I Don't Have To Share My Toast

For the first time in over a decade, I do not have to share my toast. I can come out of my office midmorning, wander to the kitchen, get out the bread and maybe some peanut butter, and have a piece of toast without a smiling face (or two a couple of years ago) coming in to meet me and demand a share of my repast.

Maggie, our yellow lab, was put down this past Tuesday. A battle with a cancer that ultimately put her in a position where we could no longer keep her.

The hardest part of putting an animal down, to me anyway, is not the loss I feel for myself, though I do miss her (and her sister a couple of years ago), but the feeling you get when you take them to meet their destiny...and you just can't communicate to them what is going on. It's a feeling of betraying an old friend - even if it is the right time to take them. You can't express to them the whats and wherefores of the situation. You can only get their eyes looking at you, maybe sad eyes or happy eyes or anxious eyes, but still they are the eyes that have trusted you for all these years....that is the hardest and saddest part of letting them go.

"Too Big to Fail" by Sorkin

As I finish up Andrew Ross Sorkin's book, "Too Big To Fail", and also reading this article about Rodge Cohan....I can't help but wonder how much commission was offered to the writers to pen these ego boosts. A book about the largest financial scams in history and I find myself searching desperately to find the antagonist(s). Instead, Sorkin paints most of the players as heroes doing Patriotic dealing to save us (and add to their income)....yikes. Upon introduction of many of the players it is as if Sorkin asked them to "please relate an amusing and cuddly anecdote of yourself so that you appear to be a mere mortal to the taxpayers you raped".

One of the most nauseating moments (of many) of Sorkins book comes as TaxEvading Timmy was set to take a morning jog along the East River after a hellish weekend of commandeering taxpyers money to bailout AIG (so they could give it to Goldman Sachs). Young Timmy gazes out at the morning commuters wondering if he has done the right thing. Seeing us, the unwashed non-financial masses, he thinks "it is about them", "Never mind the staggering numbers. Never mind the ruthless complexity of structured finance and derivitives, nor the million-dollar bonuses of those who made bad bets. This is what saving the financial industry is really about...protecting ordinary people with ordinary jobs" (page 409). Gee whiz, thanks Tim. Thanks for being there for us!!! No matter that the guys you are bailing out cost us "ordinary" folks untold amounts of present and future wealth and earnings, and taxes.

No need for Syrup of Ipecac after a dose of that...

The Pharma Game - Sell You More

Most every drug that Pharma creates has a natural counterpart that can be taken, or eaten, with little or no side effects. Natural remedies generate little profit and are not patentable and therefor of no interest to Pharma for the treatment of the people of the world. A lot has been written along these lines.

Pharma exist for the sole purpose of profiting from the patenting and sales of unique molecules claimed to have some curative powers on the human body. Mostly, our bodies do not recognize these unnatural molecules and we get some degree of "side effects"...their way of saying we are poisoning you slowly, or sometimes not so slowly.

Anyway, here are a few tidbits from some papers that I have come across. First, from Price Waterhouse Coopers publication entitled "Pharma 2020: The Vision". Ooh, sounds intriguing and insightful. I downloaded the pdf, I forget where I found it, but I imagine it is still available somewhere on the web.

Page 7

...pharma 2010 report contended that the industry's best hopes of earning higher returns lay in the development of packages of products and services targeted at patients with specific disease subtypes, if it was to make such "targeted treatments"...

So, this "vision" hinges on specific "profitable" diseases. And, packages of products...sell them more drugs at a time. Maybe that'll make us better in more of a hurry? And "targeted treatments"...is that a code word for "disease mongering"? The PLoS had an entire issue devoted to disease mongering

Page 22

"The vaccine sector is growing rapidly, then: there are 245 pure vaccins and 11 combination vaccines in clinical development, and some industry experts estimate that the market could be worth as much as $42 billion by 2015.

...includes vaccines for cocaine addiction, diabetes, hypertension, Alzheimers disease, psoriasis, food allergies, rheumatoid arthritis and nicotine withdrawal.

...there are 90 therapeutic vaccines for cancer in the pipeline"

I don't like to be a Negative Nelly, but this is undoubtedly going to offer false hopes to many people. And it is, yet again, a "give me a pill, Doc" false cure for a personal behavior issues. And, we are talking about targeting drugs and treatments for The Healthy. Pharma can't live with only treating the sick and in need...they must expand and grow. The healthy are next in line.

Page 24

"...seen from Pharmas persective, non-compliance thus represents a huge opportunity to maximize the value of its products. Indeed, Datamonitor estimates that better compliance could generate more than $30 billion a year in additional sales"

Non-compliance, meaning someone gets a prescription from the Doc and either says, I am NOT going to fill it, or take it...or maybe does fill it and does take it for a while and has side effects, etc. Pharma sees you as the enemy. They need you to take that drug, and mostly thye NEED you to get the refills. Imagine a Public-option government controlled healthcare system - where lobbyists have "sold" (actually bought) the idea to government that you can't be "cured" if you are not taking your meds, and that you can't be trusted to take them on your on. That knock on the door is your GCO (Government Compliance Officer), there to give you the pill and watch it go down the hatch. Could happen, very easily that could happen.

Next, some excerpts from a new article I came across titled "The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex: A Deadly Fairy Tale"

...two other areas America excels as a leader above all other developed nations is in being the premier breeding ground for the pharmaceutical industrial complex’s greatest profits and, second, as the world’s exemplar in medical fraud and corruption. The fairy tale of America’s health as being best served by drugs is a creation of this complex, a lullaby that brings ill citizens repeatedly to their doctors and hospitals for diagnosis and treatment, or simply to deny healthcare altogether to the uninsured.

The country is pacified by a blind belief that the drugs being prescribed to them have been proven safe because our government health agencies have our physical health and well-being in their best intentions. This is a lie, an extraordinarily deadly lie. Iatrogenesis, medically induced injury and death, is the number one cause of death in American medicine annually, since only a small percentage of these deaths are actually reported. Each year more Americans die from preventable deaths due to our medical system than all military causalities in the two world wars combined. This is tantamount to medical genocide. One of the major causes of these deaths is the overmedication of Americans in all ages. The constant need for profits has created an environment that allows the pharmaceutical industrial complex to use their enormous financial and political clout to literally make normal life experiences into new diseases, such as social anxiety disorder, in order to sell its drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has been given the authority to pathologize life, with the drugging of our children, seniors, etc. For example, the leading cause of AIDS deaths today is a result of liver failure. This is not a condition of HIV infection, but a direct result of the anti-HIV drug AZT. Is it little wonder then that we are being intimidated and frightened into believing that mandatory vaccination is being touted even though the science of efficacy and safety, even the need, for these new swine flu vaccines is patently unproven. It is perhaps one of the largest falsehoods ever perpetuated on humanity that dwarfs the sleaze on Wall Street.

