This is a little journalistic experiment. Before I began American Whistle Blower I had originally envisioned a project of verse journalism based off my unpublished Empirical Tales verse novel, with the news being reported by the political personalities of my 8 diverse characters. The project was to be called the Empirical News. I wrote about 35 articles, and although I enjoyed it, it often took me 1-2 days to research and write within this rhyme scheme, whereas on this site, excluding research, I can normally complete a blog in 1-5 hours. It's just too time consuming. There are a few that are not specifically time sensitive that I will post here and there. Depending on feedback, I might write a new one now and again.
The rhyme scheme is stonerian, it runs in an AABC CCDE EEFG GGHI indefinite pattern and Connie P., in fact, is one of it's originators.
The Uncontrolled Market Diseases Our Land
By Connie P.
I continue to think of the problems we face
As a nation, who’s quickly become a disgrace
In the eyes of the world, for many good reasons
Of social and global issue.
The one thing in common I hold to be true
Is money is power and held by a few.
It’s a fact that our nation’s run by the Elite,
Whose money has tainted the law.
Consider how Bush came to power and all
The donations that Oil’s held over his jaw.
Consider the war that we find ourselves in
And the ones who have profited most.
Consider the profits that Mobil does boast
Then think of the war that does rage ‘cross the coast.
It’s a fact, and we all are responsible seeing
That justice is served in our land.
We have as American’s greatly been scammed
By Elitist interests which have left the rest damned.
And still this continues in numerous ways
In other extremes than the war.
A privatized market has no moral core
Leaving Man to their greed with themselves put before
The welfare of others, who too share the earth.
There is a problem with this.
Our market’s self centered and truly does miss
The goals of cohesive, societal bliss.
Since this all is our land, we need to prevent
The Elite from assaulting Our poor.
As if sick Oil profits in light of the War
Weren’t enough (as our gas prices endlessly soar),
Consider the profit the privatized market
Has stolen from students in need.
Financial aid should be free of such greed
But that isn’t the case, as it’s now come to feed
The pockets of those who are turning a profit,
Who’ve deceived to bring fortune their way.
There have been great admissions where companies pay
School loan officers off with gifts to display
Their name as a lender who has been preferred.
This is a special interest.
Some students, therefore, have been greedily pressed
To take private loans that were not in the best
Of their interests, but were of the private lender‘s,
When federal funds did exist.
So trusting, poor students, green under the wrist,
Do fall to the greed of the Capitalist,
Who haven’t provided a worth or a cause
Besides their own selfish pursuit.
We need an economy functioned to suit
The good of us all, not the ones with the loot.
Where is the sense in allowing this practice
When so many lose in the end?
Is it only the rich who are meant to contend
In this equal society, so many pretend?
What is so great of our capitalism
When deception is guiding our way?
We need regulation, at least to allay
The threat the Elite do continue to play.
We cannot allow those with money to pay off
Another for personal cause.
We need to reform the breadth of our laws
And account for the numerous, obvious flaws
Our current lax system allows the Elite
And make special interests a crime.
We need rethink how we come to assign
What business is fair with what crosses the line
As acceptable standards for turning a profit.
Money’s not reason enough.
We need to realize that without getting tough
The Elite will systemically make it more rough
On the ones who support their Elitist lifestyle.
We need to take back what was Ours.
I wrote this on 8 July 2007, one of my last completed. There was a report that had come out around that time about private lenders offering special perks and gifts to student loan officers, who would then push private loans onto naive students, when federal funds, which were better loans for the students interests, were available. And this was reported to be occurring on a widespread basis.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SavingForCollege/HowDidStudentLoansGetSoSleazy.aspx
I heard someone recently refer to this class of elitists as the predator class and I don't think a better term could be coined. This is unregulated capitalism. This is the rich all out exploiting the poor. It's what will continue happening as long as we don't change the rules.
