans for processing outside the United States. That's fundamental
to national economic security, important to national security in the military
sense and valuable in terms of keeping your job.
On the other hand, much of the speculation on
the impact politics has on technology sounds a lot like conspiracy theory. For
example, I have a theory -- which I have no hope of confirming or disproving
anytime soon -- that Novell's takeover of SuSE was motivated by IBM in a last-ditch
effort to get a deal to have IBM Global Services support SuSE on every desktop
and server owned by DaimlerCrysler past opponents in Detroit.
If so, what got in the way of what would have
been a genuinely big deal for Linux was adroit manipulation of national economic
agendas in Washington. So, did that happen? Maybe, maybe not. I not only don't
know, I don't know how to find out. But I do know that taking discussion of
technologies past reportage and how-tos means taking politics into account.
Software design and construction
are highly contemplative, internal activities. A developer must be highly motivated
to be able to do software development work at all. One of the most basic insights
of motivation research is that when a person tries to apply external motivation
to someone who is already highly internally motivated, internal motivation decreases.
So, the net effect of "using the rod" is a reduction in internal motivation,
and the effect on productivity is a net loss
...Some projects neglect to account
for ancillary activities such as the effort needed to create setup programs,
convert data from previous versions, perform cutover to new systems, perform
compatibility testing, and other pesky kinds of work that take up more time
than we would like to admit
...For software projects, actively
avoiding failure is as important as emulating success. In many business contexts,
the word "risk" isn't mentioned unless a project is already in deep trouble.
In software, a project planner who isn't using the word "risk" every day and
incorporating risk management into his plans probably isn't doing his job. As
Tom Gilb says, "If you do not actively attack the risks on your project, they
will actively attack you."
... A close cousin to Deadly Sin
#3 is reusing a generic plan someone else created without applying your own
critical thinking or considering your project's unique needs. "Someone else's
plan" usually arrives in the form of a book or methodology that a project planner
applies out of the box. Current examples include the Rational Unified Process,
Extreme Programming...
...No outside expert can possibly understand a project's specific needs as
well as the people directly involved. Project planners should always tailor
the "expert's" plan to their specific circumstances. Fortunately, I've found
that project planners who are aware enough of planning issues to read software
engineering books usually also have enough common sense to be selective about
the parts of the prepackaged plans that are likely to work for them.
...One common approach to planning
is to create a plan early in the project, then put it on the shelf and let it
gather dust for the remainder of the project. As project conditions change,
the plan becomes increasingly irrelevant, so by mid-project the project runs
free-form, with no real relationship between the unchanging plan and project
reality.
...Since planners do not have crystal
balls, attempting to plan distant activities in too much detail is an exercise
in bureaucracy that is almost as bad as not planning at all.
...I think of good project planning like driving at night with my car's headlights
on. I might have a road map that tells me how to get from City A to City B,
but the distance I can see in detail in my headlights is limited. On a medium-size
or large project, macro-level project plans should be mapped out end-to-end
early in the project. Detailed, micro-level planning should generally be conducted
only a few weeks at a time and "just in time."
Many dotmags were as ethically challenged as a Mexican policeman. They were
going to the conferences, trying to hold them, sell the ad space and rarely
raining on this parade of confluence. How could these companies cover people
they were entering partnerships with? They couldn't.
Salon has been a prime example of the diminished standards of ethics online.
Ruth Shalit was exiled for repeatedly plagiarizing while working for the New
Republic. Not just fired, but forced to work in advertising. Yet Salon hired
her to write about advertising. A reporter whose work is proveably plagiarized
is covering her own industry, a clear and total conflict of interest. The editors
at Salon can defend this however they like, but note that Ms. Shalit's work
has never appeared in a major newspaper since her firing. A person with this
kind of track record is probably best suited for advertising, where a respect
for facts is not part of the job.
I don't know the woman, but it simply amazes me that she is allowed to have
a byline anywhere. I don't see Janet Cooke or Patricia Smith doing articles
for Vogue or Elle.
But if that were the only case, there would be no point in mentioning it.
Salon repeatedly let interested parties write about subjects they were involved
in. But that is really small change compared to other, grosser ethical breaches.
It seems that tech publications regularly slant their coverage to appeal
to advertisers, giving them amazingly favorable coverage despite every indication
that these companies were grossly mismanaged.
For every decent story on a dotcom, like Wired's story on Razorfish, there
were hundreds which should be collected and used as evidence. Not a negative
word about so many companies was written until they started to crash and burn.
How could a reporter walk into an office and look at 100 Aeron chairs, listen
to bullshit and write a glowing piece on that company? They weren't profitable,
they weren't going to be profitable and this was widely known. Yet, the happy
talk stories continued.