and

According to OpenSecrets.org, there are 3093 lobbyists in the health field and Big Pharma now spends approximately $1.2 million daily to persuade Congress to act according to their script. An investigation conducted by Medical Verdicts & Law Weekly found that 30 key lawmakers are involved in health legislation totaling $11 million in health investments. Three of every four major health firms have at least one lobbyist who worked for a congressman. Startlingly, nine lobbyists employed by Big Pharma are former congressional staffers who are still well-connected to Capitol Hill. The conflicts of interest are everywhere. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the Obama nominee for Commerce Secretary, who withdrew because of opposition to the Administration's agenda, is a senior member of the Health Committee. He revealed that he has $254,000-$560,000 in health stocks.

and last, but certainly not least

In order to understand how we can spend 2.6 trillion this year on healthcare, but not reduce the incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, mental conditions, arthritis, etc., we must realize this is a game. With each piece of the puzzle, feeding into a single picture of a massively corrupt, unethical, and frequently illegal system controlled by relatively few corporations within the pharmaceutical complex and the health insurance industry, are the ring leaders. They in turn influence thousands of lobbyists, paid-off scientists and academicians, and policymakers, especially those who rule on important health oversight committees. Health officials and legislators in turn solicit expert witnesses, preselected by the cartels, to position their drug agendas in the most favorable manner. The pharmaceutical cartel also has direct connections with its supporting scientific advisory boards and key foundations. These foundations, supported by policy think tanks who supply the so-called independent experts, then lobby the upper echelon within the FDA, NIH, CDC, NIMH, HHS. Ideally they hire former health commissioners and legislators previously players in the game to assist those same federal agencies to see their drugs guided through the regulatory process. Public relations and advertizing firms are contracted to give the public impression that these drugs are effective and safe for the sole reason they have received official licensing. In addition, the cartel creates front organizations with consumer-friendly titles whose representatives appear at national conferences and seminars beholden to special drug interests. Finally, the drug corporations set money aside to be paid out in settlements. With the exception of class action suits, the majority of cases for injury and death are accompanied by confidentiality clauses to prevent public disclosure of data the companies wish to remain secret.

This is how the medical system is rigged and it is why we can watch 60 Minutes or read the New York Times serving as pharmaceutical shills to encourage vaccination, yet refusing to air or print the dissenting voices who have the scientific evidence to show it is a massive fraud. Therefore, the public is misled every step of the way.

My best advice...read up on healthy lifestyles, healthy foods, dietary supplements, etc. Get some exercise and sunshine. Only go to the doctor after giving it careful consideration and reconsideration.

Just say "No"...to flu shots

As usual...follow the money.

They have game plans to sell us on the "need" to be vaccinated:

the Seven Step Recipe. Glen Nowak, now the Director of the CDC’s Media Relations, outlined a concise public relations template while serving as the communications spokesperson for the National Immunization Program. Speaking at the 2004 National Influenza Vaccine Summit, he presented the CDC’s seven steps. After a careful review of Nowak’s Powerpoint presentation we discover a very detailed and concerted PR and multimedia campaign that includes the following (quotes are from CDC’s materials):

• To encourage the belief that influenza infection can “occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors).” In other words, promote flu vaccination to those who don’t really need it.
• In order to “foster the demand for flu vaccinations” the CDC should target “medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) [to] state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) – and urge influenza vaccination.”
• By focusing on the message of dire health threats and human casualties upon those who don’t really need to be vaccinated, the CDC will reach its milestone of “framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”).”
• Throughout the flu season, the campaign would continue issuing reports “from health officials and media” to emphasize that “influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people – helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.”
• Of course, no marketing strategy is thorough without images. Ergo another ingredient in the recipe is to use “visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce).” link
  

A very good new article published in The Atlantic entitled "Does the Vaccine Matter?". IT is well worth the time to read, but cutting to the chase, basically No, it doesn't matter. Healthy people don't derive much, if any benefit, and unhealthy people are not likely to develop the necessary antibodies after being vaccinated to protect them from the viruses. Here are a couple of clips from the article.

He [Cochrane Collaboration’s Tom Jefferson, who’s also an epidemiologist trained at the famed London School of Tropical Hygiene] leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.

and

The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine “mismatches” occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge. Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, in Canada, offers another historical observation: rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased.

All of those millions of doses of vaccine go to bottom line profits for a few pharma's, but do little for, and possible even harm, the millions getting the shots.

"The vaccine market is booming," says Bruce Carlson, spokesperson at market research firm Kalorama, which publishes an annual survey of the vaccine industry. "It's an enormous growth area for pharmaceuticals at a time when other areas are not doing so well," he says, noting that the pipeline for more traditional blockbuster drugs such as Lipitor and Nexium has thinned.

As always with pandemic flus, taxpayers are footing the $1.5 billion check for the 250 million swine flu vaccines that the government has ordered so far and will be distributing free to doctors, pharmacies and schools. In addition, Congress has set aside more than $10 billion this year to research flu viruses, monitor H1N1's progress and educate the public about prevention.

Drugmakers pocket most of the revenues from flu sales, with Sanofi-Pasteur, Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis cornering most of the market. Link

And a couple of other reads....

NVIC vaccine news

and

Take Vitamin D Instead

Why Do We Believe Them At All Anymore?

Another admission of feeding us a line by the government...

Mr. Barofsky’s office also says that regulators were wrong to tell the public last year that the earliest bailout recipients were all healthy.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., for instance, said on Oct. 14 that the banks were “healthy,” and that they accepted the money for “the good of the U.S. economy.” The banks, he said, would be better able to increase their lending to consumers and businesses.

In truth, regulators were concerned about the health of several banks that received that first bailout, the inspector general writes.

The inspector general said government officials need to be more careful when describing their actions and rationale. In a letter included with the report, the Federal Reserve concurred with Mr. Barofsky’s concern about the statements made last year, but the Treasury Department said that any review of announcements last year “must be considered in light of the unprecedented circumstances in which they were made.” Link

Ya gotta love that last line from Treasury and Tax Evading Timmy...

I guess they weren't fans of Kennedy philosophy of government truths. Oh, for the return to the days of the Honorable and Competent Government Liars.

Profiting Under Guise of Philanthropy - Another Entry

I couldn't decide if this qualifies exactly as PUGP, but it seem close enough...for me. Yet another example of how those of wealth create the rules to their liking, while appearing to be doing deeds for the "common good". This example comes from an article written by economist, businessman Gary North.

Mount Desert Island, Maine, is the prototype Establishment enclave in America. There are three of them, all islands: Mt. Desert, Jeckyl (Georgia), and Jupiter (Florida). Mt. Desert Island is where a major aspect of the modern environmental movement was created: the lock-out.

In 1910, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. bought a 104-room granite mansion there, importing tiles from the Great Wall of China. [Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), p. 97.] Rockefeller then used Mount Desert Island as his first great experiment in permanently sequestering property away from the free market, which has an unappreciated tendency to develop properties aimed for sale to middle-class buyers.

Rockefeller and his elite neighbors – Edsel Ford was one of them – were concerned about "overdevelopment." [John Ensor Harr and Peter J. Johnson, The Rockefeller Century (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 199.] This is an elitist code word for "real estate sales to the upper middle class." They created an association and donated 5,000 acres to it; then they gave it to the Federal government. President Wilson used executive authority in 1916 to create a special monument; in 1919, Congress passed a law making it Lafayette National Park. Junior bought more land and donated it to the government; this is now Acadia National Park.

