The Federal Reserve Waits for No Government

So, remember how there was all that funny hubbub regarding the US Congress trying to spend all this time working on a bailout bill for Wall Street? Remember how Bush, this morning, gave another bit of speechification (here: http://is.gd/3lH2 ) on how we really, really, really need to pass a bill to help Wall Street? Perhaps you remember that other time he talked about the economy where he said that if we didn't do something the entire economy was in danger?



As Jon Stewart might say:



Funny story!



Turns out the Federal Reserve decided to go on and bail out Wall Street all on it's own!



Yesterday, the Fed took it upon itself to borrow more money from other central banks around the world. Europe, the UK and Japan all took part in the fun, allowing the Fed to inject $630 billion into our economy, via loans to banks.



Now, the above screencap comes from Bloomberg.com (here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news ) but neither CNN.com nor Money.CNN.com had any headlines about this. I did a quick search through Google News and it looks like the hardcore money sites are covering this, but I didn't see any of the mainstream news sites with headlines about it.



So, this means, once again, America doesn't know what the heck is going on with it's own money.



Not only that, but the Bloomberg article I cite above doesn't mention a damn thing about how $630 billion will impact inflation.



In fact, I haven't stumbled across anything mainstream newsish that even talks about inflation in the context of today's economy or the bailout or now, the Fed's bailout.



So, what the heck happens now?



Damned if I know.



Can't imagine why the tax-payers need to pay for anything now. But watch the media ignore the Fed deal and the Congress push through a bill just the same.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: The Federal Reserve Waits for No Government

ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #8 See ya!

ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #8 See ya! on 12seconds.tv

This lesson's hiragana is:

じゃね (the "や" or "ya" is small so you mush it in with the "じ" or "ji".)

And the romaji is:

Ja ne

This is almost the least formal, basic way to say good-bye to someone. You could drop the "ne" to make it even more basic.

I've heard a LOT of different ways to say "see ya!" so don't be surprised if you don't hear Japanese people say this when they walk away from you. But this is a good safe thing to say to them when they do.

Remember, unless you're leaving town for good, you *don't* want to say "sayonara"! It's "Ja!" or "Ja ne!" Perhaps I'll go over a few other ways to say "see ya" in future lessons. Check out Lesson 7 for more on "sayonara" here: http://is.gd/3lLB

To learn more Japanese online, I recommend checking out Alex Brooke's LearnJapanesePod.com (also visit his site AlexBrooke.com to check out what else he's up to). You might also check out JapanesePod101.com or pick up the book Japanese from Zero: Volume 1 if you want to learn offline.

Did I get something wrong? Tell me! I've got a LOT to learn still, so please help me and others by commenting. ありがとうございます！ (arigatou gozaimasu - thank you very much!)

---

Orignal From: ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #8 See ya!

Rules and the Unreasonable Man

Yesterday, I blogged about why I'm against the bailout (here: http://thepete.com/…e-bailout). In that post, I said, in part:



"Regardless, we, as a country, survived the Great Depression and I'm sure America will survive this, whether we have the bailout or not.



So, why does it matter? It matters because the bailout lets people get away with breaking the rules. Hell, the bailout itself is breaking the rules of the free market.



I'm no free-marketeer, but the way I look at it, if you're going to bother to make rules, you should bother to follow them. If you don't want to bother to follow them, then change them and follow the new ones.



Breaking your own rules just makes you look unprofessional."



I also promised to go into more about rules today. So, I'd like to add that not only does breaking your own rules make you look unprofessional, it makes your rules look like they shouldn't be followed.



Now, if you're talking about basic things on a basic level, that's one thing. Sure, if you decide that Tuesdays are days you treat yourself to frozen yogurt and then go for some FroYo on Wednesday instead, it doesn't matter so much. But when these rules are on a larger scale and when those rules govern how you and/or others behave every day, then it's a little more important to stick with those rules.



I know, I know, it sounds stupid and obvious, but major rules get broken all the time these days.



Let's look at some quick examples. Back in 2000, the entire planet was impacted when a rule was broken by the United States government. It was the 12th amendment which states, in part, that once the vote totals arrive in the Senate and the president of the Senate views the results:



"...the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and *if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, **the House of Representatives shall choose** immediately, by ballot, the President.*"



You know what that means, right? It means that if the winner of the presidential election isn't clear, if there's no obvious majority, it falls to the House of Representatives to vote for the next president. If you'll recall, back in 2000 that's not what happened. The Supreme Court decided there wasn't enough time for a proper recount to be finished. So, rather than follow the rules they decided to allow Bush to be declared the winner. According to Wikipedia post on Bush V. Gore, Bush's lead in Florida was by just .5%. Sound close enough to a tie to me.



Yet, the Supreme Court didn't refer the case to the House. They let the decision be known and that was that. The media didn't seem to care and neither did the people. No one mentioned the 12th amendment (that I heard, anyway) and George W. Bush became our de facto president.



We all know how well that worked out.



Would 911 happened under Gore? Would Al have invaded Iraq (illegally) and Afghanistan (where we failed to get bin Laden)? Would our economy be in tatters right now if Gore were in Casablanca (the White House)?



I don't know. The point is, because we didn't follow the rules, we will never know if Bush was even the right guy to be in the Oval Office.



A more recent example would be the invasion of Iraq. The US signed the UN Charter back in 1945 (I think it was) and we also helped write it. In Article 2 of the UNC (which I quote in full here: http://thepete.com/…ck-illegal ) it effectively states that we can't invade another country without permission of the UN. Yet, we did invade two other countries.



Don't like the UN? Fine. We should leave the UN then. Breaking the rules makes us look disrespectful and untrustworthy to our allies and enemies around the world. Would you do a deal with someone you knew doesn't follow his <em>own</em> rules?



Hell, Bush doesn't even follow the laws he, himself, signs into existence. He uses these things called "signing statements" which often explain that he has the right to not follow the law if he chooses. He's done this to hundreds and hundreds of laws.. So, if he's got to write himself out of every law he signs, how can we trust him? Why bother with the laws at all? Why not just declare yourself king and be done with it?



Now we come to the economy.



The USG wants to bailout Wall Street.



A lot of people scream "SOCIALISM" because socialism is a economic system that advocates government or communal ownership of basic infrastructures, like banking, say. Ironically, people who scream "socialism" are both right and wrong about the accusation. They are right because, from the people's point of view, tax-payer money is being used to prop-up a failing system. "Social" benefits are being given to massive banks so they can keep loaning money to businesses and individuals.



So, here we go again--which are we? Capitalist or socialist?



Regardless of your opinion, we should decide one, the other, or come up with a third.



Saying we're all one "ism" while practicing the elements of another makes us look like we're liars.