We were among the first people to question the conventional wisdom with our
story on APBNews and it was a revelation to the print press that you couldn't
save a dotcom by working really hard. Except for Chris Byron, who predicted
the fall of these unprofitable companies from day one, you never read a negative
word about these people until the Seattle Weekly told tales from inside Amazon.
But this well-desevered skepticism went unnoted in the daily press.
Why?
Because these were stories about their peers, about the rich. They dated
dotcom people, their editors were willfully blind to the worst, most insane
IPO ponzi schemes. No one wanted a bad news story. Things got so corrupted that
Chris Nolan thought it would be OK to participate in a friends and family IPO
because she was "friends" with the CEO and didn't cover the company. So would
it be OK for Dan Rather to consult with the Labor Party because he isn't English?
Or would people wonder that working with a political party might taint his opinions?
Once you cross the line, how can anyone trust you?
Now the San Jose Mercury News (Nolan's former paper) is run by some of the
most gutless people ever to call themselves journalists, abandoning their reporters
when the heat is turned on them. A reporter while a graduate student at the
University of Iowa got access to records normally sealed to the press, the SJ
Merc ran the story and ran from the reporter. Needless to say, with such sterling
support, the Merc is not exactly a paper going to challenge anything. If they
had taken on Cisco or any of the major companies in the Valley, any reporter
would have to look at Gary Webb, forced out for a controversial series on the
CIA and drugs, and Chris Nolan and conclude that taking a risk at the Merc or
making a mistake would get you tossed aside like fish bait.
How can a reporter work if their editors are spineless? Well, they can't.
How could any Standard reporter go after the people who they relied upon for
their conferences?
But then, you have Kara Swisher pimping for her girlfriend's website, Planet
Out. The editors at the Wall Street Journal turned their backs as the reporters
went to Page Six to air their grievances. Did the Journal do anything? No.
There were few ethical standards anyone took seriously online and when the
collapse came, these publications were caught short and late.
5) Who do you serve?
It may seem like a sure thing to get your nose deep in the ass of your advertisers
but in the end, you only serve one audience: your readers. Pimping your publication
for ad sales makes you look like a whore. Now, if you want to be a whore for
Microsoft or Doubleclick or whatever, that's fine. You should call yourself
the Doubleclick Gazette or whatever. If you want to put your friends on the
cover of your magazine and take their ad money, that's fine as well. Just don't
expect anyone to ever trust you.
The one thing that a reader expects is for you to be honest. Placating advertisers
to get sales is stupid. Because if you can't be truthful, no one, no one, will
care to read you.
The one lesson that all these online rags never got is that if you are a
pimp today, when things get shitty, people will turn on you. They will gut you
like a catfish and eat you on a po' boy. People now laugh at Fast Company. They
sneer at Red Herring. No one who is now freelancing or working at Home Depot
and back in the basement cares what happens to those magazines, because those
magazines didn't care about them. Crooked bosses, sham business plans, shitty
working conditions, oops, sorry, had to get cut from that profile of the boy
CEO, sorry. These rags wanted to be part of a "revolution" and they were. A
revolution in theft. The grand heist didn't just steal from VC's, but average
investors and employees as well.
Where was the serious reporting on Webvan, a company so doomed that any grocery
store manager could have pointed out the flaws over a cup of coffee? Time and
again, basic reporting was ignored for the hype. And who did this screw? The
workers and the investors. Any glance at a company's public documents would
have demonstrated options were a fraud.
Most of the people covering the dotcom boom failed in the basic duties of
journalism by not reporting the truths about these companies. They refused to
investigate, to ask hard questions and relied on PR and marketing to shape their
coverage. Why in God's name should the public have trusted these publications
to live up to the public trust that journalists should be held to. If PC Magazine
wants to shill for every crappy Microsoft product and conform their coverage
to Microsoft's marketing aims, that is their right. However, it doesn't' have
anything to do with reality, fairness or the standards to which journalists
should be held to.
We're not talking Noam Chomsky Manufacturing Consent type stuff either,
but the reality of basic Journalism 101. All the people who tried to be players
in tech journalism are jokes. Michael Wolff impotently snipes from the sidelines,
Louis Rosetto is living somewhere, doing something, with a lot of money in his
pocket. Now, John Battelle is closing shop and whining about no one investing
in the money pit known as the Industry Standard. Salon is staggering. All these
people wanted to be something other than reporters and for awhile, they got
away with it. Because they wanted to be something they weren't while refusing
to recognize that greatness lies in doing their jobs. Journalism is a noble
profession when done right. And people get killed doing it every year.
All these failed sites and magazines tanked because they thought industry
needed them. They were wrong, industry needed to use them. Think Mark
Cuban is worried about the fate of these magazines now? He's got his billions.
