30 Search Results for "structure"

• IQ update IQ update

  • From: Rodger97321
  • Description:

    Use intelligence to express IQ numbers

     

    The current manner by its very structure lends itself to abuse.

    I propose that we change from a whole number scheme to exponent expression.

    Simply take the current number and place it as an exponent of the number 1.  This will preserve whatever value the current number has with one main difference.

    The computed value of any two, if compared, will be found to be equal.

    For example, 1⁹⁵ and 1¹²⁴ and 1⁷² and 1¹⁶⁰ and 1¹⁰⁸ all equal 1.

    Apply the same for corporations, using a null base (to match the total  value which they claim is appropriately equal to their morality+conscience+responsibility+ethic).

  • Blog post
  • 6 months ago
  • Views: 87
  • Not yet rated

• Students are Giving me Cause f Students are Giving me Cause for Hope

  • From: Natural Lefty
  • Description:

    March 12, 2010

    Education is Progressive Part 11: Students are Giving me Cause for Hope

    Yesterday after my first class, I had a conversation about politics with two of my students, Yvette and Andrew. A few days before that, one of my students in the same class told me that she was going after class to the rally against the tuition increases at the University of California. I explained the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case to Yvette and Andrew, and how the Obama administration is fighting an uphill battle against entrenched corporate interests. Both of them totally got it. In fact, they helped me with it. Andrew mentioned that Obama must have found out that he wasn't as powerful as he thought he would be as President, and I confirmed that essentially that seems to be true -- much of the power has already been apportioned to corporations, to the wealthy, to the Supreme Court, something that most of us rarely think about. I told Yvette and Andrew that we are up against a wall, and we can't just blow it down; we need to chip away at it, and eventually, it will come down. "I see it that way, too" said Yvette, this didn't happen in a day, and it won't be undone in a day, but it needs to be undone, she related to me.

    I think the attitudes of Yvette and Andrew are fairly typical of college students now. These are not students at an elite school, either, but community college students who may constitute a large portion of the future electorate. It is clear to me that we are not talking about low information voters, here. They are putting their education to use, broadening their perspectives and seeing how our society operates more and more clearly as time goes on. I have gone through the same process, myself, although I have innately always been a progressive. For all I know, there could be a sudden progressive revolution, or on the other hand, World-Mart could happen, but I doubt either of those will happen. I think our future electorate will chip away at the conservative military-industrial-political-religious alliance which has been thrust upon America, until eventually, there are only remnants of it remaining. It will take many years, but these people are young, and they have many years to do so -- if not them, then the next generation, and the next. I plan to stick around as long as I can, myself, and I am in very good health.

    Another community college student who gives me cause for hope is my good friend from the internet, David Walker. He may not be typical of our young adults today, but he certainly represents a growing portion of America, who see that populist actions for progressive causes, is the way to make our future brighter. David just made the Dean's List at his community college in Chicago. With people such as David out there fighting the good fight for the public, I feel better about our future.

    Of course, reality will surely slap us in the face eventually, showing us what atrocities humankind has commited against the planet, and against each other, as global warming continues, fossil fuel and food supplies dwindle, and mass extinctions continue. I believe that the current generation of young adults, and subsequent generations, will understand how we need to change our worldview. They will expect a good and inexpensive education, and if they don't get it, will protest in large numbers until they do. If universities become unaffordable, they will go to community colleges such as mine. There, they will receive the information they need to help them understand the realities we face in this world. Once they understand this, they will do what is necessary to create a better reality for us all.

    To me, college is not some place other than "the real world." It is the real world. Those who live in the fantasy world of big business, with its delusional billionaire superstars, are the ones who are not living in the real world. These few individuals who are so fortunate as to be billionnaires, not because of inheritance, but because of their business, seem to fancy themselves to be "self-made" billionnaires, as I heard them referred to on NPR yesterday. What nonsense! It is the system, and the work and money of countless other persons, which allows these few people to become billionnaires. If I could, I would send all of these billionnaires back to college, to live as students with little money, so that they could learn what the real world is like. But given that is not possible, I am glad we have a generation of progressive minded young, informed voters and political activists to bring our power structure back to reality.

  • Blog post
  • 6 months ago
  • Views: 97
  • Not yet rated

• China Floats Treasuries could China Floats Treasuries could be revolutionary

  • From: goalcoach@live.com
  • Description:

    China Sells Treasuries

    1:25 AM

    February 18, 2010

    By Daniel Costello

    A record drop in foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury bills in December is raising concern a waning appetite for U.S. debt could push up interest rates and weaken a fragile U.S. recovery.

    The Treasury Department said this week foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury bills fell by a record $53 billion in December. That topped the previous record drop of $44.5 billion in April 2009.
    China fell behind Japan to move back to its previous spot as the second-biggest holder of U.S. Treasuries, in a potential warning the Chinese are growing tired of complaints about its trade policies and worried about record-high U.S. budget deficits. 
    Should foreign investors sell significant US debt, the price of government notes and bonds would fall and interest rates paid on everything from mortgages to credit cards could rise. 

    Still, some economists doubt the recent drop in foreign holdings of short-term Treasuries signifies unease about holding U.S. debt. The U.S. Treasury disclosed this week net purchases of longer-term Treasury debt rose in December by $70 billion.

    Others see hints of a growing trend. After all, China has sold nearly $45 billion in Treasury debt over the past five months.

    On another note: in looking at the data, I was confused how Britain and Japan both increased their U.S. debt so significantly. The two were the largest net buyers of Treasuries last year. Considering the U.K. has huge levels of debt and is spending large sums on its economic bailout and Japan continues to confront serious economic problems, how could they afford to spend so much cash?

    Anyone have ideas?

    \

     

    Arnold's IDEA----

    
    Create a unique GLOBAL TRADING CURRENCY, specific for use by G-27 Governments, Stock and Commodity Exchanges, Certified and Licensed STOCK TRADERS, and BANKS. 

     

    Economies local currency would stay the same and used as before.  

     

    Each local currency valued against the daily GLOBAL TRADING CURRENCY rate.  

     

    Reasoning:

    A country manipulating stocks, bonds, currencies, financial paper and contracts, to devalue another countries currency and financial structure (financial terrorism) , and flooding a country with counterfeit currency to destroy its economy, would not be possible. Financial and Real Estate schemes and scams would virtually disappear, for example USA housing and commercial mortgages, credit card fees and interest rates would be on an even footing for credit and values throughout the States.

    I can think of another 50 advantages of such a structure, bringing back into line, and balancing global market economies back to wealth, and health. 

     

        

    
    

  • Blog post
  • 7 months ago
  • Views: 58
  • Not yet rated

• Feudalism and the New World Or Feudalism and the New World Order........

  • From: cruiserdude
  • Description:

        Instead of moving forward "Globalization" is moving "We the People"backwards (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Feudalism_and_Medieval_life.htm) -----We are on course for the "Social Structure of the Middle Ages" ------------the "Aristocrats and the Serfs" -------------- Where do we get the revenue to pay for social programs and infrastructure when we lowered taxes on the rich and passed "Free Trade" legislation which outsourced "Hard Working American" jobs.We can't have both because one negates the other------- meaning trickle down economics is a farce ----------- it only puts more money into the pockets of the rich.Now that being said if we did not pass "Free Trade" legislation we would not be losing those jobs and thus the workers would be footing the revenue part of the equation.So what do we do -------- Pass a "Large Stimulus Bill" putting people back to work and repaying the "Stimulus" via taxes.Why do we have to do this? ----------- since "Free Trade" and "Supply Side Economics" are not going to be reversed this is the only short term program to put people back to work and living a life of dignity for awhile.At the same time the economy will be stimulated by spending thus putting more and more people back to work which would be a trickle up program.This Theory is still not going to generate enough money to pay off the National Debt nor will it generate enough money to pay back the Countries we borrowed money from to fight our "Lied into War".What does President Obama have to lose if he tells Congress we need to raise Taxes to at least 50% which would solve our Debt problem.Congress has been a do nothing Congress so i don't expect that to be done just as President Obama's "Progressive Agenda" has not been Legislated.This Congress is making President Obama look like an out of touch Leader.As long as we have "Free Trade" with a no "Large Stimulus Bill" we are a doomed Country.----------President Obama because of an uneducated society being brainwashed by the "Corporate Media" is putting him between a rock and a hard place.If the Tea Party was out there for the "Real Reasons" that our Country is in the condition it's in instead of being mislead by the Right we would be striking fear in the Congress.------------President Obama is much too smart a gentleman to not know what's going on and I believe he will eventually in a strong way let "We the People" know why and how he is being "Stonewalled".I believe he's been soft because he thought that Congress would eventually start getting things done not for Obama but for "We the People" which obviously is not happening because he is up against a "Status Quo" that he was not ready for.----------Lord Acton(British Historian circa 1834-1902) said "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" -----------"We the People" are seeing it live and in person by our "Corporatist" who we voted into Congress.These are the same "Corporatist" who passed all the "Free Trade" legislation (knowing that jobs were going to outsourced),Supply Side Economics (lowering the taxes on the rich believing it would trickle down),ratified the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution because the "Corporation" was not happy with FDR'S "New Deal",etc.------------When i was a kid the Father went to work and supported his Family and was Proud ----- than MFN came along and jobs at a turtles speed were being lost causing the Mother to pick up a part-time job to make ends meet ------ than more "Free Trade" bills were passed outsourcing jobs at a faster pace and the Father had to work two jobs and the Mother had to work longer hours in her part-time job and now both Parents have to work full time jobs and maybe a part-time job also to make ends meet ------------ how much can "We the People" take ----------- these "Free Trade" bills are working us to death with nothing to show for all that labor except making ends meet.If "Health Care Insurance" is not a perk from one of those jobs that makes another expense to keep that Family from going under.-----Why "Health Care Reform" is not a top priority in our Country is that Social Security is now being paid from todays workers because our Legislators transferred the Social Security that we paid to pay for something else and since the work pool is low because of high unemplyment there is less money going into the new Social Security Funds.If we all had "Health Care" and lived longer it would be a drag on "Social Security" for those already collecting and for all new "Eligible Recipients". ------------- Our Legislators Plan is to keep us in Wars and keep us from being able to afford "Health Care" thus lowering the number of people reaching the age to collect "Social Security"...................

  • Blog post
  • 7 months ago
  • Views: 88
  • Not yet rated

• Santa Clara Co vs. The Union P Santa Clara Co vs. The Union Pacific

  • From: gersuzkate
  • Description:

    Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."^[14]

    Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."^{[15] This is from Wikipedia.}

    It seems to me that there is no constitutional basis for corporate "personhood". Can two corporations legally get married? Can a corporation serve on a jury? Can a corporation be drafted? Can a corporation adapt a child? Is a corporation held to the same tax structure as flesh and blood persons? If corporations can make millions, and in some cases, pay no income tax, how can I make thousands, and legally not pay any tax.

     

    This fiction of the corporatists is an insult to every flesh and blood American. It seems to be the essence of the Republican Party.

  • Blog post
  • 8 months ago
  • Views: 53
  • Not yet rated

• My Life as an Educator, Spread My Life as an Educator, Spreading Progress

  • From: Natural Lefty
  • Description:

    December 14-15

    Education is Progressive Part 5: Spreading Psychology, Spreading Progress

    It is not unusual for me, when shopping in Moreno Valley, to encounter a former student of mine. They are all over the city, and I am fairly well known in this city. They always greet me in a friendly manner. The conversation goes something like, "Hey, Dr. Warden, how are you. Is this your wife?" From there the conversation goes on to talk about school, what they are doing with their lives, and so forth. My former students seem generally genuinely appreciative. I feel like an important part of the community with my long-term efforts to bring psychological knowledge and progressive thinking to Moreno Valley, as well as help launch the future careers of some of my better students.

    Frankly, I am not as career-oriented as most people with careers. I teach half-time, and that is but one of several important avocations in my life. Other avocations of mine are my wife, my family, fishing, gardening, and of course, my progressive, creative efforts involving writing and the internet. I never necessarily aspired to spend my adult life as an educator, but I have always in essence liked being an educator, although I have endured my share of problems while teaching, as detailed below. I would have been just as happy to be a researcher only, but such jobs are scarce in Psychology, as I found out. Most importantly, my other avocations and particularly, my aspirations to make a positive, progressive impact on our world through my ideas and creativity have always played a role in my life. I have aspired to someday, finish my teaching career and devote my efforts to writing and creative activities. On the other hand, I could see myself continuing to teach until ready for retirement at a ripe old age, then devoting my efforts to wrting and creative activities.

    Thus, my development as an educator has been gradual. I actually spent several years after finishing my Ph.D. working part time on research with my advisor Carolyn Murray as well as being a part-time teacher. Carolyn and some of her other graduate students received a research grant from the NIMH to study African-American families, including their parenting practices and other factors in their children's success. I was in charge of data preparation and preliminary analyses for the research project. Mostly, I taught at Cal State San Bernardino, then at the California School of Professional Psychology until I decided to apply to teach at the local community college in 1995. It is not uncommon for people with Ph.D.s to teach part-time at various schools, sometimes simultaneously, especially in the first few years after attaining the Ph.D. Scholars who teach part time at more than one school simultaneously are known as "freeway fliers." I think I did that during one or two quarters, but usually combined research with teaching, or taught several courses at one place.