For example, who would trust a person who says he's a Democrat but votes Republican?



So what's the solution?



The solution is simple, follow your damn rules!! If you can't, CHANGE THEM.



Start a movement, get involved, become a politician, write your representatives in Washington--do what you have to do to get the rules you think are wrong, unfair, stupid or simply unjust, off the books.



What happens if you don't think any of those attempts will yield any results?



Well, there are two ways to go. First, you can be the reasonable man and just deal with it.



The problem with that is, you'd better be willing to be reasonable for the rest of your life because the world doesn't change for the reasonable man.



I like to think of myself as an unreasonable man, actually. Though, I imagine I could be more unreasonable in certain socially important ways.



I think all of us could be...



One last thing: above, I mention that those who accuse the USG and supporters of the bailout of being socialists are both wrong and right. I'll talk more about this in a post tomorrow.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Rules and the Unreasonable Man

Access Government on Your iPhone for a Price

Before I get into this, I just want to say that I believe in the general concept of making money. I also think charging for an app that you've put real effort into is fine. However, The Unnofficial Apple Weblog just posted today (here: http://www.tuaw.com/…r-pocket/1 ) about an app that seems so cool and so lame at the same time.



First off, let me tell you about the app. It's called "Congress+" and it basically rocks. It allows you to find out who your representatives in DC are and gives you their contact info. According to the description, it even looks like you can call or email your reps right from the app. That's a nice touch.



What's not a nice touch is that the developer is charging ten bucks for the app.



Most apps are cheaper than that--even really good, useful apps are cheaper than that. Then, the fact that this app allows you to partake in the democratic process more easily bugs me, too. Not that I think people should have to work to take part, but because it should not cost anything to interact easily with your elected representatives in Washington.



I know what some of you are thinking: "But, ThePete, the developer obviously put a lot of effort into the app--why shouldn't he be justly compensated for his work?"



Well, he should be justly compensated for his work, but not at the people's expense.



Taking part in democracy should be free no matter what.



If I were him, I'd have gone to the department of the government that is in charge of the information website for the USG. I'd have asked them if they'd be interested in hiring me to write an app like this. If they said no, I'd hound them for a bit. If they still turned me down, I'd go ahead and do the app on my own.



However, I'd consider it a service to my country and charge a dollar. At that price, I wouldn't look greedy and everyone would be like "yeah, cool--I'll take it!"



Instead, the developer is charging more than most developers do and seems to be taking advantage of our current economic situation to make even more money. Luckily the developer did respond to other folks criticizing the price in the comments of the TUAW.com post. In a comment outlining how this app is better than a website that would give you the same info, he includes the following line in a comment he left on the TUAW post before I left mine:



"...won't allow you to email key staffers directly. Often they are more accessible than the standard webform and are tracking what constituents think -- like on this $700B bailout."



To me, bringing in the bailout is pretty skeezy stuff.



I exaggerated what he's doing there in my own comment to the post in order to make a point:



"Hm, seems to me, the developer is using the current situation with our economy to help sell his app--better to charge less in light of the economy and seem a bit less greedy. It's like he's saying:



"Ooo, WHAT a mess in Washington!! You should contact your representatives in Washington and let your voice be heard! I've got *just* the app for you! $10 please!"



Of course, he could say:



"In light of the current economic crisis, we'll be giving away our app for free so everyone can have easy access to their representatives in Washington. Once the bailout bill is passed or is down for the count, we'll go back to the regular price."



That would make the developer look like a prince and inspire a lot of positive reviews to help sell future copies of the app.



Just my 2 yen..."



Yes, I was a bit harsh, but I'm making a point here. As Americans we should be making it easier for each other to get information. Not making money off of exploiting people's interest in finding an easier way to take part in the process.



When Marc, the second commenter, to the post pointed out that iPhone users could just bookmark http://votesmart.org/ the developer responded with an irksome list of reasons paying $10 for his iPhone app was better than just using one's iPhone to pull up VoteSmart.org. Here's the developer's list with my commentary:



"Marc, you could bookmark that site but it



(1) doesn't give you access when you don't have an Internet connection"



So, that's like never, right? Maybe us subway riders would find ourselves without the ability to reach info about our representatives from time to time. But I think I can handle waiting until Columbus Circle to grab some Pinkberry and look up Hillary Clinton's phone number.



"(2) doesn't have correct and updated information all the time (Joe Lieberman's Chief of Staff recently resigned, many candidates are just plain wrong)"



There's always the USG's own websites for such info. It may be a bit more work, but $10-worth? Meh...



"(3) doesn't give you iPhone Google map links to the office locations"



Which is great because I'm not capable of remembering the addresses and entering them myself.



"(4) won't allow you to email key staffers directly. Often they are more accessible than the standard webform and are tracking what constituents think -- like on this $700B bailout."



Once again, it's not that hard to remember information in the old biodrive mounted in your skull. Of course, if Steve Jobs had many gigs in his own biodrive he'd have Apple implement fricken cut and paste in the damn iPhone, already.



"(5) we are launching a $1.99 version that will not provide updates for folks who do not want to spend $10."



Ah, so poor folks get inaccurate info. That's definitely inline with democracy! Did I say democracy? I meant corporatism.



"FYI, the paper version is $17.95 and you only get it for one year (now). We give it to you for $9.99 through 2010."



Ah, so you point out the government sucks but that you suck less? Good advertising ploy. Let me guess, you're a Republican, aren't you?



"(6) looks like blech on an iPhone."



Hm, this looks OK to me: http://drop.io/…sset/photo



Sure, any site that doesn't have a mobile version is going to be a little annoying to deal with, but hey, get a computer, right?



The funny thing about VoteSmart.org is that, if you look in the center toward the bottom of that screencap, you can see that they've announced their API. An API allows developers to access the service provided on a website via other websites or other applications. So, odds are, there just might be some competition to the Congress+ app for iPhone soon.



You might want to save your $10 just in case something else comes along that's a bit cheaper. Since the responsibility to research will be on VoteSmart.org's plate, all developers will have to do is work on writing the app. That means they'll be able to charge a heckuva lot less.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Access Government on Your iPhone for a Price

IM Conversation = Sign of the (Economic) Times

Earlier this evening a buddy of mine started an IM conversation with me. Here's approximately how it began:

Him: Shit.
Him: You there?
Me: Yeah, man, what's up?
Him: My bank got taken over.
Me: HA-HA!
Me: Mine, too.
Him: lol
Me: Which one?
Him: Wachovia. You?
Me:WaMu
Him: ahhh, sucks.
Me: S'ok, I'm broke.
Him: me too. lol
Me: haha

I guess this is where the meek inherit the Earth?

Sign of the (economic) times...