If you don't serve the people who buy your magazine and read your pages,
ads won't matter because no one will trust you and if they don't trust you,
they will not need you. A lesson which is being learned painfully late.
This is my favorite time
of year. It's not the holidays or the good cheer that come with the season.
For me, it's the time of year when every journalist, pundit, analyst and anyone
else with an opinion publishes a list of predictions for the new year. We've
heard before of the Year of the LAN, the Year of the Network Computer and the
Year of the Internet. While all these events actually occurred at some points,
they never occurred in the years for which they were forecast. This year, we'll
hear about the Year of Wireless or perhaps another prediction of the PC's demise.
Again, the pundits will mostly be wrong.
So, rather than yield to the temptation of creating my own list, I'm going
to explain why folks are consistently wrong and how you can test the validity
of experts' predictions.
Imagine that you're standing in Kitty Hawk, N.C., in 1903. After many attempts,
Orville and Wilbur Wright have finally succeeded in making the first manned
flight. While their time aloft is short, their actions will change the course
of history. It will change the way business is conducted. It will change human
behavior into the 21st century.
Now, imagine that at the end of that historic flight, you were to go to Orville
and Wilbur, clearly the aviation experts of their day, and ask their opinion
of frequent-flier programs.
The problem with predicting the future is the nature of the method used.
Most analysts and pundits who are good at what they do have excellent pattern-recognition
skills.
The ability to observe early on the repetition of established rules of behavior
- or what has already occurred - gives a good analyst an edge.
For example, want to impress your friends and family with the date the next
upgrade of Windows will ship? That's easy. Take the beta release date and add
at least one year. It's a pattern that has held true for every release, including
Windows 2000.
Business users need to pay attention
to this trend as well. Users are increasingly technology savvy (just check the
number of issues of Computerworld that come into your mail room and where they
go) but even more fashion savvy. The number of requests for new systems that
match decor or dress is climbing in ever-increasing numbers. Information technology
organizations must realize that fashionable technology is often unsuitable for
business use. Systems that flaunt fashion over function often aren't network-tested
or certified for business use. Consumer systems and gadgets often lack the component
standardization and support that business users need and should be avoided.
As for me, I'm off to order a new Corinthian leather case for my personal digital
assistant.
Beware the self-aggrandizing,
newly-script-gifted "security expert" who, because they can
run a program that
gets them root on your systems, suddenly become all-powerful and all-knowing.
There are many frauds and charlatans in the computer security community
-- and I'm not referring to reformed or "grey-hat" hackers; I'm referring
to those people who have either the audacity or delusions of granduer to
convince clueless ISPs,
AOL-rejects,
and the media that they are "computer security experts."
If you are talking to someone who claims to be a computer security expert,
or who claims to know "alot" about computer security, ask them to prove
it. If they're waving around some exploit script they dug up, ask
them to explain to you how the program works, and how it can be fixed.
(Granted, if you're not a technical person, you won't be able to distinguish
fact from fiction. If this is the case, find someone who can.)
Ask them what they have contributed to the computer security community
-- underground or aboveground. Ask for references. Ask for papers. Ask for
URL's. Do a web or USENET
search. If they've been around for any length of time, you should be
able to find something.
Think about it: is an "expert" someone who is well-versed in a field
of study, or are they someone who knows something that you don't?
What do billions of dollars, billions of useless
books, and billions of prophetic statements have in common? If you guessed the
infamous Y2K rollover, you are probably one of the millions of people who were
informed of some global catastrophe set to take place the first of this year.
There was not a paper in publication these last few years that didn't mention
some sort of doomsday consequence related to our society's dependancy on computers.
If you are any kind of normal human being you
would have expected something interesting out of this entire fiasco. I expected
something self-fulfilling. Mobs of fanatics and drunks taking to the streets
with automatic weapons shouting verses out of the Bible, siphoning gas and stealing
stereo equipment. The most eventful happenings in Denver and Colorado Springs
were a few kids begging the cops to beat them. It was worse than that when the
Broncos won the Super Bowl.
Digitally, I was surprised to see the overall
lack of systems compromised. I expected
Attrition to be flooded
up to their necks in defacements. The staff had informed me that they were planning
on keeping a pretty good monitor on things. Their major concern was cross-continental
defacements that represented some anti-government motives. Sadly, there was
no largescale cyber-shootout. All was quiet in the land of the double-oh.
However, I don't think that we are out of the
clear yet. A few issues still need to be addressed. Just because the infamous
"Millenium Bug" turned out to be a farce[in a general sense] does not constitute
a sigh of relief. Every threat that took place before the rollover is just as
real. Every security issue unaddressed prior to the first is still something
to reckon with. I would argue that we have introduced a whole breed of new problems
that have absolutely nothing to do with something so trivial as a system date
...