He and his peers repeatedly adopted the lock-out strategy, using tax-deductible money, to remove prime real estate from the market in wilderness areas surrounding elite enclaves. This raises the value of the remaining properties, and it secures an insulated social world for them. The area around Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is one of the prime areas where the Rockefellers own large tracts. This area has long been the focus of a Rockefeller-inspired lock-out, beginning in 1919. [Harr & Johnson, pp. 201-211.] Land values there reflect this: astronomical. But the original model was Mount Desert Island.

The Rockefeller family biographers say of Junior’s role: "Very shortly, he became a towering figure, the greatest ally the National Park Service ever had." [Ibid., p. 198.] The assistance was mutual. The National Park Service provides the authority to keep the rest of us out of these areas on a permanent basis.

This program to seal off prime wilderness areas from economic development had its origins in the special role of wilderness in the coming of age for the sons of the super-rich. It is one of the three ordeals of youth and early manhood: the wilderness summer (wealthy scion Teddy Roosevelt is the most famous exemplar); the academy (Exeter, Groton, etc.), and military service in wartime (again, Roosevelt the "Rough Rider" is most famous). [Nelson Aldrich, Jr., Old Money: The Mythology of Wealth in America (New York: Knopf, 1988), ch. 5: "Three Ordeals."] Mount Desert Island has been a big part of this. [Ibid., pp. 164, 166.] Nelson Aldrich, Jr., as part of the Old Money Establishment, is quite forthright about environmentalism’s social function for the Establishment: "The social religion of Nature, which began with rich kids going outdoors for their health, ends in political action against the condo developers, the shopping-mall impresarios, the army of entrepreneurs whom Old Money (and not Old Money alone) imagines despoiling Arcadia." [Ibid., p. 169.]

Well, they gave "us", the little people, a few National Parks, while they get to keep out "us", the little people, from having elbow room next door to them.

"Smart Choice" Program is a Joke

You may have seen a commercial on TV recently for some Kellogg's cereal including Fruit Loops and Cocoa Krispies...indicating that these cereals were "Smart Choices" for feeding your kids for breakfast. I guess the likes of John Stossels would say, "Give me a break". Labeling on these cereals indicate that they contain up to 41% sugar content per serving - the number one ingredient on the label...followed by corn flour - a high GI food. Talk about setting your kids up to become another member of the obese metabolic syndrome crowd. Pharmaceutical companies are probably wetting themselves watching these commercials in glee.

Here is a look at the head of the program and some "thought" behind the program

Eileen T. Kennedy, president of the Smart Choices board and the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, said the program’s criteria were based on government dietary guidelines and widely accepted nutritional standards.

She said the program was also influenced by research into consumer behavior. That research showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them.

“The checkmark means the food item is a ‘better for you’ product, as opposed to having an x on it saying ‘Don’t eat this,’ ” Dr. Kennedy said. “Consumers are smart enough to deduce that if it doesn’t have the checkmark, by implication it’s not a ‘better for you’ product. They want to have a choice. They don’t want to be told ‘You must do this.’ ”

Dr. Kennedy, who is not paid for her work on the program, defended the products endorsed by the program, including sweet cereals. She said Froot Loops was better than other things parents could choose for their children.

“You’re rushing around, you’re trying to think about healthy eating for your kids and you have a choice between a doughnut and a cereal,” Dr. Kennedy said, evoking a hypothetical parent in the supermarket. “So Froot Loops is a better choice.”

Wow...so it ranks as better than a donut...so let it have the appearance of being good for you? That is some sound logic? Huh?

I was watching a show on UCTV recently (University of California), a show they put on called Mini Medical School for the Public, a great show for the crowd that cares about things like their own health and well-being in a world run by idiots. Anyway, this particular show had a nutritional componenet to it, as many of them do. The lecturer showed a series of charts on some research done on kids blood glucose levels...and how they were affected by what they ate for breakfast. Kids that ate a high sugar breakfast, like Fruit Loops, had a significant spike intheir serum glucose levels as compared to kids that ate "other" foods lower in sugar. The elevated glucose continued for a few hours...but out at around 5 hours, or lunchtime, their glucose dropped to slightly below baseline, or becoming slightly hypoglycemic.

So, the kids were then offered free choice lunches. The kids that ate the sugary breakfast cereal, and became slightly hypoglycemic, ate 81% more calories at lunch than the other group....EIGHTY ONE PERCENT!! But Fruit Loops are a "Smart Choice"!!! Good Grief.

Maybe you guys on this Smart Choices Board need to get a second opinion...and get the conflicts of interest off of the board as well.

Oh, and just for your info, Smart Choices Board, since you obviously don't follow the news...in the last week or two here are a couple of things you might have missed:

A spoonful of sugar? Americans are swallowing 22 teaspoons of sugar each day, and it's time to cut way back, the American Heart Association says. link

and from the same article

Sandon said that parents can help lower that sugar intake by getting soda out of the house, looking at how much sugar is in their kids' cereal and substituting snacks like cookies with popcorn.

and Obama and friends are considering a sugary drink tax. So, why not tax sugary cereals as well?

Why we become Libertarians

Saying it succinctly

I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. You realize that there’s something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing. On the left, you have people who want to dictate your behavior under the guise of tolerance. Unless you disagree with them. Then the tolerance goes out the window. Which kind of negates the whole idea of tolerance. That’s the politically correct moralizing. Then when you become a conservative, the other kind of moralizing comes from religion. But if you remove both of those from the equation, what you’re left with is libertarianism.

From the right, you’ve got free markets. From the left, you have free minds. To me, that’s the only sensible direction. As you grow older, you kind of end up there. Especially if you drink and do a lot of drugs. link

Yeah, I guess that sums it up....

A Medical Skeptic Am I

Voltaire said, "the art of medicine is to amuse the patient while nature cures the disease", and that was said hundreds of years ago. What has changed?

If you are in a car wreck and have bones poking out or some other acute trauma then medical doctors are a top choice, but for anything chronic...uh-uh, they haven't that much to offer as far as cures anyway.

And, an admission of the lack of power of medical "gods" to cure us, from Dr. D. M. Hegsted's and Dr. Beverly Winikof's statement presenting the "Dietary Goals for the US" in February, 1977:

There is a widespread and unfounded confidence in the ability of medical to cure or mitigate the effects of such diseases [heart disease, diabetes, etc] once they occur. Appropriate public education must emphasize the unfortunate but clear limitations of current medical practice in curing the common killing diseases. Once hypertension, diabetes, arteriosclerosis or heart disease are manifest, there is, in reality, very little that medical science can do to return a patient to normal physiological function. As awareness of this limitation increases, the importance of prevention will become all the more obvious.

...oh, and their low fat dietary guidelines were probably the root of our increasing obesity/diabetes problem, but that is the subject fro another post.

And some lighter weight stuff...a doctor joke..."the flu lasts 7 days with treatment, and one week without it".

The Spanish Minister of Health said of the H1N1 flu scare...it's "an epidemic of fear caused by a ghost illness being fought by exaggerated response".