---

Orignal From: IM Conversation = Sign of the (Economic) Times

ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #7 Good-Bye

ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #7 Good-Bye on 12seconds.tv

#

Here is "good-bye" in hiragana:

さよなら

In romaji:

sayonara (sah-yo-nah-rah)

All the "a" sounds in Japanese are long "a" sounds like in the word "alternative"--NOT like in the word "Albert".

"R" sounds sound almost like "d" sounds in Japanese (but not quite!).

PLEASE NOTE: While Pimsleur's Japanese lessons on CD tell us that "sayonara" is the standard way to say good-bye to people in Japanese, THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

According to what I've been told by an actual Japanese person, you only say "sayonara" when you are saying good-bye forever.

When you're just saying good-bye at the end of the day or when you're done meeting with someone for coffee, you want to say something like "see ya later". No, I'm not going to tell you how to do that now. I'll cover how to do this in the next 12 Second Japanese lesson!

Ja, ne!

D'oh!

To learn more Japanese online, I recommend checking out Alex Brooke's LearnJapanesePod.com (also visit his site AlexBrooke.com to check out what else he's up to). You might also check out JapanesePod101.com or pick up the book Japanese from Zero: Volume 1 if you want to learn offline.

Did I get something wrong? Tell me! I've got a LOT to learn still, so please help me and others by commenting. Thanks!

---

Orignal From: ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #7 Good-Bye

Why I'm Against the Bailout

Last week, my mom sent me an email that started with the sentence: "Would we be better or worse off if there was no bailout of these banks?"



I was going to just answer her question right there, but then I realized my answer would make for a great blog post. So, here you go, Mom! Sorry it took so long, but I got a little distracted with the news lately. :)



By the screencap above, you might think we'd be better off if the bailout went through. The Dow dropped more than 500 points by closing today in reaction to the bailout bill not passing the House.



If the bailout did go through, we'd see banking begin to return to normal--loans could be given again, loads of people would still have jobs, and both the USG and Wall Street would save tremendous face (after all, it was the two bodies in concert who is responsible for this mess).



Of course, those are just the good things that would happen. There would be bad things, too, that our leaders aren't really going into.



Most importantly, in my mind, if the government really decides to spend $700 billion (about the price we've paid in Iraq so far), the negative impact could be pretty far reaching--especially on one part of our economy that no one likes to *really* talk about.



We have a problem in our culture--no one really likes to talk about the "i" word.



No, not impeachment.



Well, they don't like to talk about that either, but Americans seem even more loathe to use the other "i" word, inflation.



I'm kind of a broken record when it comes to inflation. I explained my view of it in a recent blog post here: http://thepete.com/…ed-economy



Suffice it to say, when $700 billion gets injected into our economy, it will be a lot of new money floating around. When you increase the supply of money, the existing money drops in value (as dictated by the law of "Supply and Demand"). When the bailout goes through, it'll send the dollar's value plummeting.



That's what can really make for a weak economy, BTW. A weak dollar.



So, in the end, sure, a bailout is going to keep our lives more or less like they are now. We'll be able to borrow again and bankers will keep their jobs and life will be grand until the real meaning of "trickle-down economics" is learned--when the lost-value of the dollar trickles down from the rich (who will use the new money first) to the poor (who will only see the benefits of that new money once the value of their own money drops--it's a little abstract, my apologies).



Another thing any bailout will fail to do is guarantee this won't happen again. We are all familiar with the Great Depression and the stock market crash that preceded it. Was there a bailout then? I don't know.



Regardless, we, as a country, survived the Great Depression and I'm sure America will survive this, whether we have the bailout or not.



So, why does it matter? It matters because the bailout lets people get away with breaking the rules. Hell, the bailout itself is breaking the rules of the free market.



I'm no free-marketeer, but the way I look at it, if you're going to bother to make rules, you should bother to follow them. If you don't want to bother to follow them, then change them and follow the new ones.



Breaking your own rules just makes you look unprofessional.



I'll post more about rule breaking tomorrow...



...assuming I don't get distracted by the news again. :\



Tomorrow's post on the rules will also involve socialism vs. capitalism, conservatives vs. liberals, and probably even McCain vs. Obama, if I can get really creative.



So:



Bailout = good in the short term (status quo, status quoed)



Bailout = bad in the long term (inflates inflation, weakens our overall economy and our individual power to buy stuff, doesn't prevent another economic explosion, also lets bad guys get away with it)



Well, Mom? I hope that answers your question.



Either way, we're in for a world of hurt. Luckily, most of us are broke, so we won't feel it as much as the rich folks panicking right now (though we may have trouble buying things that are about to get more expensive).



For all the folks on Utterli who got notified about this post, I hope you don't mind! I hardly ever notify everyone I've friended about posts, so hopefully you'll forgive me if you're not interested in this post.



Also, I'd love to hear what anyone reading this thinks. I really want to learn more about our money and how it works. I'm really nervous that it's really as simple and truly as messed up as it looks.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Why I'm Against the Bailout

@alfabettezoupe Personally, I ...

@alfabettezoupe Personally, I don't like a culture of debt. My opinion is more nuanced but, can't avoid glibness in a Twitter post. Sorry :(

---

Orignal From: @alfabettezoupe Personally, I ...

@Jazzybam Awesome--thanks, man...

@Jazzybam Awesome--thanks, man! I just might do that. :)

---

Orignal From: @Jazzybam Awesome--thanks, man...

Kucinich Reminds Us of Our Debt-Based Economy

I'm no economist but I do find physics interesting. Laws of physics are immutable, generally speaking. One of those laws is that neither energy nor matter can be destroyed or created--just transferred.



A truly stable economy should work the same way, in my estimation. The economic law of "supply and demand" is pretty similar to that physical law I mentioned above, when you think about it.



The economic law of "supply and demand" says that prices are determined based on those to things, supply and demand. High supply means low prices (to make sure you sell as many as you can) and low supply means high prices (to make sure you make as much money as you can). Demand works similarly but is inverted, with high demand making prices high and low demand making them low. In short, if you create more supply, the price goes down.



When it comes to money, the physical laws should apply here, too. After all, paper money used to represent gold. When new deposits of gold were found, the value of all gold would drop. However, back in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed and our current system of banking was created. Any kind of precious metals were cast aside and money stopped being based on the value of gold and started being based on the "good credit of the United States of America."



In other words, the US dollar came to represent the productivity of the American economy.



Now, you can't just create money any more than you can just create matter or energy. The latter can't be done because the universe won't let us. However, because the concepts of money and economy are entirely man-made, the universe has no such regulations over our monetary system.



As a result, new money can be, and often is, injected into our economy. This money is either effectively created from nothing (lended/borrowed) or is literally newly created money (when banks or the USG borrow from the Fed). Either way, the result is inflation and, finally, a weak dollar.