An obvious issue is this recent obsession with
the New Year. If another Melissa virus or Y2K-ish event emerges the media will
overexpose it beyond its true threat. Many elements play into this exposure
ranging from computers rapidly becoming a part of everyone's life to a reporter's
burning urge to write a great story.
What can we attribute this obsession to? Ignorance.
As aforementioned, the Internet is no longer occupied by a majority of intelligent
and computer-literate individuals. It is very simple to just hop online as a
casual user and be taken advantage of. It is also easy for a fairly casual user
to land a job in charge of the systems that govern your use
of the Internet. Entrusting this kind of information into incapable hands is
unnerving but it happens everyday. Bad people are out there,
you know.
...You can understand that kind of small-scale,
inter-office frenzy, fed by rumor and hype. Just as it's easy to understand
the frenzy building around the world as the Year 2000 approaches. Every millennium
change produces some degree of hysteria. Throw a computer glitch into the fervor
-- in a world increasingly dependent on technology -- and the frenzy erupts
with new and potentially alarming implications. Pay attention to the forces
stirring the frenzy:
Y2K survivalists: These are the folks
convincing otherwise sane families to pack up and head for the hills to
avoid the Y2K ravages. Some warn of food riots and massive starvation in
the cities.
Click for more.
Y2K profiteers: A Gartner Group report
suggests financial fraud stemming from efforts to fix Y2K bugs could lead
to financial losses in the billions. Theory is workers and consultants working
on Y2K projects have the opportunity to plant software code that could be
exploited at a later date to carry out thefts.
Click for more.
Y2K fear-mongers: If you've been
in a bookstore lately, chances are you were dumbstruck by shelf after shelf
of Y2K books fueling public paranoia.
Click for more. Y2K headlines scream from print and online publications.
And politicians are churning out press releases and sound bites in double-time.
Just a few examples from recent weeks prove my point:
Y2K fixes could leave companies
open to future electronic fraud, Gartner warns -- 'Significant theft is likely.
By Maria Seminerio, ZDNN
July 16, 1999 12:49 PM PT
Companies transferring funds electronically are increasingly
vulnerable to financial fraud stemming from Year 2000 bug-fixing efforts, research
firm Gartner Group Inc. said in an advisory Friday.
Such fraud could result in the largest financial
losses ever to corporations in the United States and across the globe -- potentially
into the billions of dollars, Gartner officials said. This is partly because
global financial systems are largely electronically connected now, and the interconnection
is only expected to increase.
"Y2K remediation, by definition, creates and
increases the opportunity for theft and fraud," said Joe Pucciarelli, a Gartner
analyst, in a statement on the advisory, which stemmed from a research report
released in April.
"Given the enormity of the Y2K task, the vast
number of people assigned to fix the problem, and the element of human foibles,
at least one significant theft is likely to occur in the next five years," Pucciarelli
said.
Employees under scrutiny
Corporations must keep a close eye on staffers and consultants working on Y2K
projects, since such workers have the opportunity to plant software code that
could later be exploited to carry out thefts, said Bob Mack, another Gartner
analyst, in an interview.
"The point we're making is that there are things
corporations can do to limit fraud," Mack said. All Y2K bug-fixing efforts should
be audited by third parties if possible and detailed records should be kept
on all Y2K projects, he said.
While Y2K remediation efforts have been going
on for years, and will obviously intensify in the remaining portion of 1999,
financial fraud traceable to those efforts could occur far into the future,
Mack and other experts said.
'People are scrambling'
"This is something that security experts have been looking at for a while,"
said Richard Power, a spokesman for the
Computer Security Institute,
a San Francisco-based trade group for security professionals.
"People are scrambling to get the (Y2K) work
done on time, so often the controls are loosened," Power said. "Someone could
plant code now that would let them defraud the company a year from now."
Electronic Books
- A Bad Idea (Alertbox July 1998) -- Even when electronic books gain the same
reading speed as print, they will still be a bad idea. Electronic text should not
mimic the old medium and its linear ways. Electronic text should be
based on interaction, hypertext linking, navigation, search, and connections to
online services and continuous updates. These new-media capabilities allow
for much more powerful user experiences than a linear flow of text. Linear text
may have ruled the world since the Egyptians learned to produce arbitrarily long
scrolls of papyrus, but it's time to end this tradition. Nobody has time to read
long reports any more: information must be dynamic and under direct control of the
reader, not the author. Two types of electronic books do make sense:
Print-on-demand
books distributed through local print shops or directly from the publisher.
This is a way to keep a large number of backlist books in print
without tying up countless pallet locations: as long as a book sells a few copies
a year, it's worth keeping in the online catalog and allocating some megabytes
for its image files. Also, college professors and other instructors can assemble
custom books of readings for their classes.