Kennedy's death - the untold irony

Ted Kennedy died of cancer. Cancers are most common in modern westernized countries and less common in the remaining un-westernized reaches of the planet. Historic records of doctors and others show that incidences of "diseases of civilization" including heart disease, cancer and diabetes were much less common prior to arrival of the foodstuffs of the European and other westerners. These foodstuffs include sugar and highly processed flour.

Beginning in the 1950's the medical establishment was becoming convinced that fats may be the root of the evil causing among other things heart disease and cancers. Investigations of the hypothesis however, failed to reliably confirm their belief.

Flash forward to the mid and late 1970's. Senator George McGovern chaired the Senate Select Committee that drafted guidelines that led to a change in the American diet that still holds in effect today. The USDA food pyramid reflects the "expert" testimonies heard by this committee and the resulting guidance. Ted Kennedy was a member of this committee.

The recommendations were for increased consumption of carbohydrates and decreased consumption of fats (bottom of the food pyramid for carbs - hence, most calories, and top of the food pyramid for fats and oils with "use sparingly" noted)....the very diet that undid the health of other populations.

So, in a very real sense, they guided the population of the US to a diet that had already proven itself to be the bane of native populations that switched from their historic local foods (generaly higher in fat and protein) to the western diet rich in processed carbs - being high sugar and flour consumption.

I do not have a clue as to how Ted Kennedy ate...maybe he ate a healthy diet. But, maybe the guidelines that he helped implement led his dining patterns since the 1970's and led to the development of the cancer that ultimately consumed him. Food for thought.

Profiting Under the Guise of Philanthropy

Profiting under the guise of Philanthropy (PUGP) is a phenomenon that I have made more notice of over the last year or so. There may be, or probably is, a scholarly term for this, but I haven't run across it yet. But, the more you look for it, the more you see it.

Just this morning I was watching CNBC and they were interviewing the CEO of Toys R Us, and that corporation is beginning a program to have customers bring in a list of items such as car seats, cribs, walkers, etc that may be unsafe, had been stored incorrectly, or maybe have been recalled, or not, and the person bringing in the items would be entitled to a discount on new purchases. On the surface it seems like a reasonable program. But, is it only a manifestation of PUGP? Toys R Us is a for profit venture and only looking to expand their sales, right?

Some other examples:

1) J. D. Rockefeller and Carnegie effectively taking over the AMA and its Board of Directors, and then moving on to changing the face of the American medical establishment by getting his members on the Boards at most medical schools. He contributed huge sums of cash to the AMA and the medical schools, but to what end? He had been smacked down for his oil monopoly and had to make a living somehow, poor guy. Huge investments in pharmaceutical companies could surely use a boost by encouraging the medical schools to teach allopathic phamaceutical based medicine instead of naturopthic medicine. And the is effectively what he accomplished, driving the naturopathic schools out and taking over the allopathic schools....using philanthropy to make the US medical establishment "better"...for profit.

2) Al Gore donating his share of the Nobel Prize...very Philanthropic indeed. The charity getting this largesse is one that he chairs...promoting Climate Change nee global warming. Following the trail of money back in time we know of Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", an alarmist accounting of climate change meant to shock us into submission to grossly government actions. But how many are aware of Generation Investment Management, a company Gore cofounded that invests in businesses that would stand to profit with government policy implementation favoring such things as cap and trade:

GIM also owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), CCX in turn owns half of European Climate Exchange. This gives Al Gore a financial bias towards promoting global warming control through the issuing of carbon credits. Link and Link

So, Al's philanthropy may be based in goodness, but it is most definitely self-serving as well.

3) My local Wildlife Management Association. We received a nice sized Federal grant to do some wildlife habitat restoration. Most of the work to be done consists of prescribed burning of overgrown and neglected areas and letting the native grasses become reestablished. To that end a company that specializes in conducting the burns was hired to perform the work. The members of the association that applied for the grant asked for $100 per acre for the work and its follow up over a five year time frame. The members "assisted" the fire crew in the burns. The fire crew only charged $20-30 per acres for their services. So, where do you think all the additional funds were channeled? Because they wrote the grant and assisted with the burns...their philanthropic moment netted them a tidy sum.

4) A General One...have you noticed any type of ad that indicates "buy our product and we will donate" language. They are quite common. You buy wares and do good for some named cause, but "they" profit.

There are many more out there, the more you are aware of PUGP.

How to prepare for upcoming flu season

First, I am not a doctor. Second, I read a lot about this stuff and am mostly comfortable with what I do in looking out for my own health, but, investigate this yourself and don't rely on me to give you advice. That said, there are several good ways to prepare for the possibility of a bad upcoming flu season.

1) EpiCor - an immune system enhancer. It is outstanding from everything I have read. My wife and I started taking it the last part of last winter, and will resume taking it September 1st. Read about it...you will be glad you did. I buy my supply through Vitacost.

2) Vitamin D - Read this article, it is good. We take 5000 IU of vitamin D daily during the short daylight months per Vitamin D Council's recommendation.

3) Fish Oil - take a good fish oil supplement and avoid consuming too many vegetable oils. Read about this here.

Also, limit sugar and HFCS intake as they are known to be immune system suppressors.

We also prefer to avoid the flu shots as they tend to be beneficial to very few, and have issues with side effects...especially the vaccine for the H1N1...possibly unsafe and untested.

Why I Won't Be a Cooperative Consumer

Today's consumer confidence number showed a decline. We are still very wary. We are still not consuming as evidenced by the retail sector's earning reports. The obvious reason is the high unemployment and the threat of losing the jobs that are still out there.

I, on the other hand, am self-employed and derive my income from two main sources. First, being a petroleum geologist, I have (had) a fair income from natural gas production. But, being that we have been too good at finding and producing NG in unconventional sources the last several years, making for a high supply versus demand, the price of NG has fallen to where my income now suffers.

My second source of income is from interest and dividends. The FEDs zero interest rate policies have effectively driven us interest income folks to zero income. CD rates are only around one percent out to a year...and with the possibility of inflation creeping in it doesn't seem wise to tie money up for more than one year.

Other options for income drives us toward more risky investments like bonds or bond funds, or higher dividend equities or equity funds. Though some still have an attractive yield they come with the risk of loss of principal...not good for those of us intending to live off that money for a while, and not a great option on the tails of the capital losses that most of us have sustained over the last year.

So, Bernanke and Obama, etc, have bailed out the banks, and the bankers are fat and happy. They are reporting huge profits, huge salaries and raises all while offering near 0 percent interest to depositors. But, bounce a check and get hit with a huge fee that is another source of their record profits. We non-Banksters, on the other hand, have lowered confidence, lower personal income, lower property values and huge losses of jobs.

So, until you "bail out" us commoners instead of creating a gravy train for those parties largely responsible for creating this mess, I will be on the sideline making do with what I have. Wearing clothing a few extra years, driving a vehicle that is a little older, growing my own veggies and fruit, going out to eat less...and paying less in taxes to boot.

Buying Obamacare is UnAmerican

Asshat Pelosi offers that those that dare to speak out against Obamacare are unAmerican, and the White House puts up a website to have citizens rat-out anyone distributing "fishy" data on Obamacare.