And when the US dollar starts getting compared to the Canadian dollar (as it has been for about a year now), you know things are bad.



This morning on Democracy Now, Dennis Kucinich reminded us that our entire financial system is based on debt. The below is an excerpt that comes from a transcript (here: http://www.democracynow.org/…s_congress ) of an interview Dem Representative Dennis Kucinich gave to Amy Goodman this morning:



"AMY GOODMAN: The issue of corporate compensation? According to the Institute for Policy Studies, chief executives of large US companies made an average of $10.5 million last year, 344 times the pay of the average worker.



REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, this is really a fundamental issue in our society. Again, it's all about how the wealth accelerates to the top and how work is not respected or rewarded for its own intrinsic value. We've really moved, you know. We've made a transition in our economy from industrial capitalism to finance capitalism. And with this debt-based economy that we have, where we keep—this public and private debt keeps exploding, as it has under—as it did under Alan Greenspan, quadrupling in a period of twenty years, we see ourselves in a position where the debt just keeps building and building and building, and we're calling that economic progress. It is not.



We need to challenge again the underlying assumptions about a debt-based economy, about whether or not we should revisit the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which has an unfortunately privatized monetary system and created a system which includes banks having the ability to create money almost out of thin air with a fractional reserve. We have to look at the implications of that, maybe put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury and have the Treasury really be responsive to the interests of the American people and keeping the economy going."



Yep, the Federal Reserve is a private entity. We don't vote for anyone who runs it, though we do vote for the guy who appoints the guy who runs it (aka, the president appoints the Fed Chairman). But considering how much control the Fed has over our lives and our money, it seems like we should have a bit more control over them. I really wish Kucinich had a real chance of ever winning the White House. I think it's his honesty that prohibits this.



Wow, just read that the bill didn't pass in the House. Kucinich got his way and Wall Street is totally panicking. Looks like that chant I heard down on Wall Street last Thursday was right: "You break it! You bought it!"



Dig that CRAZY irony!!

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Kucinich Reminds Us of Our Debt-Based Economy

How Our Leaders SPLIT Us Apart

There's a new documentary that's out on DVD now called "SPLIT: A DIVIDED AMERICA". It talks about the insane (and imagined) divide in American politics. It also does a great job of showing just how and, more specifically, why the country seems to be divided up into red and blue states.



You can read my pocket review of the docu here: http://thepete.com/…erica-2008



As good a job as "SPLIT" does, the games politicians play go even further than just dividing up the country into two colors based on along political lines.



Take the current economic situation and the debate last week. John McCain wants a bailout and Barack Obama wants a bailout with different terms.



But surely there are more than just two options, right?



The Congress says there are only two options, too. A bailout the Republicans like and a bailout the Democrats like.



The only other option that I've seen presented came from George W. Bush when he delivered that speech last week suggesting that the world would end if we don't bail Wall Street out. Well, he said banks wouldn't be able to loan, which is like saying the world will end to these guys.



But surely, that's not the only conclusion that can be reached, right?



Yet, that's all we hear about.



In the war against terror, we get the "you're either with us or you're against us."



Actually, in the Russian/Georgian conflict, we only get to consider one option--that Russia was wrong to invade Georgia and that's it. But we do have two different ways to deal with Russia and both respect Georgia as a good guy in this (despite the fact that Georgia going for regime change in S. Ossetia started the mess).



The next time you sit down to watch the news or even read the news online, see how many times you can spot the binary arguments. You're either for or against something. There is either the conservative solution or the liberal one.



It's kind of absurd that so many things in life are boiled down to two choices, two sides, two arguments.



Once you start to notice all of the binary arguments put forth out there, you then start to consider what we might be talking about if everything wasn't black or white, on or off, red or blue.



Who knows? We might actually be solving the real problems facing us!



You can learn more about SPLIT at http://splitdoc.com/

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: How Our Leaders SPLIT Us Apart

C-SPAN Links to My Debate Review--YAY!

C-SPAN's at it again with their wacky archive of political coverage and has linked my little debate round-up. Check it out here: http://debatehub.c-span.org/…he-debate/



Of course, after reading their excerpt of my post I realized a bad grammar choice I made (can you see it in the screencap? I CAN! Geh...) and had to go back to the original post to fix it. It always pays to proofread thoroughly, BEFORE C-SPAN.org links to you!



Aaaanyway, so the debate was from a participatory standpoint. C-SPAN the network threw me for a loop, though, by putting the debate on C-SPAN2. They even had a countdown to the debate on C-SPAN1. We watched it count down and then vanish and we're still seeing the House floor and I'm like... wha? Turns out, I had the closed captioning on so I wouldn't have to hear the politicians if I didn't want to--the captions were blocking the graphic that read: "Presidential Debate on C-SPAN2"



Whoops.



Still, though--why put something as important as the debate on C-SPAN2??? I mean, C-SPAN2 is for stupid crap like BookTV. Stupid books! What did they ever do for us??



Check out more fun debate-related coverage at C-SPAN's debate hub:



http://debatehub.c-span.org/

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: C-SPAN Links to My Debate Review--YAY!

Watching an old MST3K episode ...

Watching an old MST3K episode just now when Joel started singing "never gonna give you up..." Damn--retroactively rickrolled!! HODGSOOOOOON!

---

Orignal From: Watching an old MST3K episode ...

thepete.com: 2008 Prez Debate ...

thepete.com: 2008 Prez Debate Number 1 of 3 Review: Well, there’s not a whole lot to sa.. http://is.gd/3fcm

---

Orignal From: thepete.com: 2008 Prez Debate ...

2008 Prez Debate Number 1 of 3 Review

Well, there's not a whole lot to say about Friday's big debate. I've been watching these things since I was a kid and they're more often about propagandizing than any truly substantive political debating. I mean, the whole idea that anyone could "win" in a presidential debate in a literal sense is kind of crazy.

Besides, everyone knows that, for most people, the person you like tends to do better in your own mind. For me it was a little different since the guy I'm for? I'm not that for him.

In fact, I'm pretty much basing my vote on race alone--since I don't like either candidate, I'm voting Obama just because he's not a white guy. As a result, I feel like I was able to listen to what both candidates said and then interpret from there.

With that in mind, I don't think either did more than remind us what we like or dislike about them. McCain stayed on message, like a pit bull, sometimes offering up something vaguely useful to us, but most of the time he just sounded like a pissy old man.

Obama reminded us how graceful he can be under fire, but because he only got in a couple of subtle zingers, I feel like all he had going for him was to stand there and look like he wasn't losing. He sounded just like he always does--but didn't bring anything new to the table--er--the podium.