Downloadable
audio files can replace books-on-tape. There is no reason to ship
tapes around or wait for them to be manufactured: a popular book can be downloaded
as soon as the voice talent has finished recording a reading. Considering how
relatively small audio files are, readings for a longish commute can be downloaded
from the Internet to a carPC in a few minutes.
In both cases, the key point is that the "electronic books" are not intended
to be read on a screen: they are traditional paper books and linear audio
readings, respectively, and are simply manufactured and distributed in a more efficient
manner by using the Internet.
I find it useful to draw
a contrast between two different organizational development styles: "process-oriented"
and "commitment-oriented" development. Process-oriented development achieves
its effectiveness through skillful planning, use of carefully defined processes,
efficient use of available time, and skillfull application of software engineering
best practices. This style of development succeeds because the organization
that uses it is constantly improving. Even if its early attempts are ineffective,
steady attention to process means each successive attempt will work better
than the previous attempt.
Commitment-oriented development goes by several names
including "hero-oriented development" and "individual empowerment." Commitment-oriented
organizations are characterized by hiring the best possible people, asking
them for total commitment to their projects, empowering them with nearly
complete autonomy, motivating them to an extreme degree, and then seeing
that they work 60, 80, or 100 hours a week until the project is finished.
Commitment-oriented development derives its potency from its tremendous
motivational ability-study after study has found that individual motivation
is by far the largest single contributor to productivity. Developers make
voluntary, personal commitments to the projects they work on, and they often
go to extraordinary lengths to make their projects succeed.
Organizational Imposters
When used knowledgeably, either development style can produce high
quality software economically and quickly. But both development styles have
pathological lookalikes that don't work nearly as well, and that can be
difficult to distinguish from the genuine articles.
The process-imposter organization bases its practices
on a slavish devotion to process for process's sake. These organizations
look at process-oriented organizations such as NASA's Software Engineering
Laboratory and IBM's former Federal Systems Division. They observe that
those organizations generate lots of documents and hold frequent meetings.
They conclude that if they generate an equivalent number of documents and
hold a comparable number of meetings they will be similarly successful.
If they generate more documentation and hold more meetings, they will be
even more successful! But they don't understand that the documentation and
the meetings are not responsible for the success; they are the side effects
of a few specific effective processes. We call these organizations bureaucratic
because they put the form of software processes above the substance. Their
misuse of process is demotivating, which hurts productivity. And they're
not very enjoyable to work for.
The commitment-imposter organization focuses primarily
on motivating people to work long hours. These organizations look at successful
companies like Microsoft; observe that they generate very little documentation;
offer stock options to their employees; and then require them to work mountains
of overtime. They conclude that if they, too, minimize documentation, offer
stock options, and require extensive overtime, they will be successful.
The less documentation and the more overtime, the better! But these organizations
miss the fact that Microsoft and other successful commitment-oriented companies
don't require overtime. They hire people who love to create software.
They team these people with other people who love to create software just
as much as they do. They provide lavish organizational support and rewards
for creating software. And then they turn them loose. The natural outcome
is that software developers and managers choose to work long hours voluntarily.
Imposter organizations confuse the effect (long hours) with the cause (high
motivation). We call the imposter organizations sweatshops because they
emphasize working hard rather than working smart, and they tend to be chaotic
and ineffective. They're not very enjoyable to work for either.
Cargo Cult Software Engineering
At first glance, these two kinds of imposter organizations
appear to be exact opposites. One is incredibly bureaucratic, and the other
is incredibly chaotic. But one key similarity is actually more important
than their superficial differences. Neither is very effective, and the reason
is that neither understands what really makes its projects succeed or fail.
They go through the motions of looking like effective organizations that
are stylistically similar. But without any real understanding of why the
practices work, they are essentially just sticking pieces of bamboo in their
ears and hoping their projects will land safely. Many of their projects
end up crashing because these are just two different varieties of cargo
cult software engineering, similar in their lack of understanding of what
makes software projects work.
Cargo cult software engineering is easy to identify.
Cargo cult software engineers justify their practices by saying, "We've
always done it this way in the past," or "our company standards require
us to do it this way"-even when those ways make no sense. They refuse to
acknowledge the tradeoffs involved in either process-oriented or commitment-oriented
development. Both have strengths and weaknesses. When presented with more
effective, new practices, cargo cult software engineers prefer to stay in
their wooden huts of familiar, comfortable and-not-necessarily-effective
work habits. "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different
results is a sign of insanity," the old saying goes. It's also a sign of
cargo cult software engineering.
The Belief Engine
-- by James Alcock (Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 1995 vol. 19, no. 3) "Our brains
and nervous systems constitute a belief-generating machine, a system that evolved
to assure not
truth, logic, and reason, but survival. The belief engine has seven major components
..."