    With my modest, mild-mannered personality, I combined some excellent characteristics for teaching -- conscientiousness, patience, compassion, caring, knowledge and intellect -- with some lousy characteristics for teaching -- social anxiety at times, a normally soft voice, a tendency to lose my concentration and become addled when unexpected negative events happened in class. I actually have had some bad experiences as an instructor. Some of these happened when I was a teacher's assistant, while others happened while teaching my own courses. During my first year as a Teaching Assistant while I was in graduate school, I was assigned somehow to be one of two T.A.s for an older female professor who was getting close to retirement age. She was getting a bit feeble and seemed bitter. People would try to be nice to her, giving her gifts, only to find them thrown into the trash. Along with fellow T.A. Ralph, I found that there was no pleasing this professor. As was typical for her, she gave both of us a scathingly bad evaluation, writing that we "stood around looking like dummies in the back of the classroom," and so forth. Actually, we were trying to figure out what she wanted, since it seemed that every time we tried to do what she asked, she said it was done incorrectly, and we had to try again. Interestingly, I met the younger sister of three of my high school friends, who was in the class, so at least something good happened that quarter. The climax of the quarter's follies was when I was supposed to show a film in one of my lab sections. This was Introductory Psychology, where informational film or films of classic studies were often shown. The way that the work was divided up, it was Ralph's responsibility to order the film. However, Ralph, who had no interest in becoming an educator, but rather, wanted to continue doing sleep research at a lab at Loma Linda University where he was already working, forgot to order the film. (Perhaps he was sleeping.) Consequently, I was left trying to figure out what to do when the film did not show up. I tried to get the film to come, but it was no use. By the time I was finished running around trying to find the film, most of the students in the lab had walked out. Young college students being as naive about teachers as they are -- yes, believe me on that -- I had absolutely atrocious ratings from my students that quarter, basically because I was a victim of a bitter professor and a careless partner. After that, I realized that I needed to be really hands-on whenever teaching, and use my conscientious nature to make sure that the course, well, stayed on course. Subsequently, it was common for professors that I worked with to comment about how conscientious, diligent and knowledgeable I was. As a T.A., I always attended every lecture along with the students, took notes, tried to learn from the instructor, and talked to students trying to help them. I probably worked much harder at my job than most of the other T.A.s, if not all of them. I figured that if at least part of my living was going to be as an educator -- and the idea of being an educator was one that I liked -- I should really throw myself into it and learn every aspect of being a competent educator.

    My other really bad experience as an educator was several years later, when teaching at the California School of Professional Psychology after attaining my Ph.D. This school, known as C.S.P.P., is a private training ground for Clinical Psychologists. It offers Ph.D.s, for which a student must complete a dissertation based upon original research, and Psy.D.s, for which the student does a project which is not original research, but rather, more of a review paper. The Psy.D. degree is for people who strictly want to be clinical psychologists, with no involvement in research. Most of the students at C.S.P.P. were Psy.D. students, in fact, which seemed not particularly relevant, except that I was a research oriented Social Psychologist who was into research methods and statistics, very different from the point of view of the typical C.S.P.P. student. While I taught there from 1991-1993, I taught courses in Social Psychology, Personality Theories, and Research Methods. At first, the teaching there went okay. In fact, I got a hearty, standing ovation from my students in one of my first classes there at the semester's end. But then I made a tactical mistake. Upon the reccomendation of one of the full-time faculty, I decided to have students form groups and do a couple of presentations each. Since we only had 2 hours of class time per week, I was not sure how this would work. The answer was that it didn't. The presentations took longer than anticipated, so there was too little time left over for lecture. Once again, relying on the students to monitor their time was not working, and attempts to cut off students before their presentations were finished were not well-received. I should have stuck with one presentation at the end of the semester for each group of students, after the necessary material has been covered, the way it is usually done with good reason. In addition, there was a deranged student in one of my classes -- at a clinical psychology school. Imagine that! He was harassing several of the female students, mostly outside of class, so it was difficult for me to realize what he was doing, although I knew there was something pathological about his references to incestuous relations between sons and their mothers. (I think you know the term for that.) Eventually, I received a call from one of the faculty there, asking if I had observed any inappropriate behavior in class. I said there wasn't any that I had seen, and the professor cut me off just as I was about to backtrack and mention that the student in question had made inappropriate comments. By the way, this student was in a class which also included two identical twins, who were tall, thin, attractive Vietnamese-American young ladies with a model-type appearance. In fact, they were part-time models in their spare time. I could never tell them apart, but the deranged student had no trouble telling them apart. He "liked" one who had slightly longer hair, and harassed her, but not the other one. I guess he liked long hair -- really strange stuff. After that experience, conditions at C.S.P.P. deteriorated steadily for me.

    The Psy.D. students seemed to resent my scientific background, or feel that they should learn only from Clinical Psychologists. I changed my course structure so that there were not so many presentations throughout the semester, and I had more time to lecture. I felt I was doing fine as an instructor, but word of mouth and lemming-like follow-the-most-vocal-classmate/leader mentality had taken over, and I was derogated by most of the students no matter how well I taught by the time I had finished my second year of teaching there. Believe me, there is little that is objective about student evaluations of their professors. The school decided not to ask me back, and frankly, I didn't feel like returning anyway, making long drives to Alhambra in bad traffic (with occasional greetings by horn honk and one-fingered salutations) to teach students who were personally biased against me, for minimal pay at a second rate clinical psychology program. Actually, the sad thing is that there were a considerable number of students there that I liked, who even thought of me as a mentor, and told me so, primarily students in the Ph.D. program, but there were too many students of the other kind. Thus it was that I eventually went the other direction, from teaching graduate students, to teaching community college students, who actually are more appreciative of my talents.

    It is true that I have had some troublesome students at the community college where I teach, but they are far outnumbered by the more respectful students. I have always received good evaluations from the students there, when they do the evaluations, which is only one semester every 3 years. Having evaluations so seldom is fine with me. In fact, one of my biggest teaching lessons has been not to pay attention to student evaluations. They do nothing to make me a better teacher. I suspect the same is true of other educators. Basically, evaluations give students a chance to praise people they like, and snipe at ones they don't, anonymously. Since students are still learning the topic, and are not knowledgeable about teaching methods, they are not really in a good position to evaluate the instructor's effectiveness. The time to ask people to evaluate their teachers is years later, after the effects of the teachers' lessons have come to fruition, but that is not timely enough to be "practical." I feel my own self-evaluation is much more useful in improving my teaching. Discussions about teaching with other instructors, with whom I have a common experience, are also helpful. Another important skill I have learned is to calm myself, and have an even demeanor while teaching, so that I do not become addled at any time. I put things into perspective, and realize that a few troublesome students or a few bad moments here or there are not really significant in the bigger picture. Of course, the more I teach, the easier this becomes. Thus, I have a certain teaching demeanor which is very calm, cool and collected -- a demeanor which students of all backgrounds can respect and find a worthy role model. Another lesson is that I am a true role model. Some students have even told me so. That part of my job actually comes naturally to me, but it can be enhanced by the lessons I give. I do often range into philosophical, political, even spiritual discussions which can expose students to progressive ideas in a non-coercive way and allow me to model a genuinely caring lifestyle. I think this has much to do with the positive image I seem to enjoy at my school. Along with the demeanor comes a certain teaching voice. I have learned to project my voice (no microphones in our classrooms) in a natural way which is pleasant and soothing. Fortunately, I am blessed with a good sounding, pleasant voice much like my father's, but it tends to be soft unless I go into voice projection mode.

    Here are some other lessons I have learned as an educator:

    1. Listen to students. Sometimes, I learn something important from them. It is not a one-way operation.

    2. Always be responsible toward the institution for which I teach. Turn in grades and other work I am expected to do on time. Fulfill all of my obligations as an instructor. I have never missed a class I was teaching, although once, I cancelled a class because construction workers had accidentally cut the power supply so that there was no light.

    3. Concentrate on covering the material which I feel needs to be covered, and upon which the students will be tested. The material is intrinsically interesting. Some students may find it boring, but that is because they have boring, underfed minds. Summarize the material in a way that students can best understand and relate to.

    4. Supplement the material by using my experiences, philosophical thoughts, and sense of humor as appropriate, when I have time, but don't overdo it.

    5. Continue to refine my knowledge, both of Psychology and of teaching, with an open mind. Read my textbooks with interest.

    As an educator, I am helping open up the minds of young adults (and some older adults). This makes people more open to experience, which leads to more progressive thinking. Psychology in particular is a very progressive field. Rather than measuring a society's success in terms of how much money is being passed around, or how high stock prices are, we would measure a society's success in terms of a high Happiness Index, or a low Misery Index. The happiness of a society depends upon the well-being of all citizens, not only the elite, and it depends upon us most of all, taking care of each other, so that we can thrive as individuals, at the same time free and bonded to others. Every academic field opens up our minds in one way or another, however. Science itself is a progressive force, and education transmits scientific knowledge, and other knowledge as well. Through education and the science which is promoted by education, we can find solutions to our problems. In some cases, this might mean reducing our profligate use of resources, but research on that topic is also useful. In other cases, solutions may involve the invention of new technologies, and in other cases, solutions may involve educating the public, improving our social and psychological knowledge. I am at the forefront of the psychological education of the public, something of which I am very proud.

    In order to progress as a society, and have a progressive society, we must have inexpensive (preferably free) education for all! Comunity colleges are inexpensive, but even there, I encounter some students who have difficulty paying, especially for the textbooks, which are very expensive. Remember, education is an investment in our future, in particular, our progressive future and future progress. It's time we stopped investing in the gigantic gambling house known as the stock market (which I believe should not exist), and start concentrating our investments in education, infrastructure and other programs which increase our Happiness Index.

    As I write this, I am preparing to give the final exam to my best-performing class ever at R.C.C., Moreno Valley Campus. There is indeed reason for optimism. And there is reason for me to think that I am doing my job, when students thank me, go on to better lives using in part the knowledge gained in my course, or give me the occasional ovation as one class did last spring. But ultimately, in agreement with my aversion to paying attention to student evaluations, it is my own self-assessment which really counts. As long as I am spreading psychology and its progressive thinking, I am satisfied that I am doing my duty as a human being.

  • Blog post
  • 9 months ago
  • Views: 98
  • Not yet rated

• Calling Armchair Progressives Calling Armchair Progressives to Arms

  • From: robertcox59
  • Description:

    Greetings,

                    I’m a radical armchair progressive who lives in Thailand and listens to Thom Hartmann over the internet.  As painful as it is, I’ve been thinking about how we might actually force the US government to do its job, the one we pay for.  I mean something practical that wouldn’t ask too much of me….

                    Like most Americans I‘ve become completely disenchanted with our government’s performance, its inability to reform itself in ways that would benefit most of us.  The woeful spectacle our government’s inability to change the way health care works to the advantage of insurance companies, and to the detriment of even the millions who can afford it-- and to the death of some 45,000 who can’t-- should pretty much clear up any lingering hope one might still be clinging to.   We understand by now that bribery of our elected officials by multi-national corporations is at the heart of why our trade policies have led to the collapse of manufacturing, why there has been deregulation of financial institutions, the public airways, an immigration policy, in practice, that does nothing to penalize companies for hiring illegals,  a diminution of public education  and the prohibitive costs of attending college,  the establishment of a perpetual state of war, making war profiteering the most lucrative in the history of the world, and so on.   Just follow the money—our money.  Yea, it’s a fine kettle of fish, Oley, for sure.

                    An objective evaluation of our government’s performance from, say, the core values of democracy couldn’t be more than two or three on a scale of ten.   Clearly, this government, established and paid for by Americans, isn’t doing a good job for us, which begs the question: if money talks, why is our money so quiet?  Or, why does our money have so much less government influence than the money spent by corporations, especially given that corporations depend on our money, too, that we spend so much more on government than they do?  I suppose this a completely rhetorical question:  we don’t pay for elections, corporations do; we just pay the costs of actually running the government.  Let me see, so we pay for a government that we don’t control, a government that is controlled by special interests whose purposes and goals are very different from ours?  I guess that means that our adversarial relationship with corporations (always more for less) is managed by a government that is bought by corporations and paid for by us.   Sure, industry lobbyists spend a lot of money, but it’s only enough to prime the pump.  After that we buy the fuel to keep the engine of government running.  Sweet.

                    Given that so much of the money we spend on government goes toward making a few people richer at the expense of everyone else, it seems to me that we need to tweak the existing contract for democracy we the people have with our government.  For my purpose here, I’ll just boil down the constitution and attendant documents to John Stuart Mill’s simple mission statement:  the goal of government is to ensure “the greatest good for the greatest number,” which makes the “pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” a little more practical in a democratic nation.  So, if one accepts this as a reasonable operational mission for our government, the question is how can we the people gain control of our government and keep it going in the right direction?  I tend to agree with Ralph Nader:  the fragmented and disparate factions of the movement for more democracy stands little chance against the well organized corporately funded conservative movement.  After all they own the government and our propaganda driven media.  And they command the religious do-or-die foot soldiers.  As we know, this is a mighty coalition.  Again, the absurdity of the efforts to reform health care is ample proof of just how dysfunctional our government has become relative to the nation’s democratic ideals.

                    I don’t know how the following skeleton  idea for a political reformation could actually get traction but here goes:  A New Contract with America, a contract specifying certain reforms or else.  The contract might look like a platform:

    As a member of the United States Congress I swear I will work toward reform in these areas, which are listed in the order of their importance to advancing “the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” for all Americans:

    1.       Remove private money from political campaigns; make receiving private money a federal crime; pay for campaigns through taxes; limit the campaign time; make available air time on the people’s airways.