In the end, I suppose I can agree that Obama probably did better than McCain if only because he didn't do anything to make me dislike him more.

Well, there was his talk of the bailout being necessary--which, it seems, every politician in America agrees with despite many of those politicians being free-marketeers. Seems hypocritical to me--let's give the market free-reign until it's going to collapse in on itself--now we'll give it all sorts of money! Yay!

So the fact that neither candidate spoke of alternatives to a bailout makes me think the game is rigged. Perhaps that is the biggest thing we should take away from this first debate: the fact that McCain and Obama actually do seem to represent the same general interests.

It's almost like they're not giving us a choice! ;)

If you're curious how factually accurate the candidates were, check out FactCheck.org's report on the first debate here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

It makes for some interesting reading. :)

---

Orignal From: 2008 Prez Debate Number 1 of 3 Review

Congress Set to Bailout Wall Street

Not sure what to say here. Granted, the full $700 billion won't get injected into our economy all at once. It'll be $250 billion right away and the rest will come later should Bush (or who ever is in the White House) feel it is needed.



What is with Congress giving so much power to the guy in the Oval Office?



Regardless, even an influx of $250 billion will have a big negative effect on the value of the US dollar. Watch it drop even more as foreign investors in the USD take their profits and run to euros.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Congress Set to Bailout Wall Street

Lipstick on a McCain

So, during the first presidential debate, Baby_Obama (here: http://twitter.com/baby_obama ) posted a great pic of McCain looking at his old pen. TheWife (here: http://twitter.com/siskita ) decided some Photoshopping was in order. The above is the best of the four she did. :)



My wife! I think I'll keep her! ^_^



Check out her others:



http://twitpic.com/de0v

http://twitpic.com/de0x

http://twitpic.com/de5z

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Lipstick on a McCain

12seconds - Play All Seems to ...

12seconds - Play All Seems to Be Broken (and my wife seems to be annoying) http://12seconds.tv/channel/ThePete/31140

---

Orignal From: 12seconds - Play All Seems to ...

Lipstick on a McCain

So, during the first presidential debate tonight, Baby_Obama posted a great pic of McCain looking at his old pen. TheWife (Siskita on Twitter) decided some Photoshopping was in order. Here's the best of the four she did:



My wife! I think I'll keep her! ^_^

Check out her others:

http://twitpic.com/de0v
http://twitpic.com/de0x
http://twitpic.com/de5z

---

Orignal From: Lipstick on a McCain

#debate08 Wow, McCain is givin...

#debate08 Wow, McCain is giving Obama a nice education. Thanks, John!

---

Orignal From: #debate08 Wow, McCain is givin...

LiveBlogging the First Debate

Wanna follow my quips as I fire 'em? Stop by:

http://twitter.com/thepete

Or just reload to see the latest in my lifestream (in the sidebar).

Thanks!

---

Orignal From: LiveBlogging the First Debate

Which reminds me, anyone who d...

Which reminds me, anyone who doesn't want to follow me following the debate, by all means unfollow me now. I don't want to annoy you.

---

Orignal From: Which reminds me, anyone who d...

Wall Street Protestors Footage Part 1

This is a 14 minute video made up of the most interesting stuff I streamed from my iPhone yesterday (20080925) at the big Wall Street Bailout protest. Remember, it came from my iPhone, so it kind looks like crap. Watch for a poorly shot moment (still learning how best to use the iPhone as a camcorder) where I met Arun Gupta, the man who wrote what Amy Goodman of Democracy Now called "the email that was heard 'round the world." Apparently the protest sprung up with no organizing group--everyone who read Arun's email just said "we'll be there on Thursday!" and so Arun was there, too. I'm guessing his email was just that moving. He seemed like a real cool guy, too. Other highlights: The crazy guillotine man, the best profane protest chant evar, scooter cops, and MORE.

---

Orignal From: Wall Street Protestors Footage Part 1

Back from Wall Street...

Just got back from Wall Street and boy am I tired. I shot way too much footage and don't feel like editing it tonight. Too hungry. Need to figure out some way to get paid for this stuff so I can feed myself before I do it! :)

Check out all the raw footage I shot here:

http://qik.com/thepete

Wanna edit out all the boring bits for me? GO FOR IT!! Just tell me where you posted it so I can grab a copy :)

---

Orignal From: Back from Wall Street...

[qik] - ThePeteTV Livestream h...

[qik] - ThePeteTV Livestream
http://qik.com/video/337747

---

Orignal From: [qik] - ThePeteTV Livestream
h...

http://qik.com/video/337513

http://qik.com/video/337513

---

Orignal From: http://qik.com/video/337513

Heading Down to Wall Street to Cover Protests

{seesmic_video:{"url_thumbnail":{"value":"http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/MeAv07mfy6_th1.jpg"}"title":{"value":"Heading Down to Wall Street to Cover Protests "}"videoUri":{"value":"http://www.seesmic.com/video/WhPYHhI0zg"}}}

---

Orignal From: Heading Down to Wall Street to Cover Protests

The 5 Minute Show Episode 25: ThePete KIDNAPPED!

Wow--this was a crazy episode--I got kidnapped!! Luckily, the kidnapper shot video of me in captivity so we're using that for the show this week. Don't worry, I'm OK now, but WHEW! Scary stuff!! (Not really.)

---

Orignal From: The 5 Minute Show Episode 25: ThePete KIDNAPPED!

TheVent for 20080925 (Bush, Economy, Stuff)

Just me venting about Bush and the economy for five minutes. Watch if ya feel like it (and please comment/reply if you feel like it, too).

{seesmic_video:{"url_thumbnail":{"value":"http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/EiNYusjLUW_th1.jpg"}"title":{"value":"TheVent for 20080925 "}"videoUri":{"value":"http://www.seesmic.com/video/YjkxTkcqsZ"}}}

---

Orignal From: TheVent for 20080925 (Bush, Economy, Stuff)

SHANE (1953)

Watch now on Amazon!

Positive Experience/Entertaining? Definitely! I can see why this is one of the classic westerns.


Technically any good? Structurally, this movie relies on a lot of classic western cliches. However, since this movie was made in 1953 I think it just might have created some of them. The acting is solid, though I was shocked to learn that the kid won an Oscar for his performance (which I feel he didn't deserve). I also feel that directors should hire actors who can do accents accurately. Sadly, two actors' accents were so bad they knocked me clean out of the film. The script was good, the direction solid and the music was fun. I was particularly impressed with a music-free fight scene though I was disappointed with the use of music during the build to the climax.


How did it leave me feeling? Entertained, for sure. I'm not a big western guy so it's not surprising the movie didn't blow me away. However, it has some really nice moral messages in there and while I give them credit for trying to make the bad guy sympathetic, I don't think they tried hard enough. I wouldn't mind seeing these themes explored again in another movie with both the Shane character and the Ryker character portrayed as good men. That said, the movie is solid and is quite deep for the time period it comes from.