Such predatory parasites.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
935 false statements for the whole world to see
In a two year period following the events of 9/11 leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration knowingly issued 935 false statements intentionally meant to mislead the public into supporting the war in Iraq, a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity concluded. The study was a joint non-profit venture with The Fund for Independence in Journalism, which tangibly offers us proof of this greatest deception.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/warcard/?source=c0107e3a
The study reported that on at least 532 occasions, high ranking members of the Bush administration including president Bush, vice president Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld factually claimed to have unequivocal proof of the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and/or a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Both claims have since been debunked, but it was these very falsely stated claims which galvanized public support for our current invasion.
These elite politicians lied to us and have murdered millions in the process. They have mismanaged this country and abused their positions of power. And they have not been held accountable for any of this, nor will they so long as they remain wealthy and well connected in this current elitist led system. In this greatest American crime, if the system won't reform the problem, we must reform the system.
Revolutions happen when too few alienate too many, and we are on the verge of this among the global community, where we have created great instability. And now it is out in the open, for the whole World to see, that we lied and misled them all into such for profit carnage. We are not merely as invincible as too many think, never experiencing war on our soil. It is imperative that we account for these crimes to the global community, and begin by spending our resources rebuilding what we have destroyed. It all begins by holding these criminals accountable, condemning them to the greatest of sentences for the war crimes they're guilty of. I would much rather see this crime handled internally rather than the alternative. They're guilty. It's all there. Speak out. The rest of the world is.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/warcard/?source=c0107e3a
The study reported that on at least 532 occasions, high ranking members of the Bush administration including president Bush, vice president Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld factually claimed to have unequivocal proof of the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and/or a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Both claims have since been debunked, but it was these very falsely stated claims which galvanized public support for our current invasion.
These elite politicians lied to us and have murdered millions in the process. They have mismanaged this country and abused their positions of power. And they have not been held accountable for any of this, nor will they so long as they remain wealthy and well connected in this current elitist led system. In this greatest American crime, if the system won't reform the problem, we must reform the system.
Revolutions happen when too few alienate too many, and we are on the verge of this among the global community, where we have created great instability. And now it is out in the open, for the whole World to see, that we lied and misled them all into such for profit carnage. We are not merely as invincible as too many think, never experiencing war on our soil. It is imperative that we account for these crimes to the global community, and begin by spending our resources rebuilding what we have destroyed. It all begins by holding these criminals accountable, condemning them to the greatest of sentences for the war crimes they're guilty of. I would much rather see this crime handled internally rather than the alternative. They're guilty. It's all there. Speak out. The rest of the world is.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Bush's proposed tax cut is a long term nightmare
President Bush has proposed a $150 billion tax break, currently being debated by Congress, which he claims will give our economy a shot in the arm in light of the impending/current economic recession. The problem is that such a move is shortsighted, favors the elite and Big Business and will do more long term damage than short term good.
This new tax proposal is reminiscent of the one he enacted in 2001 shortly after taking office, in which individual tax payers received a $300 refund, while married couples received $600. The problem is that this money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere currently is the national deficit. In short, Bush is proposing simply putting more money into circulation that doesn't exist. We're borrowing from our future.
This is shortsighted and slanted towards the favor of the elite. By simply dumping new money into the economy, the dollar will undergo further inflation, lessening our spending power and overall social standing. Think about it, if new money is just given away into circulation to consumers, nobody has gained anything regarding purchasing power or social standing. Every one's share will increase the same so there is no real gain. We simply will have more money to spend which is worth less than it was before, which invariably will end up in the hands of Big Business, which stands to benefit the most.
It is imperative that such trickle down economic schemes are exposed as the societal frauds that they are. The $300 and $600 rebates issued in 2001 had a minimal, almost non-existent impact on the economic health of the average American taxpayer. At the end of the year, an extra $300-$600 probably isn't going to save the mortgage. However that money will eventually enter the market, which is designed to consume consumers, meaning Big Business stands to earn greater profits by having greater financial capital available for consumers to purchase their consumer goods. See no one gains here except for wealthy businesses, unless you consider extra materials a gain. That is the essence of trickle down economics. A shot in the arm for Big Business. One reason the rich get richer.