But it is indeed AssHat Pelosi's American way to pay people to demonstrate and carry your message?

"Work to Pass Obama's Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!"

It's a web ad on Craigslist: "You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week."

The title of the article includes the word "volunteers"...ummm, volunteers don't make $10-15 per hour...these are paid shills.

Or, what about the other AssHat Pelosi American way of doing politics...buying your way into something. Obama buys the AMA's approval (though many doctors within AMA and state chapters did NOT approve of AMA's endorsement), and buys Big Pharma's vote and now, who is coming out with a multimillion dollar ad campaign?:

A new coalition on Thursday is launching $12 million in television ads to support President Barack Obama’s health-reform plan, in the opening wave of a planned tens of millions of dollars this fall.

The new group, funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, is called Americans for Stable Quality Care. It includes some odd bedfellows: the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA and SEIU, the service employees’ union. Link

Why is it like this...some endorsements of Obamacare by these strange bedfellows? Could it be, as the Dems capably do each election cycle, buying the votes? Bingo!

Obama's Big Push...Becoming Big Dud

After blowing the budget bailing out the record profit earning banks, on the heels of up to 97% calls against bail outs, Obama's calls for Cap & Trade on carbon emissions and health care reform all seem to be taking their toll on the populace.

Enough!, seems to be the public's evolving sentiment. Obama's poll numbers are dropping and the reason is - what he is proposing is not economically feasible and we know this from the past programs.

Cap & Trade will only add to costs for the consumers while making MORE money for the likes of Goldman Sachs and the government. And, global warming, aka Climate Change, is becoming more exposed for what it really is...a fear-mongering tactic to grab more control and more taxes. I like what George Will had to say at the end of his recent column:

When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade."

Which could explain why the Mall does not reverberate with youthful clamors about carbon. And why, regarding climate change, the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying.

Health care reform is also being exposed...see here.

A new Gallup poll shows that Obama is starting to get the cold shoulder from the public by trying to accomplish too much...not so much for what he is trying to accomplish, but that we all know it can't possibly be paid for and work as intended without BK'ing us all.

If Obama keeps pushing, the push back may well mean defeat for the Dems in the midterms, and a public that starts demanding a more accountable President.

Wow, at last a Shovel-Ready Obama project

I see president Barry is going to regale us with anecdotes about Obamacare on prime time TV.

This will be a shovel-ready project in the making....cleaning up all the bullshit he will be issuing.

Obamacare is supposed to offer a solution to the upward spiraling health care costs that most Americans face. But the truth of the matter is that. like most things the government touches, it will not work out as planned. The CBO says:

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that none of the bills he has seen would contain health care costs to reduce them significantly over time. This is the main argument offered by Obama and Democrats as to why Congress can spend $1 trillion and save money.

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf said.

“And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” link

President Obama, that is not what you will tell us, huh?

And, he will tell us that we can keep our current employee provided plans. But, the details of the plan apparently will make the governments plan such that after about five years employer plans become to costly and will likely be scrapped leaving us in the hands of you-know-who....and further increasing the costs. This is from a WSJ piece:

So when Mr. Obama says that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” he’s wrong. Period. What he’s not telling the American people is that the government will so dramatically change the rules of the insurance market that employers will find it impossible to maintain their current coverage, and many will drop it altogether. The more we inspect the House bill, the more it looks to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress. Link

And, they are not projecting the costs of this behemoth out past 10 years. Undoubtedly it will be come unsustainably expensive.

And, he will tell us the AMA has endorsed the plan, but not that he bought them off with plans to INCREASE their compensation under the plan even while he decreases compensation to the already struggling hospitals. He will also, no doubt, forget to include that some states AMA chapters are not endorsing the plan.

And, I feel quite certain, he will not come forward with the ultimate truth - the one that says we are already so in debt we can't afford anything new without huge tax increases...on small businesses, on corporations and on the individual.

Get your shovels out and have them ready. There will be work for everyone after this appearance.

Obama is cover for banksters, not about jobs

Let's see...Goldman Sachs gets funds under TARP.

GS just announced $3.4 Billion dollar profit for the 2Q 2009. Dong some quick math, that profit could sustain 60,000 jobs paying $50,000 annual salary, and again, that was just from three months worth of GS profits. GS has announced 33% pay and benefit increases to its employees...IOW the rich get richer.

OTOH, Obama and his campaign promise for adding jobs has done almost nothing. Aside from a few governors reporting the beginning of a highway project or two and a handful of jobs he has dropped the ball completely.

And now CIT is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and holds the card for possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions, and the Obama Admin turns them away cold. And is is already costing jobs:

NEW YORK, July 18 (Reuters) - An Alabama hardware supplier has blamed financial woes at U.S. lender CIT Group Inc for its bankruptcy filing, in an early sign of the effect a potential CIT Group Inc bankruptcy could have on millions of small U.S. businesses.

In court documents filed in U.S. bankruptcy court in Birmingham on Friday, Moore-Handley Inc said it was forced to seek bankruptcy protection "due to difficulties accessing funds" under their financing arrangements with CIT Group. Link

And other groups are calling upon Obama to help out:

Thirty-two trade groups, in an unusual display of unity, pleaded in a letter on Friday night for the Obama administration to reverse its decision and extend aid to the beleaguered small-business lender CIT Group Inc. as the firm inches closer to a possible bankruptcy filing.

The coalition, which included the National Retail Federation, the National Cotton Council, and the Southern Textile Association, sent a letter Friday night to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urging him to help the CIT avoid collapse.

The groups said “the number of jobs that depend on the successful outcome of the CIT crisis is immeasurable.” Link

And, after the report that Obama was doing nothing to help save CIT, there are now reports of CIT seeking financing through the likes of GS. IOW, somehow GS will be further compensated by the Obama administration...they help save CIT making untold millions/billions while most likely having some tacit backstop guarantees from Tax Evader Timmy at Treasury from a wink from the head bankster thug Barry Obama.

Important People

I don't even recall exactly when I heard it, but there was a local news report from a suburban business airport about a gate being left open and unattended at one end of the busy airport. The news guy said something to the effect of this being a major issue because "important people" come and go all day long from this airport. I wondered who he was talking about?

What is the definition of an "important" person? And who is a "less important" person, and of course, how about the "unimportant" person?

To me anyway, the important person has to be one who influences many of us. And, that influence must not be a coerced influence, but a voluntary person-by-person influence. The important person may or may not even realize they are important and influential. They must also be of high moral standing and one that walks the walk of their preachings or sphere of influence. They may be from any race or nationality, any social or personal wealth standing.

I think my definition would exclude most politicians. They seek to be "important" by thrusting their influence upon us through government coercion and legal threat. They are also, likely as not, ones that don't walk the walk of their talk.

Athletes and performers probably are excluded from my definition as well. Though they are no doubt, self-important, aside from helping sell us overpriced tickets to their events and, in the case of the athlete, overpriced paraphanalia for their franchises, they have little important influence on us.

So, what it all may boil down to is: Important people influence us without manipulating us. I doubt that many really important people fly from that airport.