Final Rating? SIYL - See If You Like (3 stars) - If you're into westerns you'll likely dig this (if you haven't already seen it). Perfectly reasonable movie for anyone who enjoys movies from the early 1950s.

ONE LAST NOTE: DO NOT watch the trailer for this movie! It's riddled with spoilers. Seriously. Don't watch it!

---

Orignal From: SHANE (1953)

Opera in Times Square!

Three nights ago I was on my way to see my wife sing at the Algonquin Salon. On my way I happened to pass through Times Square to see, well, what's in this video--how surreal! Live opera being performed up the street at Lincoln Center, piped down to giant screens in front of a huge array of seats. Anyone could come in and sit down and watch three acts, each from a different show, all performed by opera-great Renee Flemming. I'm not a fan of opera, but I thought of my mom that night--she loves opera. This footage is for you, Mom! (Sorry it's so crappy... blame the iPhone!)

---

Orignal From: Opera in Times Square!

George W. Bush's Off Switch?

This is a totally useless observation, but I noticed tonight while looking at the pic of Bush delivering his historic "we're screwed" speech to the nation a little black spot under his jaw. Can you see it? WTH is that?

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: George W. Bush's Off Switch?

ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #6 Good Night

ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #6 Good Night on 12seconds.tv

ThePete's 12sJL#6 teaches the word for "good night". Here it is in hiragana:

おやすみなさい

oo ya su mi na sa i (oh-ya-su-mi-na-sa-ee)

Sometimes this word sounds more like "ohyashiminasai" when I hear it, but the literal spelling is as I have it above.

Check out my http://j.thepete.com for more on these lessons. Thanks!

---

Orignal From: ThePete's 12 Second Japanese Lesson #6 Good Night

McCain Campaign Reads My Blog, Changes Tactics*

*I have no proof of this, of course! BUT...I did make fun of Obama recently for staying on the campaign trail rather than heading back to Washington to help sort this money mess out. You can check out my Obama commentary (Obamentary?) here: http://thepete.com/…ng-fingers



Now, when I first heard about McCain wanting to reschedule the debates so he could go work on the economy earlier today, my gut reaction was: "No way, John--it's a little late to be doing your homework this close to the final exam."



But really, both he and Obama are senators, and as I said in that Obamentary blog post, they should be doing their job in Washington. I suppose they could Skype it in and then just Twitter their votes (assuming McCain knows what Twitter even is), but it's probably best if they be there in person.



Personally, I think it's absurd to bail these lying cheats out of their (and our) financial dilemma, but obviously, they'll cave and give Bush his bottle (aka Wall Street their $700 billion).



That said, I'm glad the word is that the debate is still on for Friday. With just 41 days left (!!) until the election, we need to get those debates going as soon as possible so we'll have time to mentally digest everything that we see in them. Financial crisis or no, We The People have to prepare to make a decision in November that will impact the world for at least four years.



Debates may be robotic propaganda delivery systems, but that doesn't mean we can't learn about the candidates in the process--just like Palin had a chance to let us get to know her at the RNC (but blew it), all of the candidates can really show us what they think are their most important qualities in the debates.



Of course, they can also screw up... please Joe, stay on the meds!! ;)

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: McCain Campaign Reads My Blog, Changes Tactics*

McDonald's Hamburger Made from Highlander Meat

One of the burgers in this photo is 12 years old and the other was made this year. Both are from McDonald's.



I'm not going to tell you which.



This picture comes to us from a post (here: http://bestwellnessconsultant.com/…earth.aspx ) at BestWellnessConsultant.com written by Karen Hanrahan. She notes that this is her favorite prop to use when she teaches her workshop on healthy foods for kids. She also says: "People always ask me - what did you do to preserve it ?



Nothing - it preserved itself.



Ladies, Gentleman, and children alike - this is a chemical food. There is absolutely no nutrition here.



Not one ounce of food value. Or at least value for why we are eating in the first place."



Later she adds: "McDonalds fills an empty space in your belly. It does nothing to nourish the cell, it is not a nutritious food."



Kinda makes ya hungry for Subway, huh?

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: McDonald's Hamburger Made from Highlander Meat

Palin Goes Back in Time to Erase Mistakes

Nice to see the press is using unflattering photos of both party's candidates. Sheesh, doesn't Palin look like a lady terminator in this shot?



CNN.com is reporting on how the terminatrix has gone back in time to make something she did back in Alaska irrelevent. At least, that's what she'd like us to believe. See she may have fired someone unlawfully and now, rather than answer any more questions about it, she's now just clamming up about it, as though only the good things in her past matter.



Just more typical cherry-picking from typical politicians.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: Palin Goes Back in Time to Erase Mistakes

@cmiper Oh, n/m I'm just IMing...

@cmiper Oh, n/m I'm just IMing you about it. :) David Blane... geh, no thanks...

---

Orignal From: @cmiper Oh, n/m I'm just IMing...

Barbara Boxer: Making Breaking Up Easy to Do

I've only been living in New York City for about five months now (though it feels like five minutes) and in that time I've never gotten around to removing my email address from the list of one of my old senators, Barbara Boxer.

Boxer, a Democrat, was a woman I was proud to vote for. She was smart, outspoken and didn't seem like a Republican hardly at all (unlike her fellow California Democrat senator, Diane Feinstein who counts Condy "White" Rice as a pal). Of course, I mean this praise in the past tense. Not just because I am no longer a constituent of hers, but because, since that prideful voting moment, I've discovered she's a fricken moron.

It probably was that time she emailed everyone on her mailing list to brag that she was very serious about fighting spyware. A few months later she truly wowed me when she actually did her job by telling us how she was concerned about wildfires. Goshes, I was so glad to get those emails from her!

Sadly, depressingly, that sarcasm would have been completely unmerited if she had just followed through with her attitude that impeachment of Bush should be back on the table. She let us and America down when miraculously, her interest in impeachment evaporated.

Then, last night, while basking in the afterglow of the classic western, Shane, watched on DVD compliments of Netflix, I checked my email to find another dumb-ass email from Barbara Boxer!!

And to show off my independent stripes, I'm going to take it apart for you! Screw the Dems! They've let the Republicans get away with all of this stuff.

As always, my comments are NOT in italics.

Enjoy (I know I will):

Dear Friend:

Ooo, it's like she knows I'm going to dump her. :(

Traffic and air quality are issues that impact all Californians.

Except those of us without cars. I haven't owned an automobile since 2003. Traffic impacts my bus driver. Air quality, you're right about, though. Please, go on:

We all hope to quickly and safely travel to work or school and then home to our families. We also all depend on clean air that is too often degraded by cars, trucks and trains.