This new tax proposal is reminiscent of the one he enacted in 2001 shortly after taking office, in which individual tax payers received a $300 refund, while married couples received $600. The problem is that this money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere currently is the national deficit. In short, Bush is proposing simply putting more money into circulation that doesn't exist. We're borrowing from our future.
This is shortsighted and slanted towards the favor of the elite. By simply dumping new money into the economy, the dollar will undergo further inflation, lessening our spending power and overall social standing. Think about it, if new money is just given away into circulation to consumers, nobody has gained anything regarding purchasing power or social standing. Every one's share will increase the same so there is no real gain. We simply will have more money to spend which is worth less than it was before, which invariably will end up in the hands of Big Business, which stands to benefit the most.
It is imperative that such trickle down economic schemes are exposed as the societal frauds that they are. The $300 and $600 rebates issued in 2001 had a minimal, almost non-existent impact on the economic health of the average American taxpayer. At the end of the year, an extra $300-$600 probably isn't going to save the mortgage. However that money will eventually enter the market, which is designed to consume consumers, meaning Big Business stands to earn greater profits by having greater financial capital available for consumers to purchase their consumer goods. See no one gains here except for wealthy businesses, unless you consider extra materials a gain. That is the essence of trickle down economics. A shot in the arm for Big Business. One reason the rich get richer.
Friday, January 18, 2008
A rational examination of the 9/11 conspiracy
The Japanese Parliament formally began calling for an investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, questioning the dubious findings of the official U.S. report, citing numerous inconsistencies that point towards an active U.S. role in the attacks. Knowing full well how absurd such a notion is to someone who hasn't fully realized the evidence and inconsistencies, consider the following facts before drawing conclusions:
To begin with, one would have to consider the questioning of the official United States report on the 9/11 attacks by an allied power like the Japanese to be major news. You're talking about a major foreign power implying that 9/11 was of our own creation. Such a story should be front page news, yet Google this topic in Google News or search in Yahoo News and you will find not even one single AP report covering this. Search the web though and you will find blog after blog reporting on this event. This happened on the 10th of January and by now should definitely have been picked up by the American media. After all, the bloggers have. It's not that the American media doesn't know about it, they just choose not to cover. This is evidence of an active conspiracy. It's just too perfect that not one major United States media outlet has picked up on this story. It's simple, they don't want it known. Below is a link to the actual Japanese parliamentary session, translated into English of course. This is major news.
http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/1551#comment_form
Now to some solid evidence and inconsistencies from the 9/11 conspiracy that need to be investigated by an outside, non-government agency.
1. There was no plane found at the Pentagon where flight 77 supposedly impacted. The official report claims the intense heat disintegrated the plane and the debris, but credible scientists have come forward and determined that the maximum output of heat generated by that plane with the amount of fuel known to have been on board would not have been enough to do what the report claims.
Furthermore, of the debris found at the site, some of the wreckage was not consistent with a Boeing 757. In the link below, head half to three quarters of the way down the page and notice the comparison between the engine of a 757 and the engine found at the crash site. You will notice that the engine of a 757 has a turban with a grooved center plate. The turbine found at the crash site has a smooth center plate, with a completely different pattern at the end.
http://judicial-inc.biz/pentagon_flight.htm
The engine found at the site has since been positively identified as that of a 737. That's a huge problem. We know that flight 77 was a 757, and that some identification of the passengers from that flight were found at crash site (being paper and plastic id's it's difficult to imagine these things surviving the crash seeing as little of the metal from the plane survived?) So how is this explained? It hasn't been, the report didn't address it. And if that weren't enough, roughly 80 surveillance cameras keep watch over the Pentagon, but only one video has been released. Little can be discerned from the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZpXvCqjemI
There are many more inconsistencies. Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan during the aforementioned parliamentary sessions questions the unexplainable collapse of WTC building 7, which wasn't hit during the attacks. This too was left out of the official 9/11 commissioned report. Steel buildings don't succumb to fire, not the structure and foundation.
The conspiracy theorists believe that this was an inside government job, so it would stand to reason that a government led investigation wouldn't hold much weight. If the government were telling the truth, why all the secrecy and concealment of footage? The evidence doesn't add up. None of this means anything right now other than the official conclusions our government has drawn do not add up. This is why an official investigation from an outside source needs to be commissioned.