The best things in life are free. What
an absolute crock! Even your first breath was purchased with blood, sweat and
tears. But don't take my word for it. Ask your mother, she'll tell you.
... Now, I know C++ well enough to not make a fool of myself,
and I've programmed my way out of trouble with C many a time, but Netscape 5.0
is well beyond my scope. Unless you have already worked with large C++ projects,
don't waste your disk space on it.
... The Mozilla project, while it may drape itself in the flag
of freeware, just isn't the same. I may have been born at night, but I wasn't
born last night. The real beneficiary of your efforts will be Netscape. After
all, why pay costly programmers when you can have legions of good-hearted developers
do your coding and testing for you?
... Now I'm not saying that the people at Mozilla have such a cynical attitude.
They probably believe that what they're doing is really the same as creating
a Linux or other freeware favorites like sendmail and bind. But the company
that will get the lion's share of the intellectual capital from the Mozilla's
free labor won't be yours.
To a person interested in political theory, one of the
most striking things about the Net is the instability of the political cartography.
We divide our world up into contiguous and opposing territories -- public and
private, property and sovereignty, regulation and laissez-faire -- "solving"
problems by inquiring as to their placement on this map. In the everyday world
these divisions seem comparatively solid and lumpish to most people, even if
clever academic critics may harp on their theoretical indeterminacy.
On the Net, things are different. Concepts and political forces seem to be up
for grabs. Nothing illustrates this point better than the debate over intellectual
property on-line. In the digital environment, is intellectual property just
property, the precondition to an unregulated market, just another example of
the rights that libertarians believe the state was specifically created to protect?
Or is intellectual property actually public regulation, artificial rather
than natural, an invented monopoly imposed by a sovereign state, a distorting
and liberty-reducing intervention in an otherwise free domain?
While it would be hard to find anyone who believes entirely
in either of these two stereotypes, recognisable versions of both do exist in
the debate over intellectual property and -- more interestingly -- can be found
across the political spectrum. George Gilder of the conservative Manhattan Institute,
a fervent booster of capitalism and laissez faire, shows considerable skepticism
about intellectual property(7) -- Peter Huber,
from the same conservative think tank, pronounces it the very acme of liberty,
privacy and natural right.(8) The Clinton Administration
attempts to extend intellectual property rights on-line(9)
and is roundly criticised by both civil liberties groups and right wing intellectuals.(10)
This isn't just a disagreement as to tactics among people who might be said
to share the same ideology: it is a fundamental set of disputes over the very
social construction and normative significance of a particular phenomenon --
as if the Libertarian party couldn't agree on whether its motto was to be "Taxation
is theft" or "Property is theft."
Stewart Brand's phrase "information wants to be free"
has now penetrated the culture sufficiently deeply that it is now actually parodied
in advertisements. Yet its ubiquitous nature may work to conceal the
claims that it makes.
John Perry Barlow begins his famous essay "Selling Wine
Without Bottles: The Economy of Mind on the Global Net" with this quote from
Jefferson.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible
than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking
power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long
as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself
into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself
of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because
every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me,
receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his
taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely
spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction
of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly
and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible
over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the
air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of
confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature,
be a subject of property.(11)
The quotation expresses perfectly the mixture of Enlightenment
values and upbeat public goods theory that typifies Net analysis of information
flows. Information is costless to copy, should be spread widely,
and cannot be confined. Beyond the Jeffersonian credo lies a kind of
Darwinian anthropomorphism. Information really does want to be free.
John Perry Barlow credits Brand's phrase with
recognizing both the natural desire of secrets to
be told and the fact that they might be capable of possessing something
like a "desire" in the first place. English biologist and philosopher Richard
Dawkins proposed the idea of "memes," self-replicating, patterns of information
which propagate themselves across the ecologies of mind, saying they were
like life forms. I believe they are life forms in every respect but a basis
in the carbon atom. They self-reproduce, they interact with their surroundings
and adapt to them, they mutate, they persist. Like any other life form they
evolve to fill the possibility spaces of their local environments, which
are, in this case the surrounding belief systems and cultures of their hosts,
namely, us. Indeed, the sociobiologists like Dawkins make a plausible case
that carbon-based life forms are information as well, that, as the chicken
is an egg's way of making another egg, the entire biological spectacle is
just the DNA molecule's means of copying out more information strings exactly
like itself.(12)
Viewed through this lens, the Net is the ultimate natural
environment for information and trying to regulate the Net is like trying to
prohibit evolution.