And the factories and the power plants.

OH and the refineries! Can't forget the oil!

Funny, we refine oil to make gas then burn the gas in cars and that pollutes the air! NEAT!

Sorry, old friend, what were you saying?

As the Chairman of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works,

"I've been doing a shitty job! In fact, I'm writing to tell you how sorry I am for that cancerous growth that's clinging to the inside of your lungs."

one of my most important priorities for the coming year is to authorize a new federal highway, transit and highway safety bill.

Uhhhmmm... was there something wrong with the old one?

Why'd you wait until now to get around to doing a new one then? You're talking about California--the car capital of the world.

Was the old one just stanky? Skunky, maybe? Check the drink-by date, maybe you can get another year or two out of it!

The aim of the bill is to improve surface transportation nationwide, which can help improve our air quality as well.

HAHA!!

...sorry...

So, smooth roads will help the environment?

hmmmm....

hm...

hm.

Do you think we're morons? Smooth roads = better air??

Lady, killing every cow in America would do more to help the air quality AND it would help us eat better, thus improving our health, too.

Tell me you've got more--emissions cuts, new regulations on factories and refineries, SOMETHING to make me change my mind...

My committee has begun the process to write the next bill. I am writing to you both to offer some information about the process and to ask for your thoughts about the focus and priorities of the bill.

Oh, I've got some thoughts!

Like why the fuck are you emailing us about stupid shit like this when you should be asking us what we think about the $700 billion you idiots in Congress are about to give to Wall Street.

Or how about why you are letting Bush, Cheney and pals get away with all of the things they've done in office (illegally invading a sovereign member of the UN, spying on American citizens, torturing suspects, withholding habeus corpus rights from suspects, OH YEAH and bailing out their Wall Street pals when they go for the greed)?

You really disgust me, lady. To think I had hoped you'd run for president.

Why do you even bother with these stupid emails?

Do you think they fool us? Do you think we're rock-stupid enough to not be concerned about real issues?

SIGH... if ONLY you really gave a crap and cared what I and other constituents thought.

Recently, I held briefings in California to hear from transportation officials in California about their priorities.

Let me guess. Their concerns were: getting raises? Keeping their jobs, perhaps? :)

With the following links, you can watch video of the two briefings in Sacramento and Los Angeles and read the testimony of the witnesses:

Field Briefing in Los Angeles
Field Briefing in Sacramento

Ooo, do I dare?

Hell no. I like watching C-SPAN, but even I can't sit through "witnesses" testifying to how sucky roads are in California. My eyes hurt just thinking about it.

I also want to hear from you.

Yyyy-no you don't.

You haven't listened to what the blue state of California has really wanted for years.

I want to know your priorities for the next federal transportation bill.

"But screw you if you think I care whether you approve of my job or the job any of us are doing in Washington. The truth? We can't wait to sign that bill to give Wall Street $700 billion!! We are WET with anticipation!!"

I hope you will use the instructions at the bottom of this page to send me your thoughts about what the transportation priorities for the nation should be for the coming years.

Actually, I see high gas prices and low US dollar value. As a country, we'll likely be traveling a LOT less. In short? Don't worry about the roads. Most Americans won't be able to afford to use them. You probably don't even need to worry about this new bill at all.

In fact, you know what? Why don't you just go home? Go back to Sacramento, or where ever the hell you came from and just don't worry about Congress any more. It's cool--you guys can all go home. All you senators and representatives in the House--it's cool. Just leave work and don't come back.

I mean, it's not like you guys are doing anything, so why bother coming into work?

What can be done to best reduce congestion?

No, really, it's cool, Barb. Just head on home.

Do you want more public transit?

Oh, look, Barb. Let's not make this awkward. I mean, I'm flattered and all and I think what we had was special, but really. This whole "Congress serving the people" thing--it's just not... it's just not working out.

What should be done to more quickly move freight across the nation?

Oh, you poor girl! You're just not getting it, are you? There's just no easy way to tell an entire branch of government that it's over.

While these are not easy questions, I would like to hear from you.

You know what, Barb?

SIGH.

It's not you, it's me--it's all of America. We really just don't think we deserve your type of leadership. Really, it's all our fault.

Maybe, in a few years, we can talk about giving it another try, but...

By considering the thoughts of Californians, I think we can craft a better bill for the nation.

You can just keep my stuff. My freedoms always looked better on you, anyway. Seriously.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Aw, thanks, kiddo. I know you're trying to be sincere, but I'm afraid it's just not enough. And I hate to dump you, and the rest of Congress, like this, you know, in a blog.

Heh...

:\

But it just really is time.

I'm sorry, Barb.

So long Congress.

...

...

...

SIGH...

Guys, look, I know this is weird, but really--JUST GO HOME.

NO, I don't want to give it "one more week!"

NO, I don't care if none of you are wearing panties!

Now come on!! Don't make this embarrassing for all of America!

Oh, God...

...it's like they just don't get it.

It's like they think they're making laws that count!

It's so sad!

Don't they remember trying to pass a second law banning torture that even McCain (of all people!) voted against it?

Don't they realize that George Bush will just issue a signing statement when he signs whatever bill into law, thus making it irrelevant?

Oh, man... I just can't look at them anymore...

---

Orignal From: Barbara Boxer: Making Breaking Up Easy to Do

FBI to Investigate Banks to Be Bailed Out

Huh. The cops who work for the guys who are bailing out those banks are investigating those banks for fraud.



1) What do you want to bet that they don't find any evidence of fraud?



2) Even if there is, how mych do you wanna bet no one goes to jail and the banks get bailed out anyway?



It is nice to see the FBI going after real threats to society. I hope they go easy on them suits, tho'. After all, it's not like they were uploading unaired episodes of "24" to the Internet or anything!



You may recall: http://is.gd/32Ql

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: FBI to Investigate Banks to Be Bailed Out

US Army to Be Used Inside the US

A couple days ago QuantumParticle Twittered (here: http://is.gd/31PC ) a link to an ArmyTimes.com article reporting on how the US Army is moving the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team from Iraq to the USA to serve on the streets of America if needed.



Now, there's a little law called the Posse Comitatus Act that was passed in 1878 that prohibits the military from enforcing the law (read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/…itatus_Act ). So, this kind of story urks me. I followed the link QP had included in his Twitter, but the ArmyTimes website had moved the article. Then, yesterday, Amy Goodman from DemocracyNow.org reported on it (here: http://www.democracynow.org/…/headlines ) saying: "Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations. The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds."



Does the military expect a lot of protests or disasters to be coming their way?