To begin with, one would have to consider the questioning of the official United States report on the 9/11 attacks by an allied power like the Japanese to be major news. You're talking about a major foreign power implying that 9/11 was of our own creation. Such a story should be front page news, yet Google this topic in Google News or search in Yahoo News and you will find not even one single AP report covering this. Search the web though and you will find blog after blog reporting on this event. This happened on the 10th of January and by now should definitely have been picked up by the American media. After all, the bloggers have. It's not that the American media doesn't know about it, they just choose not to cover. This is evidence of an active conspiracy. It's just too perfect that not one major United States media outlet has picked up on this story. It's simple, they don't want it known. Below is a link to the actual Japanese parliamentary session, translated into English of course. This is major news.
http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/1551#comment_form
Now to some solid evidence and inconsistencies from the 9/11 conspiracy that need to be investigated by an outside, non-government agency.
1. There was no plane found at the Pentagon where flight 77 supposedly impacted. The official report claims the intense heat disintegrated the plane and the debris, but credible scientists have come forward and determined that the maximum output of heat generated by that plane with the amount of fuel known to have been on board would not have been enough to do what the report claims.
Furthermore, of the debris found at the site, some of the wreckage was not consistent with a Boeing 757. In the link below, head half to three quarters of the way down the page and notice the comparison between the engine of a 757 and the engine found at the crash site. You will notice that the engine of a 757 has a turban with a grooved center plate. The turbine found at the crash site has a smooth center plate, with a completely different pattern at the end.
http://judicial-inc.biz/pentagon_flight.htm
The engine found at the site has since been positively identified as that of a 737. That's a huge problem. We know that flight 77 was a 757, and that some identification of the passengers from that flight were found at crash site (being paper and plastic id's it's difficult to imagine these things surviving the crash seeing as little of the metal from the plane survived?) So how is this explained? It hasn't been, the report didn't address it. And if that weren't enough, roughly 80 surveillance cameras keep watch over the Pentagon, but only one video has been released. Little can be discerned from the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZpXvCqjemI
There are many more inconsistencies. Yukihisa Fujita of the Democratic Party of Japan during the aforementioned parliamentary sessions questions the unexplainable collapse of WTC building 7, which wasn't hit during the attacks. This too was left out of the official 9/11 commissioned report. Steel buildings don't succumb to fire, not the structure and foundation.
The conspiracy theorists believe that this was an inside government job, so it would stand to reason that a government led investigation wouldn't hold much weight. If the government were telling the truth, why all the secrecy and concealment of footage? The evidence doesn't add up. None of this means anything right now other than the official conclusions our government has drawn do not add up. This is why an official investigation from an outside source needs to be commissioned.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sizing up the Democratic race
I'm not one of those "anybody but Bush people". Electing a President is far more complex than that, or at least should be. I'm also not the type of person who would rather see any Democrat in the White House rather than a Republican. I want to see the candidate who addresses the most pressing issues progressively, who has an actual plan in place rather than good sounding rhetoric, a person who is sincere and honest in their campaign. I feel that John Edwards fits this description the best but odds are he won't be on the ballot come the Presidential election.
I like both Edwards and Obama. I like what Obama says, how says it and the revolutionist tone of his speeches, though I feel that Edwards has a much more solid plan in place towards economic reform. Both Obama and Edwards have built their campaigns around change, and in fact when compared between the two of them, both candidates express similar desires. Both want to overhaul the tax codes, eliminating unfair tax breaks given to the elite while shifting the burden away from the middle class. Both further express similar distaste with Washington politics, in particular towards special interests, and seem intent on change there as well. While I will vote for either candidate should they make onto the 2008 Democratic Presidential election ballot, Hillary Clinton will not get my vote should they fail in the primaries.