Taken together the three quotations assert that the technology
of the medium, the geographical distribution of its users and the nature of
its content all make the Net it specially resistant to state regulation. The
state is too big, too slow, too geographically and technically limited to regulate
a global citizenry's fleeting interactions over a mercurial medium. Though I
do not subscribe to the full-throated versions of any of these slogans, I have
sympathy with each of them. It does excite me that the Net is highly resistant
to externally imposed content filtration -- though I tend to worry about structural
private filters as well as command-based public ones, and I recognise that speech
and information can and will produce harm as well as good. I do think that the
global nature of the Net is -- by and large -- a positive thing, though we need
to pay more attention to things like the cost of the technology required to
play the game, or the effects on workers of a networked economy in which companies
can relocate around the world and find a new on-line workforce in an afternoon.(13)
Finally, I am optimistic about the historical conjunction of technologies based
on nearly costless copying and a political tradition that treats information
in a more egalitarian way than other resources.(14)
It is possible, of course, to conjure up a world in which rampant info-kleptocracy
undermines scientific and artistic development. I have argued elsewhere that
the main danger is not that information will be unduly free, but that intellectual
property rights will become so extensive that they will actually stifle innovation,
free speech and educational potential. In any event, I want to set aside my
agreement or disagreement with the values behind the Net catechism, and focus
instead on the factual and legal assumptions on which it relies. My argument
is that info-libertarians should not be so quick to write off the state. In
fact, I argue that the work of the distinctively non-digital philosopher, Michel
Foucault, provides some suggestive insights into the ways in which power can
be exercised on the Net and the reasons why much contemporary analysis is so
dismissive of the power of law and the state.
An
Electronic Pearl Harbor? Not Likely -- From the National Academy of Sciences'
Issues in Science and Technology policy journal. Argument for the case that
recent government and Department of Defense assertions that hostile information
warriors can devastate substantial segments of American society are characterized
by vague rhetoric, misused statistics, conflicts of interest and poor understanding
of technical issues.
The
learning curve for techno-ghost stories remains steep inside the Pentagon
at the grass roots level.
Experimenters have discovered that you can turn a cat into an alcoholic.
The normal cat doesn't expect it, but keep adding vodka to the dish and the
cat will soon demand spiked milk as an absolute necessity.
The fat cats of
the American mass media have lost their taste for the mother's milk of normal
free enterprise: real competition for a reasonable profit. Thanks to addictive
doses of sympathetic
governmental
policies and two decades of a drive for power, a shrinking number of large media corporations now regard monopoly, oligopoly
and historic levels of profit as not only normal, but as their earned right.
In the process, the usual democratic expectation
for the media -- diversity of ownership and ideas -- has disappeared as the
goal of official policy and, worse, as a daily experience of a generation of
American readers and viewers.
In 1982, when I completed research for my book,
The Media Monopoly, 50 corporations controlled half or more of the
media business. By December 1986, when I finished a revision for a second edition,
the 50 had shrunk to 29. The last time I counted, it was down to 26. [When the
latest edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 1993, the number
was down to 20. -ed.] A number of serious Wall Street media analysts are predicting
that by the 1990s, a half-dozen giant firms will control most of our media.
Of the 1,700 daily papers, 98 percent are local
monopolies and fewer than 15 corporations control most of the country's daily
circulation. A handful of firms have most of the magazine business, with
Time, Inc. alone accounting for about 40 percent of that industry's revenues.
The three networks,
Capital Cities/ABC,
CBS and
GE/NBC,
still have majority access to the television audience, and most of the book
business is controlled by fewer than a dozen companies, with major categories
like paperback and trade books dominated by still fewer firms.
The safest way to ensure diversity of opinion
is diverse ownership. But this ideal has been sacrificed by government devotion
to the mythical doctrine of free market economics. The myth rests on the bizarre
assumption that the modern American corporate scene is actually like Adam Smith's
rural country market, in which all the farmers came to town to compete for the
business of sharp-eyed customers.
If there's any truly free market in modern corporate
affairs, there is none in through-the-air broadcasting. According to the Federal
Communications Act, the airwaves belong to the public (something the Reaganites
have ignored). The airwaves are a limited resource, and there are a small number
of available channels. The Federal Communications Commission, by law, is supposed
to resist monopoly and concentrated ownership, and to grant licenses on the
basis of "public interest, convenience and necessity."
During the 1980s, the FCC, under Mark Fowler,
has used the country's broadcasting system as an experiment in so-called free
market economics. The FCC has expanded the number of stations one corporation
may own and suspended the demand that stations do any public service, like news
and community issues programming. It has let big operators (Murdoch,
Capital Cities, Cox, etc.) buy competitors. And it has made it almost impossible
to challenge a license if the public doesn't like what it sees.
JavaX White Paper: JAVAX AN APPROACHABLE EXAMINATION OF JAVA, JAVABEANS,
JAVASCRIPT AND ALL THE RELATED JAVA TECHNOLOGIES Jothy Rosenberg, Chief
Technology Officer, NovaSoft Systems, Inc.