GM Spin

Have you seen the new GM commercials, advertising their trucks through the years, and how they have helped "build America"? And at the end they make a comment to the effect of "if we are going to rebuild America" that GM's trucks, by golly, will lead the way to salvation?

And, as a loyal GM owner, I received a letter from GM in the mail a couple of days ago. Instead of an admission of inept management and decades to bring forth a good reliable fuel efficient auto at a reasonable price, and instead of admitting that they were bankrupt, they offered this spin...

"As you may know, GM is using an expedited, court-supervised process to accelerate the reinvention of our company. At the core of that reinvention is a commitment that we will put the customer first in all that we do - ..."

Okay, I get it. You built lousy cars in the 70's, 80's, 90's and into the 00's and now, only through "an expedited, court-supervised process to accelerate [your] reinvention" and a gobsmacking from the Democrats that now control you, you are finally realizing something needs to be done to compete with the Japanese automakers et al.

Guess what? Keep the rest of the GM points that I have earned from my GM credit card. I will not be redeeming them. After owning, lets see...I believe the number is 11 GM made vehicles, I am not going to be loyal any longer. Good bye GM. You have gone from the creator of such greatness as the Cadillac, Corvette and my beloved 1972 Grand Prix into Toilet Motors, on your own accord, and are now controlled by the US Government. I will not buy a vehicle from a government controlled, taxpayer funded GM.

Obama deploying WMDs

Yep, Oh!Bama is deploying WMD's on the world...that is, Wildly Monstrous Deficits.

In a nutshell, what he is doing is totally unsustainable, irresponsible and will lead us (more) swiftly down the road to financial oblivion. Higher taxes will not solve all the spending this administration is proposing. Social Security and Medicare are running out of money, now sooner than had been forecast.

These WMD's are going to ultimately have a wider range of effects than did Bushes concocted WMD's of Saddam in Iraq.

Be Angry At The Sun

by Robinson Jeffers:

That public men publish falsehoods
Is nothing new. That America must accept
Like the historical republics corruption and empire
Has been known for years.

Be angry at the sun for setting
If these things anger you. Watch the wheel slope and turn,
They are all bound on the wheel, these people, those warriors.
This republic, Europe, Asia.

Observe them gesticulating,
Observe them going down. The gang serves lies, the passionate
Man plays his part; the cold passion for truth
Hunts in no pack.

You are not Catullus, you know,
To lampoon these crude sketches of Caesar. You are far
From Dante's feet, but even farther from his dirty
Political hatreds.

Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.



....published more than six decades ago, seems timeless, seems somewhat appropriate as well.

Think as I do

The age of political correctness, think as I do or suffer the wrath of the opposition. Pity.

I like this:

Everywhere you look, the blight of umbrage continues to spread through our political system. The end of the campaign last year didn't slow it down. Blogs speed it up. Taking offense is your ticket to attention from the media. You can't win if you don't play. And it's not all on the left, either. Liberal columnist Joe Klein makes an ill-considered remark about conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, and every other conservative faints from the shock, awakening only to demand that the scoundrel be silenced. Can't anyone just shrug anything off anymore? Link

Speak your mind, you are entitled to your opinion. Just wear a helmet to fend off the stoning it might bring.

Oops, we made a mess, you clean it up

Former Countrywide Financial Corp. boss Angelo R. Mozilo, whose embrace of exotic loans helped fuel the mortgage boom and meltdown, will face Securities and Exchange Commission fraud charges unless his lawyers prevail in an eleventh-hour appeal, people familiar with the SEC's investigation said Wednesday.

Mozilo is among several former executives of the Calabasas company whom the SEC staff wants to charge in a civil case, one of these people said. He would face accusations of insider trading and failing to disclose to shareholders the risks the company was running unless the SEC's five commissioners overturn their investigators' recommendation. Link

I would like to see that smarmy weasel Mozilo doing the perp walk in a colored Federal jumpsuit, but with only civil charges against him, he will probably only be wrist-slapped rather than soundly thumped for aiding and abetting the loss of trillions of dollars around the world.

And the newest data out on housing sounds very dire indeed...

...the [word from the] National Association of Realtors today… the median home price fell 14% from the first quarter of 2008 to the first three months of 2009, to just $169,000. Of the 152 metropolitan areas surveyed by the NAR, just 18 registered annual price gains. Nearly half of all sales during the first quarter were foreclosed properties or short sales. A whopping 3.7 million previously owned homes are still on the market.

And RealtyTrac, which keeps up with the foreclosure data has this to say:

April 2009 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™, which shows foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions — were reported on 342,038 U.S. properties during the month, an increase of less than 1 percent from the previous month and an increase of 32 percent from April 2008. The report also shows that one in every 374 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing in April, the highest monthly foreclosure rate ever posted since RealtyTrac began issuing its report in January 2005.

“Total foreclosure activity in April ended up slightly above the previous month, once again hitting a record-high level,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “Much of this activity is at the initial stages of foreclosure – the default and auction stages – while bank repossessions, or REOs, were down on a monthly and annual basis to their lowest level since March 2008. This suggests that many lenders and servicers are beginning foreclosure proceedings on delinquent loans that had been delayed by legislative and industry moratoria. It’s likely that we’ll see a corresponding spike in REOs as these loans move through the foreclosure process over the next few months.” Link

Quite a mess and, no doubt, will be so for some time to come.

Heavy Handed Obama

On the one hand a case can be made that Obama is easy. Money handed to banks with little stipulation to actually do anything with it...easy money.

On the other hand, Obama is starting to come across heavy handed and thuggish in some instances. The Chrysler bankruptcy is the example most in the news. Forcing secured bond holders to settle for less than what bankruptcy and contract law call for, and giving more to the UAW than what they are entitled...heavy handed.

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors. link to above

...and with GM Obama is calling for a possible deal in the (likely) event of a bankruptcy of something approaching the following terms:

Government Trades $27B for 50% Stake
Bondholders Trade $27B for 10% Stake
UAW Trades $20B for $10B Cash and 39% Stake

Who gets their chops busted in that deal? I suspect it is very likely payola to the UAW, and unions in general, for their support of the Dems (and why Veep Biden is out hawking this stuff).


Lets hope his policy making gains some sensibility soon or the long term unintended consequences could be profound.

Electronic Medical Records - No Thanks!

Please, Oh!Bama, give up on the electronic medical records. THe majority of the doctors say they don't like it...and of course the privacy thing...

An extortion demand posted on WikiLeaks seeks $10 million to return more than 8 million patient records and 35 million prescriptions allegedly stolen from Virginia Department of Health Professions.

The note reads: "ATTENTION VIRGINIA I have your sh**! In *my* possession, right now, are 8,257,378 patient records and a total of 35,548,087 prescriptions. Also, I made an encrypted backup and deleted the original. Unfortunately for Virginia, their backups seem to have gone missing, too. Uhoh :("

The note goes on to demand $10 million within seven days, presumably from the time the data was apparently seized on April 30, in exchange for the key to decrypt the encrypted backup.

"If by the end of 7 days, you decide not to pony up, I'll go ahead and put this baby out on the market and accept the highest bid," the note says.