    2.       Abolish the idea of corporate personhood; hold corporations responsible; prosecute individuals for crimes and unethical practices.

    3.       Rewrite treaties to insure that trade favors American workers and American people.

    4.       Re-regulate banking and other financial institutions to insure they operate in ways that are consistent with the contract.

    5.       Nationalize the Fed.

    6.       Commission a study to determine the best health care delivery system for America. Eliminate for profit health insurance;

    7.       Re-regulate the media to insure a separation between news and opinion; break up the monopolies, hold media outlets liable for lies and slander; encourage a truthful style that promotes reasonable discourse and consensus; make malicious slander a hate crime.

    8.       Work to solve the problems associated with the “military industrial complex”;   criminalize war profiteering; cutback on military spending ; reduce the size of our standing army around the world, reduce weapons manufacturing and international sales;  use the “peace dividends” on peaceful aid to other countries; work toward nuclear disarmament and set the example.

    9.       Provide leadership and commit to a reasonable plan to address global warming; pioneer a green economy; aid other countries in developing alternative energy, and a green economy.

    10.   Return the tax structure to the Regan years as a means of closing the greatest disparity between the haves and the have-nots in the history of the world; use the additional revenues to invest in small businesses and job training to meet the needs of resurging manufacturing.

                    This is just an outline of ten items off the top of my head.  I’m sure the list could be improved. (Thom probably has a better list) But, assuming that such a list in a contract would have a positive impact, what would actually compel legislators to commit to this kind of needed, meaningful reform?  Sign it and commit to it or else?  Or else what:

    ·         At the local and national level of the Democratic Party, withhold all support for those who won’t support a new contract, and support those who do.  (Would this work, if enough people pushed?  I wonder what that would look like…)

    ·         Is there a way that a large number of people could be persuaded to withhold their taxes until every Democrat in Congress signed the contract, which would just mean, after all, that we would get what we are paying for.   Is that too much to act? 

    You get the idea.  Is this just more of the endlesss barren intercourse between the mind and itself, which I seem to be so fond of, or what?

    Regards,

    Bob Cox

     

     

     

     

  • Blog post
  • 9 months ago
  • Views: 134

• Education is Progressive Part Education is Progressive Part 1

  • From: Natural Lefty
  • Description:

    November 15

    Education is Progressive Part 1

    A strange thing just happened. I found a twenty dollar bill on my driveway. Unfortunately, it was only Monopoly money. It reminded me of my paycheck as a half-time Community College Instructor. Actually, my pay is not that bad, but it certainly isn't good, either.

    This is the last of 3 series about some important, often overlooked factors which I consider to be progressive. The first was love, which also includes prosocial emotions such as compassion and empathy. The second was evolution, which includes biological, cultural, and spiritual elements. As such, evolution also includes the progressive arc of history, in terms of cultural and spiritual evolution, at least.

    Today, I ask the question: What would the world be like if there were no formal education? Exactly how society would be had formal education never developed is impossible to answer, naturally, but one may make some educated, so to speak, guesses. First, I wish to qualify this discussion: With the progressive trend of history, it was inevitable that sooner of later, formal education would evolve. But for the sake of discussion, let us assume that it never did evolve. The first place I would look for clues as to how a society without formal education would be, is to examine specific cultures which have never developed formal education. To no one's surprise, all of these societies are notably primitive in nature. One can infer that formal education at least is a correlate of the modernization and technological sophistication of a society. Further, I assert that formal education is necessary to grow an increasingly technological culture, and a lack of formal education would limit a culture to an occasional, somewhat random technological discovery, perhaps by chance, perhaps by self-educated, intellectually bright individuals. However, without a well-educated populace, it would be difficult to implement very much technological change, because few people could master the use of new technologies without the necessary background. Also, the infrastructure needed for widespread technological change would be absent.

    Some may argue that primitive societies have admirable qualities which should be copied. This is only true of certain cultures and certain practices among those cultures, so that would be a matter of "cherry picking" the best cultural traits of the many past and present primitive cultures around the world. Some primitive societies are peaceful and offer much to admire, but other ones are violent, bellicose, and have practices which are clearly vile to an educationally enlightened mind. I would assert that overall, life is much better and more civil than in primitive times, and that formal education is the main means by which society becomes more enlightened. Education is the conduit through which the progressive arc of history runs. It leads people to reject regressive ways of thinking and behaving such as enslavement, hereditary hierarchical structure in society, racial, ethnic and gender bias, reliance on blind acceptance of religious beliefs, for example, and leads people to think in a more fair-minded, egalitarian manner. I doubt that many of us would really rather live in the uneducated world of the past, at least not if we knew what it was really like.

    Second, without a formal educational process, the population would largely be illiterate, much as it used to be before the widespread implementation of formal education. There could be a small, literate elite class which learns to read and write from parents, tutors, and self-training. However, without general literacy, the written word would carry little power. Not only would that make learning new technologies difficult, but new ideas of any kind would be stymied. They could only spread by word of mouth, which does not allow for a careful examination process in the same way that written words do. In a largely illiterate society, there always seems to be a ruling elite which is literate. Literacy empowers people. However, this situation is not permanent, for 2 reasons. First, and most importantly, education causes the downfall of the very hierarchical social structure which it helped to create. Once educated, people cannot help but think that education should be universal, since empowering people through learning is one of the lessons of education, and universality in the common bond of humanity is another. The second reason is that those who wish to implement technology, whether motivated by profit, or the wish to bring progress to all, need an educated populace in order to do so. In fact, these are the very factors which lead the educated elite of the world to endeavor to make their knowledge, and more, available to all in the first place -- an inevitable result of education's knowledge, I would say. Add to this, the fact that it is only natural for everyone to desire education.

    Thus, my best guess about how the world would be without any formal education is that it would resemble a medieval world of lords and serfs, with slavery and meaningless wars being prevalent. Technological progress would proceed only at a snail's pace, so to speak, if even that. I don't think the entire world would be illiterate, and have to pass on information directly from elders to children, because the evolution of written language and the cultural transmission of information through some sort of education was inevitable. In fact, written language, at least in a hieroglyphic manner, has independently evolved in various cultures around the world. However, even with a form of written language, without formal, widely available education, few people would have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the written word. Those few who could do so, would be largely male, and members of a ruling class (although females of the ruling class would eventually make sure they were literate too). It would amount to a very autocratic society, perhaps even more so than that found in medieval times, because the limiting of literacy and education to a small class of people would become thoroughly entrenched in the culture over time. This would be the complete opposite of a progressive society. Fortunately, this was something which was bound not to happen. Both the educated, and the uneducated inevitably found it desirable to make education available to all.

    Next time, I will discuss the realities of how becoming educated makes most people more progressive-minded. Following that, I will describe how my own family's education and my personal educational journey have molded me into the progressive person I have become, or rather, made me realize the progressive person I have always been.

  • Blog post
  • 10 months ago
  • Views: 91
  • Not yet rated

• democracy/movement democracy/movement

  • From: Bill Hodge
  • Description:

    Thom:   this is what I sent to 23 progressive members of Congress and came up with a big zero.I would love the discussion of this idea put on the agenda of the Progressive Congressional Caucus.

    There,s more, but I'll await your reaction.      Bill

     

     

    Dear representative Lynn Woolsey,

    I hope you have the time to consider this.

     

    “ I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trail of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country”—Thomas Jefferson

     

         From the beginning the super wealthy have usurped power that our Constitution tried to place in the hands of “the people”.  Two steps would correct this.  1: a NATIONAL INITIATIVE.  2: use the national initiative to seriously amend CAMPAIGN FINANCE law. Built into the law creating a national initiative would have to be safeguards against the influence of “Wealth”. No more than a modest amount could be spent for or against any initiative measure.  That’s it; it’s truly that simple.  “Wealth” would finally be blocked from imposing its will on the people.

         There need be no more than three referendum measures per General Election.  Which three (or four) could be sorted out during the primary process. Maybe a referendum should require 60% to pass, and any law passed by referendum would, of course, be subject to the U.S. Judiciary.

         Americans are far more liberal and just than is commonly known.  If you with your staff were to propose solutions to the biggest issues we face, you would come up with answers more favorable to the general public than what we have now, by at least two to one.  That is: tax structure, health care, trade agreements, education, campaign finance, immigration, media rules, food, voting laws and more—all these areas would be vastly improved if “the people” were deciding.

         There is a MOVEMENT waiting to happen, and it doesn’t require converging on D.C. or your state capital.  It just needs a good beginning—a splash big enough to make the TV news.  Imagine if all of the following happened within a weeks’ time:

         1) A bill is introduced in the House, basically a “sense of the House” proposing a sub-committee be formed to look into the mechanics, language and ramifications of a National Initiative with the intent to facilitate one.

         2) A similar bill is introduced in the Senate.  (It would be good if these bills required a roll-call vote, so we could see from the beginning who is with us and who is not.)

         3) Someone appears on Oprah, the Colbert report, Bill Moyers etc. to explain to

    everyone that right now you can go to www.taketheinitiative.org and pledge your support

    for this concept; that you will never again vote for anyone who does not support this.  You will even pledge x amount of dollars to defeat those law-makers who are opposed to a National Initiative.

         4) MoveOn, Common Dreams, Black Commentator and a host of others are informed

     as to what’s happening, why and when.  They are sent clear information that they

     can post-up explaining what we are all doing together, why and how with a link to

     www.taketheinitiative.org.

         If people start signing on by the millions, the movement is running on its own.  (No leaders; we know what happens to them.)  Don’t you think that 99% of those who voted for Obama would be for this? And maybe half of those who voted for McCain, and more that half of those who didn’t vote.

         Yes, there will be a staggering amount of wealth against this, but what are the “talking points”?  That we are not yet ready for self-governance?  Sort of like “Billionaire’s Burden’?

    We are only asking for what is rightfully ours-- democracy.

         I believe this is the most universal concept we could rally around.  No one need be excluded.  Dick Cheney, himself could have an epiphany and join in.  Join us now or join us later, but here we come.  The Hopi Elders say “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”.

     

         This idea has also been sent to: representatives Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wextler, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Peter DeFazio, Lynn Woolser, Bob Filner, Neil Ambercromby, Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson jr., John Conyers, Ben Lujan, Nydia Valazquez, Charles Rangel, Jose Serrano, Liouse Slaughter, Bob Brady, Tammy Baldwin, and senators Bernie Sanders, Tom Udall and Al Franken.

     

                                        Bill Hodge       box 6 Eagleville, CA 96110

     

     

     

  • Blog post
  • 11 months ago
  • Views: 34
  • Not yet rated

• Spiritual Melting Pots Spiritual Melting Pots

  • From: Natural Lefty
  • Description:

    October 4

    Evolution Part 8: Spiritual Melting Pots

    Recorded history has a long record of contact and mutual influence among the cultures of the world. Of course, there are many types of interactions among cultures -- intermarriage and friendship on the prosocial side, war and domination on the antisocial side, but ultimately, more prosocial and antisocial, with the exchange of foods and food preparation techniques, exchange of technology and building techniques, and exchange of language and ideas, to name a few. Here I am concerned with the exchange of a particular type of idea -- spiritual ones.

    I have always found it odd that several major religions are primarily found, not in the region where they originated, but in some other part of the world. This is clearly a case of the cultural spreading of ideas. Christianity began in the Middle East, but had long since relocated to Europe, before the early white settlers brought it to America. Bhuddism went east rather than west, spreading from India, to east Asia. Meanwhile, Islam replaced Christianity in the Middle East, while Hinduism remained the predominant religion in India. I saw a show on television a few days ago which was filmed in India. On the show, the host was asking an Indian Bhuddist why there were so few Bhuddists in India. He indicated that the kings and other upper caste people disapproved of Bhuddism, obviously, being happy with their high station accorded them by the Hindu religion. Thus, being in power, they effectively quashed any movements toward Bhuddism, viewing it as a threat to their power. Such a social structure did not exist in East Asia, so that Bhuddism was better able to take root there. The oppression of Bhuddism in India reminds me in a way of the present situation in the United States (or perhaps the entire world now), with conservatives resisting any change which might reduce their wealth and power, as well as various other historical examples, such as slaveowners resisting the end of slavery. In any case, what people believe, and where they believe it, often seems a result of historical accidents and circumstances, as well as what family they are born into. In many cases, the conversion of a king to a particular religion, sparked the conversion, or purported conversion, of the populace over which the king ruled, an example of the undue influence of royalty in past times.