10 technologies that don't stand a chance - No.9 -
Java Great but Doomedwhat drove the enormous Java enthusiasm was
the promise of platform transcendence. And it's not living up to that promise.
Whereas Microsoft's promise of "Windows everywhere" is pretty near to being
fulfilled.
The last few months I have been doing some research into the trolling
phenomenon on slashdot.org. In order to do this as thoroughly as possible,
I have written both normal and troll posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged
in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:
More moderator points are being used to mod posts down than
up. Furthermore, when modding a post up, every moderator seems to
follow previous moderators in their choices, even when it's
not a particularly interesting or clever post [slashdot.org].
There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4.
Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards.
Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn
a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future,
than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying
"good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments
in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals
as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions,
instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)
Once you have a karma of -4 or -5, your posts have a score of
-1 by default. When this is the case, no-one bothers to mod you
down anymore. This means a logged in user can keep on trolling as
much as he (or she) likes, without risking a ban to post on slashdot.
When trolling as an anonymous user, every post starts at score 0,
and you will be modded down to -1 ON EVERY POST. When you are modded
down a certain number of times in 24 hour, you cannot post anymore
from your current IP for a day or so. So, for successful trolling,
ALWAYS log in.
A lot of the modded down posts are actually quite
clever [slashdot.org],
funny [slashdot.org], etc., and they are only modded down because
they are offtopic. Now, on a news site like slashdot, where the
number of different topics of discussion can be counted on 1 hand,
I must say I quite like the distraction these posts offer. But no,
when the topic is
yet another minor version change of the Linux kernel [slashdot.org],
they only expect ooohs and aaahs about this great feat of engineering.
Look at the moderation done in
this thread [slashdot.org] to see what I mean.
Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found
this poll [slashdot.org], which clearly indicates the vast majority
does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said.
Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you
for your time.
I just want to say.. Thank you.
I'm sure you'll be modded down as a troll, as /. doesn't like dissenters
in the population. They try to keep you silent and impotent.
I firmly believe once a community reaches a certain size, it has
certain duties to perform, to the truth, the absence of sensationalism,
and most of all, equality.
Moderators: I have posted without my +1 bonus. This post is admittedly
offtopic. Don't waste your moderation points on a reply. I suggest you
use moderation points on parent posts. Its more economical. And remember
- mod UP intelligent posts, mod DOWN klerckisms.
--
Just because you disagree with me does not make me a Troll, nor does
it make my post Flamebait.
This whole -1 thing is screwed. I worked at Andover.net (now OSDN)
back in January and Feburary of 2000. I was a contractor brough on board
to help build the Slashdot cage at Exodus, in fact I wrote my name with
a magic marker on the bottom of the Quad Zeon VALinux box that probably
still runs the main Mysql DB. At the time I thought it was pretty cool
to be involved with the whole open source scene...
═
You know what I learned? I learned that most of the "Famous" and "Big
Names" in the linux scene are attention starved name dropping weenies.
═
It after my assigment at Andover.net ended that I realized the whole
Open Source movement is over. Done with. There are way to many people
with way to much ego. All of the linux people in charge of the project
were too busy stroking their ego's and counting their stock options.
═
I thank CmdrTaco and all the rest for a good 2 or 3 years of entertaining
reading, but times have changed, there is no energy left here. Time
to move on, Open source has been assimilated by Corporate Practices.
I sincerely feel that all that was good about Slashdot, and to an extent
the Linux fenomenon is over. This Thread just ended any hope I had left.
Time to bring on the next fad.
I do agree with you on the ego thing. I've met -so many- Linux zealots
who can't back their claims of superiority with one fact, yet, they
hate windows.. for no reason except the stereotypical "It crashes all
the time!" and "Microsoft is a Fascist Monopoly bent on world domination!".
I forgot who said it, but i like him or her: "Open Source; Closed Minds".
It was a good idea. The problem was the application - Stallmanism
ruined the OpenSores image, in my mind. I will never recommend a linux
solution where a "Established" solution could take its place. Partially
because of technical reasons ; but mostly because i wouldn't want to
risk having someone adminning them who's too busy keeping their thumb
up their arse to care about the company.
Slashdot is flawed, fundimentally. Unfortunately, its kind of fun.
Screaming 14 year olds, as is said, having pissing contests over l33tness
when they wouldnt know the difference between ATDT and ATH0, or SysV
and BSD if it got up and shoved a clue by four up their output port.
Hey, its better than sitting at work staring at the birds frying in
the satellite transmitters on a slow day!
--
Just because you disagree with me does not make me a Troll, nor does
it make my post Flamebait.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
or