It's not immediately clear whether this note is genuine. The Virginia DHP hasn't responded to repeated calls and e-mail messages seeking comment.

However, a notice posted on the DHP Web site on Monday morning acknowledged that the site "is currently experiencing technical difficulties which affect computer and e-mail systems."

A spokesperson for the Virginia Attorney General's Office said the agency could neither confirm nor deny any knowledge of an extortion demand.

A note sent to the Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) Mail address listed in the ransom demand also has gone unanswered.

Extortion demands of this sort have become relatively common in data breach cases. Last October, for instance, Express Scripts, a prescription drug management company based in St. Louis, received a letter that threatened the release of millions of patient records. A month earlier, a man from Solana Beach, Calif., was arrested for allegedly hacking into a Maserati dealership Web site, accessing customer data, and then threatening to release the information unless the company paid him.

The attack technique -- capturing data, encrypting it, then selling access to the former owner -- has become popular enough to earn its own name: cryptoviral extortion. Link to article

Nope, it just isn't the right time. Wait till you have a budget surplus to work from...which will be, oh, never.

Equity Markets Move Today

The S&P is up about 2.5% currently. There seems to be an almost frantic move into the equity markets today after yesterdays release of the banking stress tests. Maybe those that have remained on the sidelines are finally dipping a toe in, or diving in. I have opened modest long positions in a few equities over the last couple of months...PM, BTE, EPD, WIN, HD...and made quick round trip trades in those and others. I am up on all my recently opened positions.

But, with the nature of this market and potentially the majority now thinking an "all clear" was sounded by the FED, assuring us no major bank would fail, can this move sustain, or is this the last gasp of a bear market rally. This brings to mind the words of Mark Twain...

Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect

I am thinking there's a little more run in this move, and then get the heck out with some profits. Let the majority wrestle for the top.

Some thoughts on Short Selling...

OK, so I am not hugely knowledgeable about the pluses and minuses of selling short in the equity markets, but here are a few thoughts. Maybe they are legit, or, maybe they are lame and I need to be schooled on why I am wrong in my thinking.

Short selling is said to be beneficial because it increases liquidity in a particular equity. Liquidity is defined as the ease of conversion of an asset into cash. If I do not own a particular asset than I should not be able to convert it into cash in the first place. Simplistic logic, yes, but here I believe simple reigns.

Taking an equity position in a company is becoming an owner of the company, and getting somewhat of a say as to the leadership and hence, the direction of the company. A short selling preempts that ownership, a short seller is NOT an owner...he is the antithesis of ownership.

Who really benefits from the short selling of an equity? It appears that anti-owners and market makers are the beneficiaries. Market makers get to continue selling shares at whatever spread they can muster when otherwise daily volume in a stagnant company might decline by a significant amount.

Proponents of short selling say that it helps find the true value of a company. I say it is to a company what mark-to-market accounting has been to the banking industry of late. Banks complained that having to mark-to-market some of their assets that they had no intentions of selling impeded their ability to maintain healthy balance sheets. Hmmmm? So, if I have no intention of selling my shares of a company, why should someone else be allowed to borrow them and sell them and undermine my balance sheet? It is the exact same logic. My shares are worth to me what my cost basis is, and allowing them be be taken and revalued by a non-owner is absurd....

...what if this were allowed in say, the home real estate market. In a neighborhood a couple of houses are for sale, the vast majority are not for sale. The average price in the 'hood is 100K. The owner of one of the For Sale homes is desperate to sell and accepts an offer for 95K. Short sellers, sensing blood in the water, begin shorting the other residences...95K, then 90K, then 85K....selling homes that are still occupied by folks with no intention of moving, but now living in a home that had been revalued by someone with no ownership in the area. A manipulation of price.

Speaking of manipulation of price, that is my next beef with shorting. It is widely believed that a consorted effort, if not an orchestrated effort, by hedge funds and other large investors may have been behind the voluminous decline in the financial sector stocks. And, with no up-tick rule in place, their effort was relatively smooth with hardly a bump in the downward slide.

Currently there are hearings going on regarding short selling...

informal inquiries...are being conducted quietly over a rash of complaints by investors who say losses they've incurred are a result of deliberate shorting through unregulated hedge funds. link.

But when you've had guys like this running the SEC in the manner that he ran the SEC it is no wonder that we had the unscrupulous crowd running wild on Wall Street.

JFK Quote

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is afraid of its people."

John F. Kennedy, 1962

I wonder how JFK would be regarded today espousing ideas such as the ones contained in the above quotes? Surely he would be regarded as batty, as is Rep Ron Paul for his calls for more transparency and adherence to the Constitution.

Bank Failure Friday Report

For 2009, banks number 30, 31 and 32 that were not amongst the elite "too big to fail" crowd were declared insolvent and closed on May 1. The anti-greenshoots were:

Bank Name	CERT #	Closing Date	Updated Date
America West Bank, Layton, UT	35461	May 1, 2009	May 1, 2009
Citizens Community Bank, Ridgewood, NJ	57563	May 1, 2009	May 1, 2009
Silverton Bank, N.A., Atlanta, GA	26535	May 1, 2009	May 1, 2009

Link to data

The list on the FDIC site shows banks failures back to October 1, 2000. Amazing the number of failures 2008 and 2009. You'd think we were in the middle of financial turmoil or something.

Is Government Stimulus the Answer?

Is the Oh!Bama spending spree going to get us out of this economic mess, or have we seen this movie before and know the ending?

FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"* link

How about Five Myths About the Great Depression.

Could I be wrong about the Stock Market?

How could I be so wrong in my thinking about where the markets should be heading? I have been bearish, awaiting a retest of the lows (and possibly lower than that) of March. I have been in and out of several individual equities with short term trades, on both the long and short side...but have held out of committing a significant amount to anything close to a "buy and hold" trade.

I mean, really, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many major banks for all practical purposes operating while insolvent, two auto makers bankrupt, massive unemployment, foreclosures on homes, the coming foreclosures on commercial real estate, health care costs rising, insurance costs rising, budget deficits with numbers to big to grasp...why would buy and hold be a good thing?

Maybe the March lows won't be retested because the fear of the financial markets meltdown has diminished. The government's involvement has backstopped that fear, and that low was caused by the panic preceding the "guarantee" that our banking system will survive.

But even with that backstop, and the rise of 30% or more off of that low, what compels this stock market to go higher. With the reasons listed above, how does this thing keep going up? Talking heads are attempting to convey optimism through the "green shoot" and "second derivative" arguments, so I can see not going DOWN, but why up more and more? The wall of worry is being climbed in the markets, but the vines they are clinging to are precarious.

For now I dabble with a few trades and make do. After suffering through the losses after the dotcom bust, and the first portion of this recession-induced decline, I continue to live by the thought, "I'd rather be out of the market wishing I was in, than in the market wishing I was out".