We need a fresh approach to politics and Hillary is part of the old elitist vanguard, a politician's politician who sidesteps issues to avoid saying the wrong thing. She is better at pointing out the flaws in others rather than the strengths in herself. She has taken to low ball attacks on Obama ever since losing the Iowa primary, a sign of her political immaturity and divisive campaign strategy. Her economic policies are weak, amounting to nothing more than a band aid on a gaping wound, and out of all the Democratic hopefuls, I have seen her interviewed the most and she consistently sidesteps the toughest questions. She doesn't talk straight. She's very cautious and wary, seeking the fine line, and those aren't the qualities I want in a leader. I want a leader who calls a spade a spade, who isn't afraid to piss off a few in order to do what is right. Those are the qualities of a leader. Hillary has the qualities of a politician.
To me this election comes down to getting away from the Washington establishment which is run by special interests and corruption, while combating the destructive fascism that has swept in from the political right and overtaken our economy and political process. Both Edwards and Obama seem to share this concern. Hillary Clinton was raised in the Washington mindset. Out with the old, in with the new. Hillary Clinton will not liberalize this country.
Now if only Edwards would become Obama's running mate...
I like both Edwards and Obama. I like what Obama says, how says it and the revolutionist tone of his speeches, though I feel that Edwards has a much more solid plan in place towards economic reform. Both Obama and Edwards have built their campaigns around change, and in fact when compared between the two of them, both candidates express similar desires. Both want to overhaul the tax codes, eliminating unfair tax breaks given to the elite while shifting the burden away from the middle class. Both further express similar distaste with Washington politics, in particular towards special interests, and seem intent on change there as well. While I will vote for either candidate should they make onto the 2008 Democratic Presidential election ballot, Hillary Clinton will not get my vote should they fail in the primaries.
We need a fresh approach to politics and Hillary is part of the old elitist vanguard, a politician's politician who sidesteps issues to avoid saying the wrong thing. She is better at pointing out the flaws in others rather than the strengths in herself. She has taken to low ball attacks on Obama ever since losing the Iowa primary, a sign of her political immaturity and divisive campaign strategy. Her economic policies are weak, amounting to nothing more than a band aid on a gaping wound, and out of all the Democratic hopefuls, I have seen her interviewed the most and she consistently sidesteps the toughest questions. She doesn't talk straight. She's very cautious and wary, seeking the fine line, and those aren't the qualities I want in a leader. I want a leader who calls a spade a spade, who isn't afraid to piss off a few in order to do what is right. Those are the qualities of a leader. Hillary has the qualities of a politician.
To me this election comes down to getting away from the Washington establishment which is run by special interests and corruption, while combating the destructive fascism that has swept in from the political right and overtaken our economy and political process. Both Edwards and Obama seem to share this concern. Hillary Clinton was raised in the Washington mindset. Out with the old, in with the new. Hillary Clinton will not liberalize this country.
Now if only Edwards would become Obama's running mate...
Thursday, January 10, 2008
What the Iowa caucuses really told us
The 2008 Iowa caucuses had the obvious effect of propelling Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee off to a quick start towards each party's candidacy, but the less obvious, more disturbing ramification lay in the decisions by presidential hopefuls Joe Biden and Chris Dodd to drop out of the race altogether. That's the reality of economics in politics. Mind you, only 236,000 democrats cast a vote out of a state of roughly 3 million, which, by the way, set a new all time high. 116,000 republicans voted, meaning only 352,000 residents voted statewide. That's too few of votes having too big an impact.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17831592&ft=1&f=1001
We are stronger as a society when we have greater options to choose from, in especial regards to politics. Greater minds bring varied views. That's why the current system is so detrimental to our well being. By allowing campaigns and campaign financing to exploit the free market, as with the rest of society, those with the most cash fair the best, but by far are no means the best. We're allowing economic might to determine our leaders, the very reason the system is so corrupt. Hillary Clinton could have afforded a few more losses outside of New Hampshire had she not won. Dodd and Biden could not. That's not reason enough to be excluded from the race, but with such poor showings, it was far too expensive for the two to continue to burn cash in light of such gloomy outlooks. The problem is 236,000 Iowans represent such a small percentage of the U.S population and it would stand to reason had another state Biden or Dodd fared better in led off in the primaries, either could have continued in the race with a better showing, or even garnered momentum by winning as Obama did in Iowa. Why not look at the entire situation in a whole new light?