    There are also hybrid religions. It is very common for anthropologists, or any observers of foreign cultures and history, to note this phenomenon. Bhuddism combined with Taoist, Confucian, and Animist beliefs in Asia to evolve to its modern forms. Slaves brought to the Americas from Africa have often been noted to have combined their native spiritual beliefs from Western Africa, with the Christian beliefs imposed upon them, resulting in Rastafarianism, Voodoo beliefs, and so forth. Native tribes in the Americas, also often combined native beliefs with Christian beliefs which missionaries pressured them to believe. The same has happened in many Pacific Island cultures. Even when religions are not forced upon a people, they tend to be transformed to some degree by the converts of another culture. I have seen this myself with Chinese Christians that I know, including my wife and stepdaughter. My wife manifests one form a Chinese style Christianity, one which is thankfully tolerant of diverse beliefs, or lack thereof, recognizing that most people are not Christian, including myself. (I am definitely not expecting the triumphant return of Jesus, ever, if you know what I mean.) Eunice even seems to believe in the Eastern religion concept of reincarnation. She says we may have been a couple in previous  lives, and hopefully will be again in future lives -- yet another reason to love her. My stepdaughter manifests another form of Christianity, one which is very evangelical -- unfortunately, the most zealous of Baptists got to them -- which is very literal in its interpretaion of the Bible, and which believes the entire history of the world -- a severely shortened past, present and future -- is found in the Bible. What both approaches have in common is a rather literal interpretation of Christian scripture, but my stepdaughter's church is more extreme and ready to condemn nonbelievers to eternal damnation. I find that not only disconcerting on its own, but also disingeunous intellectually, and a certain cause of great cognitive dissonance among Chinese believers, since most of them have many family members who are Bhuddist, Taoist, Agnostic, Atheist, etc. It makes me wonder why anyone would believe that, how they gain any converts, and what type of person is susceptible to such messages. In my stepdaughter's case, she was a relatively new immigrant to the U.S. at the time of her conversion, had, and still has, a tendency to think in absolutist terms, with a strong sense of conscience, and at the time, needed something both Chinese and offering a sense of certitude to cling to, in order to quell her insecurites. Her Chinese, evangelical church offered precisely those qualities. Thus, I can see how it appeals to many new Chinese immigrants to allay their sense of insecurity. Of course, this discussion is really about the non-spiritual aspects of religion which allow the gaining of converts, due to psychological factors, rather than spiritual teachings. However, along with the religion -- whatever the reasons for peoples' conversion -- come ideas about spirituality.

    An example of a general spiritual idea which has been spread through intercultural contact, is the notion of monotheism as the monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Islam, and Judaism -- have spread. Along with that, are certain notions about the nature of God, largely anthropomorphic -- and masculine -- ones. More specific instructions about such aspects of spirituality as prayer, and how to do so properly, are also spread from culture to culture. The influence is not one way, either. For example, beginning around the 1960s, the United States has seen increased interest in Eastern religions and spirituality. It is ironic that, while I have a Chinese Christian wife and stepdaughter, I am more fond of Eastern (makes some sense, works with nature, concerned with creating balance, tolerant and compassionate, egalitarian) spirituality than Christian-style (nonsensical, nature-dominating, imbalance creating, nonbeliever hating and damning, autocratic) spirituality myself. I am sure Christians will not agree with this assessment, but it is based upon a lifetime of observation and study. That does not make me a Bhuddist, Hindu, Taoist, or Animist, but it does reflect my sympathies. Many Americans also have adopted native American spiritual ideas over the years. For example, environmentalists have come to view the world around us as sacred, as do many native American tribes. John Muir, whom I greatly admire and some of whose books I read as a child, is most famously a nature worshipper. He is also credited with originating the concept of the National Park, for which he is being prominantly featured in the current televison documentary about the United States' National Parks. It is clear that the makers of this documentary did not know as much as they should have about Muir, prior to making the documentary, and found his life story a revelation. By the way, he was raised in a very strict, Christian home, where he was forced to memorize the Bible. He spent the rest of his life, it seems, running away from this kind of autocratic religion. (John Muir would make a great topic for a feature movie; he was a brilliant and gifted scientist, even before becoming a naturalist, eccentric, a nearly miraculous survivor of his many adventures, a wonderful author and eventually, husband and father.) Such beliefs of the environment's sacredness, as well as thankfullness to nature and to those creatures which we eat, are native American spiritual ideas which have since become part and parcel of the environmental movement. Thank you, John Muir, and all of our Euro-American predecessors who were open-minded and thoughtful enough to appreciate these ideas.

    I am sure there are many other examples of how the world has become a spiritual melting pot. The examples I have given are ones which are personally meaningful to me. I am sure that readers of this essay have their own examples. The exchange of spiritual ideas is perhaps the most significant form of communication among cultures. It opens our minds up to new world views and ways of understanding this life and the universe which created this life.

  • Blog post
  • 11 months ago
  • Views: 94
  • Not yet rated

• Indiana Fraud News Indiana Fraud News

  • From: leighmf
  • Description:

    Indiana investigators repeatedly fail to link serial mass fraud to the correct organization. The frauds appear to be too sophisticated for the agencies charged with stamping them out.  Only the pawns are ever identified.

    It even seems as if authorities are hiding the full truth surrounding  the Alanar and the Schrenker frauds which are both on the present docket. Certain facts are found which have not been revealed and reported, much less included in the investigative process.

    Witness a perfect example of the "covering-up" which has been going on in Indiana for quite some time.

    To wit:

    There has been extensive press coverage of the Alanar church bonds fraud and the Marcus Schrenker plane-abandoning Heritage Wealth/Delta Pilot Pension sensation. The latter has been featured in a television episode in which the Indiana Secretary of State appears somewhat dumbfounded by the " ill-gotten gain" of the present marauders.

    Nowhere has mention been made of the link between Alanar and Marcus Schrenker. But it has been written, "former Indiana securities commissioner Mark E. Maddox... filed a complaint (concerning Marcus Schrenker) with state regulators in 2002 "..."but we just couldn't get anybody to do anything about it."

    So if not, why not? Because since that time many more people have been plundered.

    In 1956 an insurance company was founded at 32 Court Street, Sullivan, Indiana (official corporate address of Alanar), by the later 1977 president of the extraordinary 1969 "Allen County National Bank" aka "The Lincoln"  aka Wells Fargo #3511. At the same time, an uncle (or grand uncle) of Marcus Schrenker, Judge Henry P. Schrenker, as Probate Commissioner aggressively attempted to overpower the appointed trustee of the Will of Maggie McLaughlin in order to spend it with his choice of beneficiaries. The case went to Indiana Supreme Court in 1964.

    Some may have guessed by now that both Alanar and Marcus Schrenker are woven into the Kryder Estates of 1950, 1960, 1966. The reason this phenomenon occurs over and again is on account of the mingling of estate assets by lawyers who funnel to trust companies, because they have been at it for so long, and because of the age of the Kryder securities. Kryder functions something like a "bio-marker" which can be followed debacle to debacle. For on the concealed pool much has been pyramided, particularly in the area of railroad and equipment leases. It is the true "bottom" of  "the unsound financial community" because as a concealed group of funds, it  can be pulled out from the base of any pyramid unnoticed.

    One may choose to think of the pool also as an "Invisible Empire."

    Should the facts and the truth reach the public, it would expose an Indiana establishment of judges, politicians, public offiicials, lawyers and law firms who have for generations been continuously occupied with mucking up the Wills and Trusts of the elderly and infirm, or the property of incompetents and innocents, for their own benefit and glorification. It would be seen they have participated in what appears to be some type of national deal in which estate lawyers abuse their exemption from registering as securities dealers and form under the table securities trading cartels in alliances as bank holding company or bank and trust directors.

    Fraud upon the dead is only one side of the coin, if not the creepiest side. A defined structure of morticians, funeral homes, nursing homes, and hospital workers knows who is dying and who their kin may be if any. Cemetery affiliates put remains in unmarked graves. Guardianships are left unclosed. Death benefits are kited between banks, funeral homes, and lawyers. Legal papers and required forms are not filed.

    If that doesn't reek, how about names of developments like "Devil's Hollow" and Halloween Banks and Halloween incorporations such as " IN CORRUPTION WE TRUST, INC.: InCorp Services, Inc. 613 SW 112th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73170 Effective Date: 10/31/2008 ."

    In the land of the living, religious organizations, unions, brotherhoods, benevolent associations and farmers cooperatives are marked and targeted for parasitism of their non-profit status and less regulated asset holding and transfer capabilities. As the organization seeks and funnels securities into its obscured-ownership asset pool, it can then manipulate commerce, affecting agricultural production, food, fuel, defense and transportation monopolies.

    In the short list working from present to past, some frauds and violent crimes which are demonstrated by collection of multi-source true data to be layers of the same eternal operation are:

    the Alanar Fraud, Marcus Schrenker Heritage Wealth, Marcus Schrenker Delta Pilot's Pension crash, the Olin B. and Desta Schwab Foundation, the Estate of Paul R. Smith in Treasure Island, Florida, North American Group/Transtar drug running resulting in DEA suspension of transport license, the Redstone Castle and Norm Schmidt frauds, the foreclosure of Lincoln Tower, Fort Wayne, the David H. Swanson/Countrymark Farmer's cooperative fraud, the murder of Lita McClinton Sullivan by a North American Van Lines driver, failure of Allen County Bank and Trust of Leo, Indiana, the Charitable Trust of James I. Evans, the Estate of Nancy Ethel Kryder, the Ruth Lilly Foundation, the Pennsylvania Railroad bankruptcy, the Florida East Coast Railroad bankruptcy, the crash of Reliance Life Insurance of Pittsburgh, the Guardianship and Estate of Edith Michels, incompetent, the Charitable Trust of Frank M. Freimann, Magnavox President, the Estate of Frank H. Kryder, Minnie V. Kryder and Clarence Frank Kryder, the murder of Henry C. Heinz, Vice-president of Citizens and Southern Bank, Georgia, the bankrupted Knights of Pythias insurance fund (United Mutual Life), the Van-Swearingen securities in the Ball Foundation, the Estate of Geo. Sebring, in Sebring, Florida, the bankrupted Venice, Florida Plat of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and the Will of Henry Morrison Flagler.

    Two Indiana Secretaries of State rise to the surface at critical points in the time line:

    William N. Salin (R), now founder and owner of Indiana's largest private bank, in 1969-1970 lost sufficient Indiana corporation records during his appointment which ensured inpenetrable gaps, barriers and blindspots for any investigations which might connect old military-industrial assets and financial institutions or associations to their present incarnation.

    And Evan Bayh (D) as Secretary of the State of Indiana, certified in 1987 that "Far West Mortgage Company of Colorado" was incorporated in Colorado, when the Colorado Secretary appears to not have this on record, though the California Secretary issued the same certification. The meaning of a mortgage company which is three places at once but nowhere at all will become clear.

    The above specific cases will be detailed one example at a time.

    #####

  • Blog post
  • 11 months ago
  • Views: 123
  • Not yet rated

• Why Aren't You Listening To Us Why Aren't You Listening To Us, President Obama?

  • From: Lightshipclear
  • Description:

    Why Aren’t You Listening To Us?

    Why aren’t you listening to us, President Obama? Can you not hear our voices crying out every day and every night, begging, pleading for relief? You were so full of promise when first we met. You spoke like a statesman, your ideas were fair and just, your vision seemed clear and your determination seemed fixed and fast. You spoke of "change," of "yes we can" and of being "fired up and ready to go". Our hearts jumped at the prospect of, once again, having a nation we could stand proudly behind for our children and for the world. What was it that changed you? When you made your way up to the Great White House on the shining hill did you suddenly discover that the task we charged you with was more than you were prepared to take on? And did you also realize that you had underestimated the terrible dark power and wealth of the corporations we sent you there to do battle with on our behalf?

    Why aren’t you listening to us? Is that Great White House too far away from the fields, the streets, the towns and cities and slums from whence we sent you forth? Have you lost sight of us and have your ears grown calloused to our cries? Did you forget the stories we told you of our plights and the one you told us of your own mother’s struggles as she made her way through her last days, struggling desperately with the beastly insurance companies who sought to deny her the basic needs of any human being in her final days? Has the blare of lies and the siren song of money obscured the task for which we sent you there?

    Why aren’t you listening to us? Don’t you know we have your back? Don’t you see us lined up behind you? Can’t you feel the love, strength and support we are sending you? Don’t you remember the dreams we shared and the hopes we had in common? We forged a fine, strong sword for you to carry into battle - the will of the people. We gave you a clear direction in which to proceed. Now we stand waiting, watching and praying for you to wield that sword and bring forth the changes you so enthusiastically promised.

     

    Why aren't you listening to us?  Why do you continue to waste time on bipartisanship, attempting to strike deals with ultra- conservatives whose only agenda is to take your presidency down and along with it all our hopes and dreams of having a country that cares about it's people.

    Why aren’t you listening to us? Why are you making deals behind closed doors that will make it appear to those less aware among us that you are offering us the health care reforms that we so desperately need while, in fact, that plan will be a profit-making machine for the insurance companies beyond their wildest dreams? Have you given up on fulfilling that one most important promise you made to us? I’m not saying that you haven’t done anything that you promised, for there are some good changes that you’ve brought about: the end of torture, the closing of Guantanamo, the return of our soldiers from Iraq and more. But why have you chosen people to serve in your cabinet and as your advisors who are so entrenched in the status quo and who, in some cases, have been the very architects of the destruction of our economy? Why have you failed to give progressives a voice in your administration? And why do you perpetuate some of the worst of the Bush policies: extraordinary rendition, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, secrecy in the government, and refusing to relinquish so many of the "unitary Presidential powers" that Bush and his dark band of cronies illegally put into place?

    Why aren’t you listening to us? Why do you choose to turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by those in the Bush administration who so haughtily trampled on our Constitution, set aside our rights, ignored our laws and abused our citizens?

    Why have these criminals, these festering sores, been allowed to remain free and even given a level of credibility while the infection that they created still spreads it’s corruption? You say you want to move forward and not look backwards but how does that make us a nation of laws as you have been characterizing us? Explain to me how letting the rich and powerful live free from accountability for their dastardly actions when they break the laws of this land - how can this make us feel that we live in a lawful and just society? How can we ever know that the law truly does apply equally to all; the rich, the poor, the powerful and even the powerless when these criminals go about their lives with no fear of consequences for their horrible deeds ?