Goldman Sachs looking out for Number One

At least Goldman Sachs admits they are out to screw the world (link):

Goldman Sachs CFO David Viniar, 53, told analysts on April 14 that his firm took advantage of a reduced number of competitors to charge more for executing trades, even in some of the most liquid securities. The bank booked $6.56 billion of fixed-income trading revenue, 34 percent more than its previous record and five times Morgan Stanley’s.

and

Wall Street made money in the first quarter from traditionally unprofitable corporate loans and trades for their customers, as the gap between what banks pay to buy fixed-income securities and what they sell them for, the so-called bid-ask spread, almost doubled.

I am wondering who takes their business to GS now, and why? Bend over if you do.

RIP Pontiac

With the anticipated announcement from GM, Pontiac will be no more. RIP Pontiac.

My second car was a 1972 Pontiac Grand Prix. Loved it. While it was not one of the muscle cars, like GTO or Firebird, it had plenty of power. A 400 cubic inch, 200 hp V-8 moved it along at top speeds in excess of the speedometer...bwahaha.

It was solid as a rock, had nice chrome and was a pretty classy ride for a teen.

I wish I still had it.

A couple more blasts at Government Sachs...

First, a really good article entitled "The Quiet Coup", written by Simon Johnson who was former chief economist with the IMF. While not fingering GS explicitly it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to read between the lines and know who the players are in finance in the US. Here are some bits from the article:

In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). In each of those cases, global investors, afraid that the country or its financial sector wouldn’t be able to pay off mountainous debt, suddenly stopped lending. And in each case, that fear became self-fulfilling, as banks that couldn’t roll over their debt did, in fact, become unable to pay. This is precisely what drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy on September 15, causing all sources of funding to the U.S. financial sector to dry up overnight. Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking system has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a “buck stops somewhere else” sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for “safety and soundness” were fast asleep at the wheel.

But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector.

and this:

the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital—a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America’s position in the world.

One channel of influence was, of course, the flow of individuals between Wall Street and Washington. Robert Rubin, once the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served in Washington as Treasury secretary under Clinton, and later became chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs during the long boom, became Treasury secretary under George W.Bush. John Snow, Paulson’s predecessor, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity firm that also counts Dan Quayle among its executives. Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco, perhaps the biggest player in international bond markets.

These personal connections were multiplied many times over at the lower levels of the past three presidential administrations, strengthening the ties between Washington and Wall Street. It has become something of a tradition for Goldman Sachs employees to go into public service after they leave the firm. The flow of Goldman alumni—including Jon Corzine, now the governor of New Jersey, along with Rubin and Paulson—not only placed people with Wall Street’s worldview in the halls of power; it also helped create an image of Goldman (inside the Beltway, at least) as an institution that was itself almost a form of public service.

Next, from this:

You better read "The Usual Suspects," Matthew Malone's brilliant article in Portfolio magazine: He "exposed" the "Goldman Sachs 'conspiracy' to take over the U.S. financial system." Read it in this context: America's financial sector has exploded from 19% of corporate profits in 1986 to 41% today, becoming a magnet for every wannabe billionaire. They know why Wall Street must control Washington.

Malone focuses on the incestuous "conspiracy" of Goldman alumni in Treasury, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Citigroup, Washington lobbyists and politicians.

And, from the first article, how might this mess end...

The second scenario begins more bleakly, and might end that way too. But it does provide at least some hope that we’ll be shaken out of our torpor. It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and—because eastern Europe’s banks are mostly owned by western European banks—justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration’s current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy “stress scenario” that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks’ balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.

Under this kind of pressure, and faced with the prospect of a national and global collapse, minds may become more concentrated.

The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump “cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.” This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.

Financial stocks defying gravity

Despite a huge run-up in recent weeks, and despite ample hokus-pokus behind their "earnings" numbers, and despite numerous talking-heads daily calls of tops and impending pullbacks, and despite volumes that can only be called moderate, and despite outlooks that are still bearish....

...the financial sector stocks are continuing to rise. I smell a rat, or maybe a rat pack? A Goldman Sachs lead rat pack. Apparently GS has been trading much more for its own account (principal trading) of late, and maybe after hours in lighter trading volumes. Could this continued rally in financials be self-induced, or at least perpetuated by insiders? That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Tax Day. Revolt.

Tax Day 2009. Obama wants to raise taxes, local and state taxes and fees will also be rising, no doubt, due to shortcomings from property tax losses and falling sales tax numbers. I say, eff 'em all. Hide what you can, barter, trade, disguise income and pay as little as possible. The way that our government has rewarded malfeasance on Wall Street and mortgaged our grandkids futures with debt...and with no end in sight...why should we willingly contribute? We overwhelmingly told them to not bail out the banks, many had the count at 100:1 against the bailouts. Yet they did, and it sounds like they will continue to give them more and more. So, lets cut them off.

Find that income you SOB's...I may have made a few bucks, but you'll never know it.

Reading links:

Here and here

Government Sachs, errr Goldman

This is covered in great detail on many other sites and blogs, but I am going to get it in here as well...it is important for everyone possible to know the degree that our government and Goldman Sachs are in bed with one another...a scandal/conspiracy IN PLAIN SIGHT.

Here are some assorted clips from other sites regarding Goldman Sachs, PIMCO, TARP, TALF PPIP and other related topics:

‘Government Sachs’ Is Back

Who's designing Geithner's rescue plan? Goldman guys, of course.

As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end: Goldman Sachs will be there.

Back in the '90s and through the mid-'00s, major figures from Goldman Sachs such as Robert Rubin, Gary Gensler and Hank Paulson stood fast against derivatives regulation (Rubin and Gensler) and lobbied successfully for higher leverage ratios so they could bet more of their capital on the market boom (Paulson). When those policies came to grief and Wall Street imploded, and the Feds scrambled to rescue stricken insurance giant AIG, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was reportedly the only bank executive invited to an emergency meeting at the New York Federal Reserve (convened by then-Fed president Tim Geithner).

Now Treasury Secretary Geithner—a Rubin protégé, of course—has assigned two more ex-Goldman men to fix the vast mess their colleagues helped to create.

They are Steve Shafran, a former favorite of Paulson's, and Bill Dudley, Goldman's former chief economist and now the successor to Geithner as head of the New York Fed
Link to above

One on PPIP:

The PPIP is potentially a subsidy for a variety of financial institutions, many of whom have been seen in the markets buying toxic waste at 30 cents so that they may sell it to Tim Geithner’s Treasury at 80 cents. Some large bank CEOs will protest being “forced” to sell assets, but they will eventually rollover rather than be “Rick Wagonered” by Geithner et al. But the big payoff could be for the likes of our friends at PIMCO, Blackrock (NYSE:BLK) and the other asset managers who will be called upon to maintain this floating superfund site.
Link to above

How about reading Taxing grandma to pay Goldman Sachs, which includes the following:

Many retirees depend on interest from certificates of deposit. Those rates are down dramatically, and as CDs expire retirees are compelled to reinvest their savings at lower rates and live on less. They can take comfort that their sacrifices are helping pay off Wall Streets losses from the lavish bonuses paid bankers. For example, the $70.3 million Goldman doled to CEO Lloyd Blankfein in 2007.

Some other good reading on GS "earnings" for Q1 here. And a good blog to follow for this kind of stuff here. A link to a blog on Wells Fargo stress test.