Throw the current system into the trash and start afresh. Set a spending limit restriction on each candidates' overall campaign. Outlaw third party endorsement propaganda and forcibly keep the advertised campaigning to actual candidates. Most importantly, use television for the tool it can be. This is what C-SPAN is for. Televise numerous debates including all the candidates running, (there would have to be a public support cutoff as in a petition, but such logistics can be hashed out) and hold round table discussions grilling the candidates to actually answer real questions that matter, instead of allowing political speak. Let the candidates bark it out and actually act like one would expect a president to act when met with confrontation, no holds barred. This would serve our society well, judging candidates by their ability to tackle issues instead of judging their ability to avoid controversy. There is no reason that 236,00 voters should have such a large impact on such a large society. That's reason enough to seek real change.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17831592&ft=1&f=1001
We are stronger as a society when we have greater options to choose from, in especial regards to politics. Greater minds bring varied views. That's why the current system is so detrimental to our well being. By allowing campaigns and campaign financing to exploit the free market, as with the rest of society, those with the most cash fair the best, but by far are no means the best. We're allowing economic might to determine our leaders, the very reason the system is so corrupt. Hillary Clinton could have afforded a few more losses outside of New Hampshire had she not won. Dodd and Biden could not. That's not reason enough to be excluded from the race, but with such poor showings, it was far too expensive for the two to continue to burn cash in light of such gloomy outlooks. The problem is 236,000 Iowans represent such a small percentage of the U.S population and it would stand to reason had another state Biden or Dodd fared better in led off in the primaries, either could have continued in the race with a better showing, or even garnered momentum by winning as Obama did in Iowa. Why not look at the entire situation in a whole new light?
Throw the current system into the trash and start afresh. Set a spending limit restriction on each candidates' overall campaign. Outlaw third party endorsement propaganda and forcibly keep the advertised campaigning to actual candidates. Most importantly, use television for the tool it can be. This is what C-SPAN is for. Televise numerous debates including all the candidates running, (there would have to be a public support cutoff as in a petition, but such logistics can be hashed out) and hold round table discussions grilling the candidates to actually answer real questions that matter, instead of allowing political speak. Let the candidates bark it out and actually act like one would expect a president to act when met with confrontation, no holds barred. This would serve our society well, judging candidates by their ability to tackle issues instead of judging their ability to avoid controversy. There is no reason that 236,00 voters should have such a large impact on such a large society. That's reason enough to seek real change.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
A call to outlaw private energy trading
The business of energy trading is one currently being ambushed by the private sector, where speculators have manipulated the natural balance between supply and demand. It is what capitalism has evolved to in recent years due to the vast consolidation of wealth among the ruling elite, and the reason that certain sectors of the economy need to be taken out of the for profit private sector. The cost of energy forms the very basis of our economic underpinnings, fueling the production and cost of production our nation realizes profit off of. Since everything begins with energy, it is inexcusable to allow this market to be manipulated by the wealthy.
So how exactly is the oil market driven, and what factors ultimately influence the price of gasoline? Well the answer used to be supply and demand, but that was before the days when investment firms thought about storing oil. The strategy currently in place which has catalyzed the upward drive of American gas prices to the benefit of these wealthy investors has been to buy the oil and put it into storage in large tanks to sell it later at a higher price than it was bought, never having to process the crude oil in order to earn a profit. Thus oil is traded much like a stock, except their truly is no reason that oil prices ever will come down. Think about it, just by purchasing the oil and keeping it out of the hands of the public, the supply is artificially driven down. Demand is guaranteed to increase for the foreseeable future by the very nature of human dependence coupled with a growing human population, so there is nothing to hold this market in check. It's nothing short of racketeering, save for the fact it's a legal practice in American capitalism.