    Why aren’t you listening to us? Why do you let giant corporations wield their dark powers to their benefit and to our deficit? You have an awesome weapon in your arsenal, one forged by men of great wisdom, long ago and defended by generations of patriots ever since. That weapon is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is, sir, the law of the land and with it’s sharp blade you could, with the stroke of the pen, cut out so much of the corruption that has eaten away the fabric of our great democracy. Is it that you fear to use such a weapon? Fear not, Mr. President, for if you choose to use it you will find us right beside you, at your back, cheering you on, giving you the strength you need to do what is right, that which we so desperately need you to do at this time. We will surely stand up and cheer when we see this weapon come down upon those who are so bent on our destruction.

    Why aren’t you listening to us? How is it that we spoke out loudly and clearly in last year’s election and NO ONE heard what we were truly saying? There are precious few among you who reside inside the Beltway, and who occupy the seats of power we have put you into, who really have the courage and integrity to stand up for us against these corporate royalists whose only care is for the size of their own purse? Is our great democracy done? Has this "Great Experiment" as President Thomas Jefferson called it, seen it’s end, to be relegated to the back pages of some old and dusty future history book as nothing more than a curiosity?

    We beg of you, Mr. President, PLEASE LISTEN TO US! Listen to US, NOT to those who are only interested in maintaining the corruption and greed that keeps them super-wealthy and super-powerful and in keeping us "under their control". That is a path that can only lead to our ultimate destruction. It was one of our founding fathers who, in his wisdom, once said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." He wasn’t talking about the type of hate-filled, violence-inciting, loud, aggressive minority who have been filling the town hall meetings and by those who are carrying guns to your Presidential events. Remember, Mr. President, those who shout the loudest have the least to say. He was talking about the thoughtful, well-informed and responsible citizens who stand firmly grounded in the profoundly high-minded principles this country was founded upon. Please join us, Mr. President, in setting this country to right, in reinvigorating the vision of our founding fathers and in bringing this democracy in it’s highest form into the twenty-first century. Please listen to us before it is too late for if you fail to fulfill your promises we won’t get another chance. The ultra-radical right-wing conservatives, supported by the giant corporate power structure shall seize upon your weakness and once and for all take over this country.   We will become serfs in the feudal society that they have always envisioned us to be. Their pockets will swell with gold and we will be begging them for their table scraps, dirty, hungry, cold, sick and tired. This is not the America that any of us ever dreamed of. Gird your loins, Mr. President, draw the weapons of State that you have been given, take a deep breath and take this country back! Extraordinary times require extraordinary men to take

    extraordinary action. Now is the time, here is the place and you are that extraordinary man.

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 184

• Health care - What's going to Health care - What's going to Work Best for You?

  • From: Worldchangeguy
  • Description:

    Let's call you Anyone. You work most of your life to support yourself and raise a family (in many cases) and to make society work in general because you know it provides a valuable support structure for you and everyone else. From your own experience in life you know something can go wrong at any given moment, illness, injury or death (your own included), the loss of your job or income, a painful divorce, a costly lawsuit, the birth of a disabled child, the illness or disability of a family member, again, including you. There are many possibilities that can disrupt your life and make it difficult if not intolerable.

    Let's face it; many people in any society are dysfunctional or unemployable at any given time, for one reason or another. It may be a temporary condition like age, injury, illness or financial distress; or a permanent condition like race, religion, sex, size, looks or a physical or mental disability. How often do you think: "There but for the grace of God, go I?" Yes, you are blessed and fortunate if you are smart enough, capable and healthy enough and strong enough to hold a job, start a company, create a new product or service, or become a professional in our society. Therefore, is it in your best interest to condemn those who are less fortunate or capable than you, to cast them aside as if their lives have no meaning or value when, by the smallest act of fate or miscalculation, you can become one of them?

    What's going to work best for you and all of us, as a society, in terms of health care? Is there any point to having a society if we insist on living by the predatory Law of the Jungle - survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, eat or be eaten? Is this philosophy compatible with the concept of society? How long could your body survive if a few cells and organs decided to live by the Law of the Jungle, if they decided to hoard most of the body's energy and let only a small amount "trickle down" to the rest of the body? Without a fair and sufficient distribution of energy, how can the body remain strong enough for you to think and do work? How can it remain healthy enough to heal injuries and cure illnesses? How can it enable you to grow, imagine and create?

    Would the Law of the Body be a better model for us to follow where, "it's one for all and all for one," in the spirit of the Three Musketeers. As you move through life, you are subject to many changes, both physically and mentally. If there is anything that is guaranteed in life, besides death and taxes, it is change. What will give you peace of mind, a health care system that stands up for you only when you can afford to pay ever-increasing premiums, or one that stands up for you whether you can stand up by yourself or not?

    We are at a crossroads concerning more than just healthcare in America. We are deciding the future of America in every way. We can model ourselves and our country after the Law of the Jungle - fear, separation, thoughtless reaction, debate, comparison, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, devil take the hindmost - cutthroat competition; or we can model it after the Law of the Body - love, both oneness and separation, thoughtful action, collaboration, imagination and sharing.

    It is not often we get to choose the type of healthcare system we want, let alone the type of country we want to live in and the kind of people we want be. What will work best for you, modeling yourself after the Law of the Jungle or Law of the Body? What will work best for America?

    Think clearly about this matter. Don't let others scare or stampede you into voting for what they want. Be thoughtful and vote for what YOU want! Our future depends on the quality of YOUR thoughts and actions.

    Pete, http://realtalkworld.com

     

    We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 106

• Evolution Part 3: Memes Versus Evolution Part 3: Memes Versus Genes

  • From: Natural Lefty
  • Description:

    September 15

    Evolution Part 3: Memes versus Genes

    Biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to refer to ideas which are culturally transmitted. This term has gained traction over the years, and with good reason. A thorough examination of the cultural transmission of ideas reveals the validity of the meme concept. Beliefs, ideas, habits, language and tradition are all memes which are culturally transmitted -- the thought equivalent of genes. In a case of fortuitous circumstance -- or is it synchronicity? -- I saw Dr. Wayne Dyer talking about memes on his new program on public television last night. Wayne Dyer is a Psychologist and spiritual teacher for whom I have great respect and liking. He was saying that memes are like viruses in the way they spread, which does not make them sound very good.

    Actually, memes can be like viruses, and very harmful, but they can be good, as well. I think they are better compared to genes. Some of them are good ideas which serve us well and make humanity better when spread. Dr. Dyer's work is an example of that. I hope that mine is as well, and that of all good thinkers. Good new ideas are like beneficial mutations in the genetic structure of culture. They lead us closer to the truth, giving greater and broader understanding, leading us to feel love for each other, and build constructive lives amid a more constructive and fair society. Other memes are like defective genes caused by bad mutations. They lead to false beliefs, hatred, war, misunderstanding, animosity, greed, and selfishness which destroys lives.

    Each culture propagates memes through the generations, but also changes when new memes appear like thought mutations. Thus, the concept of the meme accounts for both the continuity of culture, as well as cultural changes over time. When discussing evolution, naturally, we are referring to changes. The most obvious way that a culture can change is that a new, mutant meme, good or bad, can appear and spread through the population. The other way that a culture can change -- actually a mechanism which has had great impact on the world over the past few centuries as cultures meet -- is the transmission of pre-existing memes from one culture to another. Cultures influence each other in various ways, which result in traditions, habits, beliefs, ideas, and even language to pass between cultures. Thus, cultural evolution is a result of both the spread of pre-existing aspects of culture, along with the devolopment of new aspects of culture as time goes on and new ideas and technology arise, and new information becomes available.

    Of course, the concept of the meme is just a convenient way of referring to the cultural transmission of information. The actual mechanism of cultural transmission is through cultural exposure and training, which involves the use of language and actions to express and reinforce cultural ideas. Much of this training is essentially brainwashing, but not aspects such as learning a language in order to communicate, or learning basic skills at home or in school. It is the brainwashing aspects of meme transmission which are most dangerous. Destructive memes can come to be believed by many through consistent exposure and reinforcement, no matter how ridiculous they may be in the light of objective evidence. Destructive memes generally have in common that they appeal to people's more selfish impulses, which makes them easy for the unexamining mind to accept. Good memes, on the other hand, basically sell themselves. They stand up to the light of scrutiny, and objective evidence informs us that they work as a whole -- for humanity, for the world.

    A basic difference between memes and genes is that, since memes are not genetically transmitted, people essentially have a choice concerning which memes to adopt. Although social pressures to adopt a meme may be great, each person makes a choice regarding which memes to accept. When a person does not accept a meme from his/her culture, there may be a hefty, and grossly unfair, price to pay -- a price paid in unpopularity, social isolation, ridicule, or even ostracism. Nonetheless, we do have a choice, and it is clear that free thinkers througout history have defied their own cultures by refusing to accept popular ideas to which they have been exposed. But this very process of rejecting aspects of one's own culture often leads to new "mutant" memes which are improvements over the old ones. It is usually the outsiders and outcasts who come up with the big new ideas. Another way that new memes develop is as a consequence of science. New technology and new scientific evidence lead to new memes, ones which are generally improvements over that which they may replace.

    A second basic difference between memes and genes is that unlike genes, people are not born with memes. Memes can be acquired at any time during the course of a life, although most of the basic and most influential ones are typically learned during childhood and adolescence. It takes a person with a very open mind to develop a whole new world view or way of thinking as an adult. Nonetheless, there are such people in the world. Memes can be transmitted, or reinforced, whenever people communicate with each other. In that way, they do spread somewhat like viruses. Also, memes do not have to be permanent properties of an individual. They are malleable and can change. Interestingly, genetics research in recent years has developed the concept of epigenetics -- the idea that, while our genes themselves do not change, their expression does change as a result of our experiences, and our own willful cognitive and emotional processes. That is, we can willfully influence the expression of our own genes! Also, though, the expression of our genes (which genes are turned "on" or "off" at which times and where in our bodies), is influenced by aspects of our environment over which we do not exert control. In any case, recent understanding of genes themselves makes them appear more memelike in that their expression is malleable.

    In upcoming posts, I will discuss the history of cultural memes in human societies, and my speculations about the future of cultural memes.

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 94
  • Not yet rated

• Evolution Part 2: One Human Ra Evolution Part 2: One Human Race

  • From: Natural Lefty
  • Description:

    September 13

     Evolution Part 2: One Human Race

    This is a difficult topic to cover. I have thought about it from time to time for many years, but it is still perplexing. I am referring to the future physical evolution of the human species, assuming we are around long enough to evolve physically.

    Of course, anything specific about our future physical evolution involves much speculation. However, there are some conclusions which follow from logic. After much thought, the main conclusion is that the most important thing is that we remain one human race with a common fate. Anthropology shows us that the various peoples of the world in all of their diversity and different races, have developed fairly recently. At the same time, geneticists inform us that the differences between peoples of different races are very small genetically. A few mutations and differences in a few genes can result in very different appearances, and thus, the so-called races. Now that culture has gone global, people of different races are intermarrying at increasing rates, anyway, so that racial differences are being dissipated, at least from a genetic standpoint. Actually, intermarriage among different peoples has occurred for thousands of years, but seems to be accelerating. Thus, it is fortunately unlikely that humans will ever diverge into multiple species, despite the best efforts of corporate imperialists to create a worker bee class of intellectually inferior laborers.

    My second conclusion is that once culture goes global, the rules of natural selection are short-circuited. Selective pressures favoring or disfavoring certain genes are far diminished. Being of superior intelligence is no longer a major advantage. Nor is being a fast runner, or any other such physical trait. Even being good looking does not afford any particular genetic advantage. Even the homely are generally able to find someone to have children with, if that is their desire. It is difficult (but not impossible) to think of a trait which would offer a clear genetic advantage to modern humans.

    I have thought about this issue from many angles. I do think there will be physical evolution, but not dramatic changes. My overall assesment is optimistic. As a progressive force, despite fears of humans somehow devolving, changes in our gene pool which take place through natural selection processes will largely be for the better. Yes, I have thought of things from the paranoid perspective, but ultimately realized that this was unrealistic thinking. You know the type of thinking -- racist, xenophobic, elitist. The thinking goes "Oh my God, the dumb people are having more babies than us! Irresponsible people are having a bunch of babies, and letting other people raise them! Are we going to turn into a race of irresponsible, stupid slobs who refuse to take care of our own?" I don't think so. Those traits have a tendency to lead to self-destructive behavior, which counteracts any tendency they might have toward careless procreation. What about the race factor? Some elements in society have the meme: "The Brown people are taking over, and the Yellow people, and the Red people, and the Black people. They are all outbreeding us" (White people). Of course, the White People and the Pink People, and whoever, still continue to have children as well. The fact is, birth rates are declining worldwide, but ironically, our population continues to increase far too much. Given how fickle skin color and race itself seems to be, as well as the interbreeding among peoples which is taking place, genetically, people's descendants after several thousand years may bear little racial resemblance to their forebears, anyway. If anything, changes which will take place genetically may lead to a propensity for greater longevity, since lives are not being cut short so frequently anymore. People with resistance to what are now, but were not during our evolutionary history, the most common causes of death, will be favored. Thus, genetic resistance to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, fatal infections, and so forth will be selected for.