This seems a creepy redeployment for our men and women in uniform, so naturally, I had to find the Army Times article, so I went back to ArmyTimes.com and found this article:



http://www.armytimes.com/…d_090708w/



It's exactly what Goodman was talking about.



Why is bad that the USMil enforces the law?



Because they're not trained to enforce the law. They have automatic weapons, grenades and (on a good day) body armor. You want a guy with a machine gun pulling you over for a traffic violation?



You want army soldiers patrolling the streets and "keeping the peace" (more like forcing the peace).



I don't.



And neither did the guys behind that 1878 law. Sadly, while doing research for this post, I came across an essay written waaay back in 2000 that suggests (if true) that the Posse Comitatus act has already been watered down dramatically. Read that essay here: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/…ilcock.htm



Funny how that article is on a website that claims to be run with money from the USG. I guess it's a justification for what's going on with the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team.



Regardless, the idea of soldiers walking down streets even in times of emergency kinda scares me. I mean, do we want to live our lives like we're an occupied country?



I don't know if the "slippery slope" argument applies, but I feel like it might...

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: US Army to Be Used Inside the US

US Army to Be Used Inside the US

A couple days ago QuantumParticle Twittered (here: http://is.gd/31PC ) a link to an ArmyTimes.com article reporting on how the US Army is moving the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team from Iraq to the USA to serve on the streets of America if needed.



Now, there's a little law called the Posse Comitatus Act that was passed in 1878 that prohibits the military from enforcing the law (read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/…itatus_Act ). So, this kind of story urks me. I followed the link QP had included in his Twitter, but the ArmyTimes website had moved the article. Then, yesterday, Amy Goodman from DemocracyNow.org reported on it (here: http://www.democracynow.org/…/headlines ) saying: "Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations. The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds."



Does the military expect a lot of protests or disasters to be coming their way?



This seems a creepy redeployment for our men and women in uniform, so naturally, I had to find the Army Times article, so I went back to ArmyTimes.com and found this article:



http://www.armytimes.com/…d_090708w/



It's exactly what Goodman was talking about.



Why is bad that the USMil enforces the law?



Because they're not trained to enforce the law. They have automatic weapons, grenades and (on a good day) body armor. You want a guy with a machine gun pulling you over for a traffic violation?



You want army soldiers patrolling the streets and "keeping the peace" (more like forcing the peace).



I don't.



And neither did the guys behind that 1878 law. Sadly, while doing research for this post, I came across an essay written waaay back in 2000 that suggests (if true) that the Posse Comitatus act has already been watered down dramatically. Read that essay here: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/…ilcock.htm



Funny how that article is on a website that claims to be run with money from the USG. I guess it's a justification for what's going on with the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team.



Regardless, the idea of soldiers walking down streets even in times of emergency kinda scares me. I mean, do we want to live our lives like we're an occupied country?



I don't know if the "slippery slope" argument applies, but I feel like it might...

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: US Army to Be Used Inside the US

The Federal Reserve: Not Part of a Democratic US

I hate Glen Beck but he did something amazing recently--he talked about the Federal Reserve not being part of a representative democracy. He didn't do it that elegantly but he still did it. Why is this a big deal?



TOO many people don't know how their money works. Too many people think their money comes from the United States government. Too many people are wrong--it doesn't. It comes from the Federal Reserve. It's a long story, but just think about aaaall the times you've voted for the guy running to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.



Yeah, that'd be no times.



See, the US president appoints the chairman of the Fed. That's as close as it comes to being democratic. Two points:



1) The president usually just appoints who he is told to appoint by the Fed board (especially in Bush's case--he clearly doesn't know crap about money).



2) There is legislation that claims Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve System. However, I have never able to find records of any oversight being done.



I did a lot of reading about the FRS a few years back and try to do more reading every so often. Going to the official site of the Federal Reserve is no help. Their site is written rather dryly (though less dry than you'd expect) and the language is vague. Real answers are few and far between.



Then there's that part of the Constitution that says only the US Treasury can coin money. Which, literally the Treasury does, but the actually currency the coins represent comes from the Fed. I'm guessing the spirit of the statement in the USC was that only the government could handle and control money--not private banks. The Federal Reserve didn't exist in 1776--it was created in 1913. So I really don't think the Founding Fathers were like "Yeah, we'll make the coins but the value of the coins will be loaned to us by a third party! YEAH! That's PERFECT!"



I'd even say that kind of a setup is absurd. Yet, it's the one we've got.



Oh and if you're wondering why I'm not mentioning anything about the Gold Reserve (had someone ask me about this a couple years ago), I should break it to you that there *is* no gold reserve any more.



Like I said, it's a long story, so I'll try to skip the bulk of it for now, but I'm planning on posting more about it at Website666.com in the coming days.



The video in this post is a clip of Glen Beck on CNN Headline News talking to two guests critical of the USG plan to bailout Wall Street. I got the clip from a post (here: http://www.kwippy.com/…23/160625/ ) at Kwippy.com put up by thePuck. Check out his Kwippy profile here: http://www.kwippy.com/…k/profile/ his blogs here: http://thepuckwrites.com/ and here: http://socialmediaphilosophy.com/ He linked to the video on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: The Federal Reserve: Not Part of a Democratic US

SPLIT: A DIVIDED AMERICA (2008)

Here's my "pocket review" for the documentary "SPLIT: A DIVIDED AMERICA". Watch my blog for more on this movie.



<b><u>Positive Experience/Entertaining?</u></b> Definitely! Any documentary that gets you talking so much that you want to pause the film and talk in the middle of it is a documentary that is doing its job.



<br /><b><u>Technically any good</u>?</b> I think the film does a really good job of engaging viewers. Minutes in I was hooked and found myself getting mad at the conservatives talking, hence proving the film's point. We're all getting played and that we're ultimately more similar than we are different. I definitely think this film is a great primer for people interested in breaking out of our system of "divide and conquer" politics and media. Anyone sick of the "black & white" of American thinking should see this movie.



<br /><b><u>How did it leave me feeling</u>?</b> Fired up! It was great to see a film point out that there just might be something wrong with the underlying system--the system that suggests everything can be boiled down to a binary argument. Black or white, on or off, with us or against us, red or blue, Republican or Democrat, our system short changes us by over simplifying our interests and our needs. While I think the film does lean a little toward the liberal side, I do think SPLIT: A DIVIDED AMERICA does a great job of establishing that this is a bipartisan crime--everyone embraces the binary argument in a world of vast variables.



<br/><b><u>Final Rating</u>?</b> GSN - GO SEE NOW!! FOUR STARS! **** <-- see? There they are! Now go find a copy of this movie, watch it and become more aware of how we're all being played.



PS Check out official SPLIT website here: http://splitdoc.com/

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: SPLIT: A DIVIDED AMERICA (2008)