    On a behavioral level, I see postive changes coming as well. In the past, there was no formal justice system, life was difficult, and the brutal often prospered. That is no longer the case. One of the great advantages of culture is that we become a peole of law -- law which encodes a system of morality. This means that wicked behavior is punished, and censured socially, so that opportunites for such people to dominate their peers and leave more offspring are reduced. What does this have to do with genetics? According to genetic studies of the heritability of personality traits and intelligence, such as the "Minnesota Twins Study" which examines identical twins adopted to different families at birth, these are essentially a nature-nurture interaction, being about half genetic, half environment and free will. Traits such as dominance, impulsivity, or even lack of conscience most likely have a significant (about 50%) genetic component. When such traits lead to reduced chances to reproduce because of our social structure, the genes which encourage these traits should become less common in the population.

    A caveat to all of this genetic discussion is that there is a tendency to overestimate the importance of genetics. Even though we know that studies show that personality and intelligence are around 50% heritable, being sentient beings, we have the capacity of free will to defy our own genetic tendencies. We can learn from our mistakes, and, even if we don't have the best genetic codes, capacity for intelligence, or behavioral tendencies, we can learn to compensate for these problems. This involves cultural and spiritual evolution, which has now become a more predominant factor than physical evolution in our advancement as a species.

    Another wild card in all of this is the intentional element in determining which genes are propagated -- genetic engineering and social Darwinism. An example of the later is the sperm bank in which all of the donors have won Nobel Prizes. Many of the resulting children, not surprisingly, are indeed very talented intellectually. It is difficult to know where this intentional element -- playing God, as it were -- will lead. Much of that depends upon attitudes and policies regarding our role in consciously shaping our own genetic future. One can only hope that if the intentional propagation of traits is done, it is done with public support, openly, wisely, and with proper restraint.

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 67
  • Not yet rated

• American Owned, American Choic American Owned, American Choice, for Americans

  • From: MilesTraneMingus
  • Description:

    Here's a health insurance though experiment:
    
    Imagine a scenario where we could instantly turn every employee of the health insurance industry -- from CEO to broom pusher -- into a government employee.  Nothing else changes.  The structure of the organizations are the same.  Employee compensation is the same.  Premiums and the yearly rate of premium increases are the same.  The number of citizens covered is the same - leaving out 49 million Americans.  And policy for seeking ways to reject the claims of those who are "covered" is exactly the same.
    
    Could you imagine the outrage that would be unleashed by liberals and conservatives alike on such an inneficient, incompetent, bloated government bureaucracy?
    
    Why is this bureaucracy sapping 16% of GDP and still failing to cover all of our fellow Americans?
    
    Why are these government bureaucratic heads making many multiples of the President's salary on the taxpayer's dime, and why are there so many of them?
    
    Why is the government trying to make a profit rather than deliver needed services to the American people in the most efficient way possible?
    
    Why are government cronies emptying the coffers of the taxpayer in the form of "dividends"?
    
    Why is this bloated bureaucracy playing God, pulling the plug on the most vulnerable Americans before they've had a chance to receive the full extent of the needed care that our talented and compassionate American physicians and doctors have to offer?
    
    Why aren't we consolidating the efforts of our workers by creating one system, leveraging economies of scale in our technological systems and paperpushing employees?
    
    What we need is one system with the fat trimmed off.  We need an American owned, American choice, for Americans.

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 47
  • Not yet rated

• A Good Stimulus Package A Good Stimulus Package

  • From: ramasDgridder
  • Description:

    A good Economic Stimulation program would re-employ laid-off workers, address the looming wave of home foreclosures, help elevate slumping real estate values and at the same time fight terrorism (both at home and abroad), reduce demands on the electrical grid and combat global warming. 
    
    A 21st century version of the depression era Civilian Conservation Corp, tasked with manufacturing and installing solar panels, might achieve all of these goals.
      
    Idled factory workers and laid-off machinists could be gainfully employed assembling solar panels. Surplus product would be stored in empty warehouses, providing 'trickle-up' benefits, in the form of rent payments, to plant owners.
    
    Another high-tech throwback to the '30s CCC approach would be to offer a living wage to out of work construction workers, carpenters and laborers to install solar power systems and possibly at the same time perform energy conservation improvements such as structure weatherization.
    
    Additionally other individual or neighborhood scale energy generation strategies, such as small roof top wind generators or miniature rain run-off turbines (both on buildings and in street gutters) could be explored.
    
    This program could stimulate working class economics for as long as the recession continues, for years if that is how long it takes to regenerate the construction, factory and other jobs at which the workers formerly earned a living.
    
    Since the 1980's America has been shipping the manufacturing jobs, which insulated the entire country from cyclic downturns in the economy, to foreign shores.
    
    Even in dire financial times, goods are bought and consumed. These expenditures generate worker paychecks which stimulates the economy. It's just that out-sourced labor, endemic to trickle down economics, props up the economies of Taiwan or China or Tijuana.
    
    Injecting paychecks into the pockets of working class Americans, even if only until the recession ends, would stimulate the economy by way of the massive spending power wielded by an employed American middle class. Returning manufacturing jobs to our shores would also mitigate the negative impact of economic downturns.
    
    The Bush administration preached that this nations addiction to foreign oil funded terrorism.
    
    But the past administration's energy policy was “Drill Baby Drill” and “Clean Coal” and nuclear. In other words, build more huge, toxic refineries and atomic and coal fired power plants. Then redirect already strained local, state and federal law enforcement resources to guard these domestic targets of terrorists.
    
    Inexplicable missing from the previous administrations energy related Homeland security policy was a plan to decentralized power generation.
    
    Blanketing every roof in America with solar panels would be a simple way to impact foreign terror groups by curtailing their operating budgets, and at the same time eliminate what are now some of the most attractive Homeland targets for terror.
       
    Decentralized power generation would also allow the various law enforcement agencies, who are now logging massive amounts of overtime guarding dams and petroleum depots and power plants to return to patrolling city streets, protecting taxpayers in their homes.
    
    Installing solar power systems on private residences would increase the intrinsic value of the dwelling, at least partially off-setting the current drop in housing values while greatly reducing household electrical costs. And provide grassroots economic stimulation in the form of a paying job for hardworking men and woman who have lost their livelihood due to the disintegrating economy. 
    
    To illustrate the potential impact of this approach, imagine a laid-off homeowner facing the emotionally devastating specter of financial ruin and homelessness resulting from foreclosure.
    
    Imagine that she is employed in a works program that installs solar panels around her town. During the course of the program she is paid to install panels on her own house. The net effect would be to restore to her the dignity of gainful employment, allowing her to keep the American Ideal of homeownership.
    
    In addition, the value of the house is increased by the solar power system. Household bills for heating, cooling, cooking and lighting are dramatically decreased, thereby freeing up a greater percentage of her take home pay, insuring that the mortgage gets paid.
    
    This same federal tax 'handout' that was transformed into a proud, working class American's paycheck concurrently morphs into a potent Homeland Security expenditure that helps to staunch the hemorrhaging of petrodollars flowing to terrorist lands. These same taxpayer dollars are used to create single dwelling and neighborhood scale power generation schemes that eliminates the need for expensive, dirty, terrorist attracting mega-power plants and reduces the need to build long distance electrical transmission lines.
    
    Plus these same monies fights global warming by developing renewable energy schemes.
    

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 126
  • Not yet rated

• Is Thom a Traitor? Is Thom a Traitor?

  • From: robertcox59
  • Description:

    Dear Friends,

                I guess one has to start somewhere: I would like to begin a dialogue about how we might deal with the moneyed-pollution of our culture by the gross invasion of corporations into our politics.  In my view, campaign finance reform is the mother of all reforms; it is the defining issue of our time.  How this generation deals with the money-pollution of politics will determine whether or not America continues along the road to fascism, as Mussolini defined it:  the merging of corporations and governance. 

                Since everything is so obviously connected to everything else in the political scheme of the United States, it seems to me that if our government is going to work for the general good, then, all reform depends on campaign finance reform. Because isn’t  it true that all attempts at reform--on whatever front--come up against a moneyed wall, thrown up by the very wealthy, who employ members of our government as masons?

                If I'm right, then all the efforts--the blood, sweat and tears and money--expended on health care, the environment, the economy, etc. represents a massive diffusion of energy, and therefore dissipates the force or impact of each individual attempt at reform.   I wonder what it would look like if all this diffused energy was focused on the single issue of getting corporate money out of politics, accepting that it is the first order of business for any sort of meaningful positive change.  Everyone has a dog in this fight.  Maybe if we knocked down the wall blocking campaign finance reform, then we could get single-payer health care, less war, better media, schools, and we might even survive as a race for the foreseeable future.  Wouldn’t this kind of single focus be the best strategy for making reform of every kind possible?  Isn’t campaign finance reform a kind of pre-condition for all other reform?

                It's almost as if there is a conspiracy to diffuse our energy across so many fronts to disguise the essential problem, the corporate-political connection behind the culture/class wars.  But as Noam Chomsky keeps telling us: a conspiracy is not necessary; it's just how it works, how it all works together. You just don’t need a stinkin’ conspiracy to explain how it works.

                So how does it work?  Let’s take Thom Hartmann’s excellent national radio program, as an example.  Thom is a very bright progressive and has, for my money, taken talk radio to the next level, sane, civil, informed, fact-based talk. I know he agrees that campaign finance reform is the Mother of all Reforms.  But I suspect, from his point of view, a single focus on campaign finance would just be bad radio (unless everyone was  talking about it).  No conspiracy here.  After all, he’s not a mason paid to stonewall the deeper truth of where campaign finance reform sits relative to all other systems running through government.  There are the issues of the day, his disparate interests, all those agendas of callers and guests.  And his almost manic need to get as many listeners on as possible, almost as if he was selling newspapers in a small town, as if getting everybody on is good for business.  No disrespect intended (how it works?).  Bottom line:  all that activity, as informative and stimulating as it is, diffuses our attention and thus prevents us, the “bewildered herd,” from crafting an action plan—identifying a systematic way of approaching progressive reform.  How ironic:  all those good intentions, energy, and intelligence which, at the end of the day, work for Thom’s enemies, and against his friends.  Nothing much gets done. I’m reminded of Melville’s brooding notion that “Things spin against the way they drive,” as if the universe has some sort of congenital difference of opinion with itself. 

                Aye, shipmates, a little lower level:  of course what’s true for a reissuance man like Thom Hartmann is true for the rest of us:  the welter of our experiences, life’s  demands, challenges and opportunities, makes it nearly impossible to stay with a single focus of attention on just about anything.  Plus we’re just hard wired to scan the horizon, to sniff the wind, to determine if we’re going to run or fight.  Indeed, have you ever tried to sit quietly with an empty mind for five minutes?  Simon Suggs wasn’t just speaking for his frontier generation when he said “It’s best to be shifty in a new country. 

                So, to some extent, our grasshopper mind is what it is, how we’re wired, and, therefore, a significant part of how we operate.  But does that mode of operation work well when it comes to getting political reform done?  Sure, make some phone calls and sign lots of petitions.  Get busy. However, just remember: all the money the bewildered heard spends on elections is probably about equal to  five per cent of what the really rich--say the top five per cent or so-- spend on making government work for them.  We just don’t have enough money to seriously change how government works, to shift the paradigm, if you will, especially when the little amount we do have to spend is spread across so many fronts.   Clearly the amount of money contributed by individual Americans is a paltry sum in comparison to what corporations fork over by hook or crook.  Think about it:  if the Labor Movement has been marginalized to such an extent, exactly what power does the bewildered herd have, even when they band together in groups like MoveOn, the Apollo Alliance, the Green Party, or the local chapters of the Democratic Party? 

                In fact, just look at what happened to the” labor movement” in this country. After about 1960, Labor’s candidates just didn’t have the money anymore to compete against the ever increasing sums the contemporary Robber Barons were prepared to spend.  I doubt Harry Truman would even recognize his party.  The “New Democrats” indeed: torn between a bothersome social conscience and the need to woo big money, dying for a seat at the big table.   Unfortunately, the rub is that the price for political relevance involves some serious collateral social damage.  How else do you suppose President Clinton would explain the affects of NAFTA and GAT (no more free rides for single, lazy moms)?    Moreover, because the stakes at the table keep going up only the very rich and those they grub stake can get a seat at the table.  It’s pretty obvious: the Democratic Party has been seriously corrupted by big money.  Gone are the democratic platforms, where issues took center stage.  Substance has had to make way for the politics of personality, the television spectacle, celebrity news readers, the paid-for-by-ads meant to scare you, or promise you the moon, and all too often just plain deceive you.  Where’s The Labor Movement? Its leaders are in the audience now, somewhere toward the back, watching; the socially relevant can’t even get in to the game.

                At the moment I’m listening to a typical podcast of the Thom Hartmann program.   Passions are running high; this guy Lamar is giving us an accurate read on the right-wing distraction machine.  It’s appalling.  Barney Franks, a Jew, is called a fascist at a town hall meeting, lots of anger, fear and adrenalin.    All of it is emotionally titillating and intellectually stimulating.   Makes me want to go out there and do something.  But does it matter so long as corporations buy and sell the political process as a means to improve their bottom line?  John Dospasso remarked back in the 30’s that we were caught up in the “billiondollarspeedup”.  I guess things have sped up some since.  Just try counting telephone posts or playing license-plate poker at the speed we’re traveling. 

                Here’s a perspective that might be useful:  I’m thinking about Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs as a structure for thinking about political reform.  In this analogy, political literacy is the equivalent of our need for the basics.  Immediately above the basics (food, shelter, safety, in Maslow’s scheme) I would place campaign finance reform.  So, if we are going to “actualize” the higher possibilities of a sane, healthy democratic society, then campaign finance reform, as a tactic for taking back our country, has to be the need we must  meet before we can move on up, if you will.  Right?

                So, given that curious, engaged people are going to be focused all over the place, because that’s how it is, and given that our curiosity and the attendant diffusion of attention becomes the most significant distraction from addressing the single issue that prevents meaningful reform, what can we do? 

                True, things often spin against the way they drive, still we’ve just got to focus, think  strategically and systemically, in a way that will produce results.  Don’t we just have to see how the need to get corporate money out of politics transcends the other issues relative to actually making some progress in this country?  And then what?

                “Tag.  You’re it,” Thom keeps saying, “get out there and get active.  Join your local Democratic Party….”   Unfortunately that just doesn’t seem to work that well, and people are increasingly discouraged.  They just wished politicians would do their jobs. But how can they given the way it works now?  We need to make it possible for them do so by forcing a system change.  Remember, politicians are stuck, too.  I imagine that an overwhelming majority of our current senators and congressmen would be happy if the system was changed to serve all Americans.  They didn’t create the system, after all. 

                So, from the point of view above, isn’t rushing out there sort of putting the cart before the horse, so to speak?  Doesn’t finance reform have to be addressed first?  Could this issue  galvanize a large portion of the population, send us out in to the streets to march, to stage such protests and strikes that even corporate media will pay attention?  Well maybe.  Otherwise we’ll just face the crisis of the day, as our country continues to slide in a scary direction.  It seems to me that Campaign finance reform is the defining issue of our time.  And just think about what the country might look like….   I don’t see many alternatives, and it ain’t exactly rocket science, as Thom might say.  What do you say? 

                If you agree with the above, then you agree that there is an awful lot riding on this single issue.  But tell me:  where’s the center, the leverage, the place to come together in a big way to get the ball rolling?  Where’s the hub?  Who can carry the water on this one?  Who will?

                Please feel free to share this email around; maybe out of this dialogue some shape of what to do or where to go will emerge. 

    of course I don't think Thom is a traitor to his causes.  I just thought he should read the blog.  I'd call the show but for the moment I'm living in a small house peched atop a fish pond; it's like living on a houseboat Sleezy?  Probably, but the incredible amount of information that Thom fronts works as another distraction from the above point of view.  By the way I'm a huge fan of Thom's; I'm reading his latest book now.  After I finish I think I'll blog about it (I've never blogged before).  There's this guy, RG Collingwood, who wrote a book that metaphsics should be a historical science...

    Regards,

    Dr. Bob (robertcox59@hotmail.com)

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 109
  • Not yet rated

• The Mother of all Reforms The Mother of all Reforms

  • From: robertcox59
  • Description:

    Thom,

    I would like to start a dialogue about how the influence of corporate power in politics has become the defining issue of our time, and how we might address it:  

    Since everything is sort of connected to everything else, politically, it seems to me that if our government is going to work for the general good, then, as far as I can see, all reform depends on campaign finance reform.  Isn't it true that all attempts at reform--on whatever front-- come up against the same kind of moneyed wall, thrown up by employing members of our government as masons?

    If I'm right, then all efforts, the blood, sweat and tears and money, expended on health care, the environment, the economy, etc. represents a massive diffusion of energy, and therefore dissipates the force or impact of those efforts.   I wonder what it would look like if all this diffuse energy was focused on the single issue of getting corporate money out of politics.  Maybe then we could get single-payer health care, less war, better media, schools, and we might even survive as a race for the foreseeable future.  Wouldn’t a single focus be the best strategy for making reform of any kind possible?  Isn’t campaign finance reform a kind of pre-condition for all other reform?

    It's almost as if there is a conspiracy to diffuse our energy across so many fronts, to disguise the essential problem, the corporate-political connection behind the culture/class wars.  But of course a conspiracy is not necessary; it's just how it works, how it all works together.  So how does it work?

    Let’s take the Thom Hartmann radio program, for example.  I know you agree that campaign finance reform is the Mother of all Reforms, correct?   Well, in part, a single focus on campaign finance would just be bad radio, right?  No conspiracy here.  After all, you’re not a mason paid to stonewall the deeper truth of where campaign finance reform sits relative to all other systems that run through government.  There are the issues of the day, your disparate interests, all those agendas of callers and guests.  And your almost manic need to get as many listeners on as possible, which is probably an effort to be both local and universal; it smacks of paper-boys and small newspapers.  No disrespect intended (how it works?).  But all that activity, as informative and stimulating as it is, diffuses our attention and thus prevents us, the “bewildered herd,” from crafting an action plan—identifying a systematic way of approaching progressive reform. 

    What’s true for you is true for the rest of us, of course:  the vagaries of life, its demands, etc., makes it impossible to stay with a single focus of attention; just try meditation.  So, to some extent, it’s how we’re wired, a significant part of how it works.  But does it work well when it comes to getting something done?  Sure, make some phone calls and sign lots of petitions.  But remember: all the money owned by the bewildered heard may just amount to what the really rich, say the top five per cent, spend on making government work for them.  We just don’t have enough money to make enough to seriously influence our government, especially when the little amount we do have to spend is spread across so many worthy causes.

        At the moment I’m listening to the first hour of yesterday’s program.  Passions are running high; Lamar is giving us an accurate read on the right-wing distraction machine; it’s appalling. Barney Franks, a Jew, is called a fascist, lots of anger, fear and adrenalin.    All of it is both emotionally titillating stimulating and intellectually stimulating  .   Makes me want to go out there and do something.  But does it matter so long as corporations buy and sell the political process as a means of manipulating us and shaping the our essential systems, education, business, leisure, etc. to improve their bottom line?  Dos Paso remarked back in the 30’s that we were caught up in the “billiondollarspeedup”.  Are we ever!

    Here’s a perspective:  I’m thinking about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a structure for thinking about political reform.  In this analogy, political literacy is the equivalent of our need for the basics.  Immediately above the basics (food, shelter, safety in Maslow’s scheme) I would place campaign finance reform.  So, if we are going to “actualize” the higher possibilities of a sane, healthy democratic society, then campaign finance reform, as a tactic for taking back our country, has to be the need we must  meet before we can move on up, if you will.  Right?

    So, given that curious, engaged people are going to be focused all over the place, because that’s how it is, and given that our curiosity and the attendant diffusion of attention becomes the most significant distraction from addressing the single issue that prevents meaningful reform, what can we do? 

    Of course old Herman Melville was right “things spin against the way they drive,” as if the universe has some kind of mysterious congenital difference of opinion with itself, still we can be aware, strategically and systemically, in a way that can produce reform.  Don’t we just have to see how the need to get corporate money out of politics transcends all of the other issues relative to actually making some progress in this country?  So what?

    “Tag.  You’re it,” you keep saying, “get out there and get active.  Join your local Democratic Party….” Well, from the point of view above, wouldn’t that be putting the cart before the horse?  Shouldn’t finance reform be the issue to galvanize a large portion of the population to take to the streets and march, to stage such protests that even our main-stream would pay attention?  Well maybe.  Otherwise we’ll just face the crisis of the day, as our country continues to slide in a scary direction.  It seems to me that Campaign finance reform is the defining issue of our time.  And Just think about what the country might look like…. What do you say? 

    You should be proud of the fact that you have taken talk-radio to a higher level.  No doubt.  But perhaps the next level for you would be to engage people, both your listeners and people who have really thought about cultural transformation, how to really shift the paradigm.  Talk radio, sure a place to come to learn and be entertained, but also a place strategies are developed to get things done.

    Regards,

    Bob Cox

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Take care,

     

    Bob Cox

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 91
  • Not yet rated

• 17F 17F

  • From: leighmf
  • Description:

    We've heard of Ian Fleming, 17F and we've heard of Japanese Prisoner of War Camp Omuta 17F, now Carlyle Group Omuta Rex Mall.

    In this case. 17F (.3d723), the court reverses convictions for bank fraud on the grounds the first  tier of evidence, namely an FDIC Certificate was not produced by the prosecutors, and therefore NO JURISDICTION among other points was established.

    This is the back door provided by FDIC Legal Division for any sophisticated bank fraud scheme of The Organization which may get caught. It is simply a matter of requesting a jury trial, getting convicted, spending a little time mowing lawns in a federal camp, then appealing. After the fact, there are no FDIC certificates to provide so federal jurisdiction does not exist.

    17 F.3d 723

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Tom SCHULTZ and James Chaplin, Defendants-Appellants.

    No. 92-2828.

    United States Court of Appeals,
    Fifth Circuit.

    March 10, 1994.

    Thomas J. Bevans, Houston, TX (Court-appointed), for Schultz.

    Walter E. Herman, III, Humble, TX (Court-appointed), for Chaplin.

    Katherine L. Haden, Gaynell G. Jones, U.S. Atty., Paula C. Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for U.S.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

    Before JOHNSON, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

    JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

     

    1 Defendants James Chaplin and Tom Schultz were charged in a seventeen-count indictment with criminal acts surrounding a bank fraud scheme. Although a jury found each man guilty of the charged offenses, the Government failed to proffer sufficient evidence of federal jurisdiction. We therefore reverse.I. Facts and Procedural History

     

    2 Defendants Chaplin and Schultz were charged along with a third man, Kenneth E. "Jason" Lothamer, with executing a scheme to defraud and submit false statements to Texas Commerce Bank-Sugar Land ("TCB-Sugar Land" or "the bank") in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2, 371, 1014, 1344. Lothamer was the director, president, and sole shareholder of Construction International, Limited of Texas ("CIL"), a company which provided environmental products to chemical companies, railroad companies, and hospitals. On October 1, 1987, Defendant Chaplin joined CIL to manage the hospital hazardous waste division of the company and to become CIL's chief financial officer ("CFO"). As CFO, Chaplin assisted Lothamer in obtaining loans from TCB-Sugar Land. According to Chaplin, Lothamer would provide information to Chaplin, who compiled that information for presentation to the bank. Based upon that information, TCB-Sugar Land extended to CIL a line of credit which aggregated to approximately $5,000,000.00.

     

    3 Because the bank required collateral worth twice the amount of each loan, Lothamer would furnish the bank with invoices representing debts owed to CIL by various companies. Several of those invoices listed Dow Chemical Company and Rock Wool Insulation Company as owing CIL millions of dollars for thousands of feet of track pans.1 Those invoices were completely fabricated by Lothamer. On the Dow Chemical invoices, he represented that the contact person was Barbara Nelson and listed her Dow Chemical telephone number. In actuality, that telephone number was a CIL number, and Lothamer instructed his secretary, Susan Pickford, to answer that telephone line as Barbara Nelson and to verify the Dow Chemical invoices in question. The other CIL employees were instructed never to answer that particular line. Lothamer allegedly set up a similar system with Defendant Schultz. Schultz owned fifty percent of Rock Wool Insulation Company. That company, located in a Chicago, Illinois, suburb, installed fiberglass insulation. It did not purchase or install track pans. However, bank officials were able to verify the Rock Wool invoices for the purchase of track pans by calling Defendant Schultz on his "private line." That line was actually Schultz's home telephone number.

     

    4 This scheme unravelled in June of 1989, when the Sugar Land bank president could not reach Schultz to verify an invoice. The president, Lewis Garvin, therefore obtained Rock Wool's office number by calling information. Upon calling Rock Wool, Mr. Garvin learned for the first time that Rock Wool had not ever purchased track pans from CIL and, in fact, did not use track pans at all. After failing in its attempts to obtain valid invoices or the repayment for the latest loan--worth approximately $1,000,000.00--TCB-Sugar Land involved the FBI. On April 20, 1992, the Government filed a second superseding indictment against Lothamer, Schultz, and Chaplin, charging them with aiding and abetting,2 conspiracy,3 making false statements to an FDIC insured bank,4 and bank fraud against an FDIC insured bank.5

     

    5 Lothamer pled guilty just prior to his trial. Chaplin and Schultz received a joint jury trial. After the Government rested, Mr. Chaplin's counsel moved for acquittal, contending that the Government had not proved that TCB-Sugar Land was insured by the FDIC.6 The Government had produced an FDIC insurance certificate not for TCB-Sugar Land, but for TCB-National Association. Counsel for the Government argued that bank officials had testified that the Sugar Land bank fell under the charter of TCB-National Association. The district court, accepting the Assistant U.S. Attorney's representations, denied Chaplin's motion. The jury found Chaplin and Schultz guilty, as charged, and the district court sentenced Chaplin to thirty-seven months' imprisonment on counts one and two and a concurrent twenty-four month prison term on the remaining counts. The court sentenced Schultz to twenty-seven months' imprisonment on counts one and two and a concurrent twenty-four month prison term on his remaining counts. Both men were held jointly and severally liable for restitution to Texas Commerce Bank in the amount of $1,003,076.85. Raising several points of error, Defendants Chaplin and Schultz appeal.

     

    II. Discussion

    6 Each of the crimes for which the defendants have been convicted requires the Government to prove, inter alia, that TCB-Sugar Land was insured by the FDIC. As this Court has repeatedly and consistently stated, proof of FDIC insurance is not only an essential element of the bank fraud and false statement crimes, but it is also essential for the establishment of federal jurisdiction. United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842, 845 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094, 109 S.Ct. 2441, 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989); United States v. Trice, 823 F.2d 80, 86 (5th Cir.1987). Criminal defendants may therefore claim that the Government insufficiently proved the jurisdictional element post-verdict. Trice, 823 F.2d at 87. That Defendant Schultz failed to move for acquittal due to the insufficiency of the evidence of the jurisdiction issue is therefore of no moment. He did not waive the alleged jurisdictional error, and the applicable standard of review as to Schultz does not escalate to plain error. The insufficiency of the evidence standard is applicable to both Schultz and Chaplin. That standard, though more lenient than the plain error standard, is still quite formidable. The Court must review all of the admissible evidence and the reasonable inferences which flow therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that that evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trice, 823 F.2d at 86; United States v. Maner, 611 F.2d 107, 108-09 (5th Cir.1980).

     

    7 Here, the Government claims that the FDIC certificate of insurance for TCB-National Association, along with the testimony of two TCB-Sugar Land bank presidents and a TCB-Houston loan management vice-president sufficiently established that TCB-Sugar Land was insured by the FDIC. A review of that evidence follows.

     

    8 Lanny Brenner, president and chief executive officer of TCB-Sugar Land from 1983 until February 1, 1988, testified that Texas Commerce Banks were grouped into six bank clusters. Although he did not list each of the banks which belonged to his cluster, Mr. Brenner testified that TCB-Stafford was the largest bank in the cluster and that he, along with the presidents of the other four smaller banks, answered to the president and CEO of TCB-Stafford. Mr. Brenner also stated that loans had to be approved by the Loan and Discount Committee, which was composed of the presidents of the six banks in his cluster.

     

    9 After Mr. Brenner left TCB-Sugar Land, Lewis Garvin became president of the bank. The Government introduced into evidence reports addressed to the Loan and Discount Committee in which Mr. Garvin requested approval of loans to CIL. Several of the reports also requested that "TCB-Houston, Stafford Branch" or "TCB-Houston" participate in portions of the loans. Additionally, Mr. Garvin testified that after he became concerned about the bank's loans to CIL, he contacted the "Loan Management Department at the bank." He specifically talked with Mark Harris, John Kaszynski, and Cheryl Pace. Mr. Garvin neither explained the structure of the Loan Management Department nor identified "the bank" in which the department was located. He intimated, however, that he was subordinate to that department.

     

    10 Cheryl Pace, vice-president of the Loan Management Department, testified that that department operated out of the downtown location of TCB-Houston. Ms. Pace testified that she began working for Texas Commerce Bank in 1980 and transferred to TCB-Houston in May 1987, "when branching became effective in Texas." Ms. Pace confirmed that the chairman of TCB-Sugar Land was subordinate to the chairman of TCB-Stafford, who, according to Ms. Pace, was in charge of five banks in the southwest area. Ms. Pace also mentioned the "branch manager" of TCB-Sugar Land and intimated that all TCB banks were part of the same organization.

     

    11 The Government argues that this evidence, coupled with TCB-National Association's FDIC insurance certificate, sufficiently established that TCB-Sugar Land was a branch of TCB-National Association and was covered by TCB-National Association's FDIC insurance policy.7 Although we agree that the Government proved that TCB-Sugar Land was, in some way, related to TCB-Stafford, TCB-Houston, and to a larger, but nebulous, Texas Commerce Bank organization,8 we find that the Government failed to prove that TCB-Sugar Land was insured by the FDIC--whether under TCB-National Association's policy or otherwise.

     

    12 The FDIC insurance certificate and accompanying documents introduced into evidence conclusively refute the Government's contention that TCB-Sugar Land was a branch insured by TCB-National Association's insurance policy. Those documents specifically set forth the history of TCB-National Association. The Assistant Executive Secretary of the FDIC certified in writing that TCB-National Association was initially designated "The National Bank of Commerce of Houston" and became a member of the FDIC on January 1, 1934. On January 17, 1964, The National Bank of Commerce of Houston consolidated with the Texas National Bank of Houston. The bank then became "Texas National Bank of Commerce of Houston." Finally, on January 20, 1970, the Texas National Bank of Commerce of Houston changed its corporate title to "Texas Commerce Bank National Association." FDIC documents support each of the Assistant Executive Secretary's statements.

     

    13 Important for our purposes, the final FDIC document, dated January 30, 1970, specifically states that Texas Commerce Bank National Association operates no branches. The FDIC insurance certificate is also dated January 30, 1970. The Government introduced no document which reflected that TCB-National Association had added branches subsequent to January 30, 1970, or updated its bank control status after that date. Absent such documentation, this Court will not assume that TCB-National Association operated any branches in contravention to its FDIC records.9

     

    14 Indeed, at the time that the 1970 FDIC certificate was issued--and none has apparently been issued since that time--branch banking was illegal in Texas. The Texas Constitution specifically provided that corporate bodies with banking and discounting privileges "shall not be authorized to engage in business at more than one place, which shall be designated in its charter." TEX. CONST. art. XVI, Sec. 16, amended Aug. 23, 1937, Nov. 4, 1980; Nov. 6, 1984; Nov. 4, 1986. Under the McFadden Act, national banks could operate branches only to the extent that state banks could operate. 12 U.S.C. Sec. 36(c). Because state banks were prohibited from engaging in branch banking, national banks were likewise prohibited.

     

    15 While Ms. Pace, one of the Government's witnesses, testified that branch banking became effective in Texas in May of 1987, she no doubt was referring to a constitutional amendment passed by Texas voters in November 1986, which allowed branch banking in the city or county of the bank's domicile.10 See TEX. CONST. art. XVI, Sec. 16(e). Because TCB-Sugar Land is located in Sugar Land, Fort Bend County, and TCB-National Association is located in Houston, Harris County, TCB-Sugar Land could not have operated as a branch of TCB-National Association in May of 1987.

     

    16 The Government points out that a federal district court ruled that national banks could begin branch banking in June of 1988. Texas v. Clarke, 690 F.Supp. 573 (W.D.Tex.1988). The Government is absolutely correct. However, it did not introduce one shred of evidence which showed that TCB-Sugar Land became a branch of TCB-National Association subsequent to that decision. In fact, no witness even mentioned the name "TCB-National Association," let alone connected TCB-Sugar Land with that organization. Further, even if the Government had proved that the Sugar Land bank was a branch of the National Association bank, such evidence would have been insufficient to prove that TCB-Sugar Land was insured under TCB-National Association's FDIC insurance policy. See 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1817(j) (requiring notification of changes in bank control and acceptance by the FDIC of such changes); 12 C.F.R. Sec. 303.4 (1993) (same).

     

    17 The Government introduced the testimony of two TCB-Sugar Land bank presidents. If those officials had possessed personal knowledge of the bank's insurance status, their testimony that TCB-Sugar Land was insured by the FDIC during the periods in question, if unchallenged, would have sufficiently proven the jurisdiction issue in the case sub judice. United States v. Slovacek, 867 F.2d 842 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094, 109 S.Ct. 2441, 104 L.Ed.2d 997 (1989); United States v. Rangel, 728 F.2d 675 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1230, 104 S.Ct. 2689, 81 L.Ed.2d 883 (1984). For reasons unbeknownst to this Court, the Government chose not to elicit such testimony. The testimony and evidence the Government did proffer--that TCB-National Association was insured by the FDIC--are patently insufficient to prove that TCB-Sugar Land was so insured, even though the two banks may have been related. The Government therefore failed to establish federal jurisdiction and prove each prima facie element of the charges lodged against Defendants Chaplin and Schultz.

     

    18 This Court has continually cautioned the Government that its failure to adequately prove the jurisdiction element might one day require the reversal of bank fraud convictions.11 Maner, 611 F.2d at 112. That day came in United States v. Platenburg, 657 F.2d 797 (5th Cir.1981), in United States v. Trevino, 720 F.2d 395 (5th Cir.1983), and it has likewise come today.12

     

    III. Conclusion

    19 For the above stated reasons, this Court REVERSES and REMANDS with instructions that the district court dismiss the charges against both defendants. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150-51, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (holding that indictments must be dismissed when the Government fails to prove its case during trial).

     

    1 Track pans are fiberglass containers which are placed on railroad tracks to catch chemical substances which are wasted during the loading and unloading of railroad cars

     

    2 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2

     

    3 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371

     

    4 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1014

     

    5 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344. Congress amended this provision in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"). FIRREA replaced the Sec. 1344 requirement that the fraud be committed against a "federally chartered or insured financial institution" with the requirement that the fraud be committed against a "financial institution." While upon first impression this change might be construed as deleting the requirement that the bank be insured by the FDIC, upon closer review, we are convinced that that requirement is still viable. Among other things, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 20 defines "financial institution" as "an insured depository institution" and refers readers to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1813(c)(2). Section 1813(c)(2) defines "insured depository institution" as any bank or savings association whose deposits are insured by the FDIC

    The superseding indictment in this case alleged that TCB-Sugar Land's deposits were insured by the FDIC, so no other definition of financial institution is relevant here. Indeed, the Government failed to prove that any other definition was applicable in this case.

     

    6 Counsel for Mr. Schultz also moved for acquittal, but on other grounds

     

    7 The Government also contends that one TCB-Sugar Land check, which contained an FDIC symbol and stated that deposits up to $100,000 were insured, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank was insured by the FDIC. We reject that contention. An FDIC logo on a check no more proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank in question has FDIC insurance than a National Basketball Association logo on a jacket proves that its wearer is a professional basketball player

    Even if this Court were inclined to hold that an FDIC logo on a check sufficiently proves that a bank has FDIC insurance--and it is not so inclined--that holding would not benefit the Government here. The Government introduced more than 1200 checks, numerous credit and deposit slips, and various other TCB-Sugar Land documents into evidence. Only one check, amidst this voluminous record, contained the FDIC symbol. Were we to adopt the Government's reasoning, we would be more inclined to rule that the absence of the FDIC symbol on the other multitudinous documents in this case raises the inference that TCB-Sugar Land was not insured, instead of ruling to the contrary.

     

    8 The Government did not elicit any testimony about TCB-National Association, let alone prove that TCB-National Association and TCB-Houston are one and the same

     

    9 Federal statute and regulations require banks to notify the FDIC of changes in their control. They further require the FDIC to approve any such changes. 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1817(j); 12 C.F.R. Sec. 303.4 (1993). The Change in Bank Control Act became effective in 1964--six years before TCB-National Association assumed that name and 14 years before branch banking was allowed in Texas. See 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1817 (Historical and Statutory Notes) (stating that subsection (j), the bank control notification section, was added in 1964). Additionally, FDIC records must affirmatively reflect bank control changes and the FDIC approval thereof. See 12 C.F.R. Sec. 309.4(d)(2)(i) (providing that after the FDIC accepts a notice of a bank's change in control, records of the acceptance of the change, as well as information about the change, become available for public inspection)

     

    10 Until 1988, national banks only operated branches city-wide or county-wide. Texas v. Clarke, 690 F.Supp. 573, 575 (W.D.Tex.1988)

     

    11 This Court has often warned that insufficient attention to the jurisdiction element might become the Government's nemesis. See, e.g., United States v. Harrill, 877 F.2d 341, 344 (5th Cir.1989) ("[W]e again caution the prosecution about the proof of the jurisdictional element required in these cases. There must be adequate proof that the accounts of the financial institution were insured at the time of the offense by the appropriate federal agency."); Slovacek, 867 F.2d at 846 ("There are numerous indications in our prior decisions that prosecutors appear to be indifferent to the fact that we have held that the jurisdictional requirement ... is an essential element of the offense. Indeed, in some of these cases one searches in vain for any careful and intelligent effort to prove this element. We are aware that the offices of United States Attorneys frequently have a high turnover in personnel and limited resources. Nevertheless, we do not believe that this problem cannot be solved, especially when lack of sufficient proof of this element now compels reversal and dismissal of the indictment, not just remand for a new trial with better evidence." (internal quotation marks deleted)); United States v. Platenburg, 657 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir.1981) ("Despite the fact that FDIC insured status is an express requirement of the applicable statutes, an essential part of a valid indictment, and an indispensible (sic) item of proof of an offense, prosecutors have been extremely lax in the treatment accorded this element.... [I]n Maner we moved from cautionary statements to a clarion call that the day would come when our reluctance to reverse on the issue of FDIC proof would be overcome.... The day has come; the line from sufficiency to insufficiency has been crossed." ); United States v. Brown, 616 F.2d 844, 849 (5th Cir.1980) ("We have difficulty comprehending why the Government repeatedly fails to prove this element more carefully since the Government's burden is so simple and straightforward." (quoting Maner, 611 F.2d at 112)); Maner, 611 F.2d at 112 ("[T]his [failure to carefully prove the jurisdiction element] is a nationwide plague infecting United States Attorneys throughout the land. Hopefully the Attorney General will sense and remedy this national deficiency by directions pointing out the simple ways to prove this simple but indispensable fact.")

     

    12 The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have likewise reversed convictions due to the Government's failure to prove that financial institutions were federally insured. United States v. James, 987 F.2d 648 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Shively, 715 F.2d 260 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1007, 104 S.Ct. 1001, 79 L.Ed.2d 233 (1984)

     

     

    #######

  • Blog post
  • 1 year ago
  • Views: 93
  • Not yet rated