The whole process is one giant manipulation which favors those with large amounts of capital to invest at the expense of the rest, and there's absolutely nothing positive gained by society in the process, only harm caused, unless you happen to be the wealthy investor that is. Energy speculators amount to nothing more than intrusive middlemen, who get a seat at the ballgame simply because they can afford one. This is the free market as it has become in this society, and there is no reason the masses should have to pick up the tab for a system that disfavors them. Capitalism is supposed to be a problem solving economic system, one that works towards solutions, but clearly here and in other sectors that should be non-profit governmental entities, it is the cause of problems, further burdening the working class with a direct impact on a higher national cost of living as fuel prices rise. This country needs to outlaw such practices and assure that capitalism truly rewards those making a contribution, not those looking for a free lunch!
So how exactly is the oil market driven, and what factors ultimately influence the price of gasoline? Well the answer used to be supply and demand, but that was before the days when investment firms thought about storing oil. The strategy currently in place which has catalyzed the upward drive of American gas prices to the benefit of these wealthy investors has been to buy the oil and put it into storage in large tanks to sell it later at a higher price than it was bought, never having to process the crude oil in order to earn a profit. Thus oil is traded much like a stock, except their truly is no reason that oil prices ever will come down. Think about it, just by purchasing the oil and keeping it out of the hands of the public, the supply is artificially driven down. Demand is guaranteed to increase for the foreseeable future by the very nature of human dependence coupled with a growing human population, so there is nothing to hold this market in check. It's nothing short of racketeering, save for the fact it's a legal practice in American capitalism.
The whole process is one giant manipulation which favors those with large amounts of capital to invest at the expense of the rest, and there's absolutely nothing positive gained by society in the process, only harm caused, unless you happen to be the wealthy investor that is. Energy speculators amount to nothing more than intrusive middlemen, who get a seat at the ballgame simply because they can afford one. This is the free market as it has become in this society, and there is no reason the masses should have to pick up the tab for a system that disfavors them. Capitalism is supposed to be a problem solving economic system, one that works towards solutions, but clearly here and in other sectors that should be non-profit governmental entities, it is the cause of problems, further burdening the working class with a direct impact on a higher national cost of living as fuel prices rise. This country needs to outlaw such practices and assure that capitalism truly rewards those making a contribution, not those looking for a free lunch!
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The self proclaimed hero Giuliani at work
No man has attempted to capitalize off the events of 9/11 more than Rudy Giuliani. In the words of democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, "Rudy Giuliani, there's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11". While comical, in reality the approach that Giuliani has taken to his campaign is highly immoral and a reminder of the fear used to rule this country for a little over six years now, since the event Giuliani continues to credit himself a hero of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ7-3M-YrdA
The fear I mention refers to an ad set to air on FOX News Channel and locally in New Hampshire and Florida. It's an illustration of the governing through fear approach the current administration has taken onto the third world, and an example of how more extreme this approach would grow under Rudy Giuliani. The link to the commercial is below.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/23304-rudy-the-next-crisis-is-a-moment-away?play=1
The transcript states:
"An enemy without borders. Hate without boundaries. A people perverted. A religion betrayed. A nuclear power in chaos. Madmen bent on creating it. Leaders assassinated. Democracy attacked. And Osama Bin Laden still making threats. In a world where the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who is ready."
"I'm Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message."
If I were just to read the transcript without the knowledge it was a Giuliani advertisement, I would think, "Yep, that's America under the neoconservatives." Seriously consider the following:
"An enemy without borders."- This easily refers to U.S. global imperialism and the enemy we are to the third world countries we destabilize and rob of resources.
"Hate without boundaries."- Same as above
"A people perverted."- The war wagers currently in the White House and the one trying to get in.
"A religion betrayed." That would be the Christians who put Bush into office twice, who've seen nothing productive for their cause since the elections.
"A nuclear power in chaos." Again, us.
"Madmen bent on creating it."- I think I've made my point.
Though my favorite is, "Democracy attacked.", as if the neoconservatives are taking credit.
The scariest line of them all though is the teaser, "In a world where the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who is ready." How appalling to approach on the offensive instead of recognizing the cause of the problem. For all that Giuliani mentions 9/11, he is seriously inept in understanding what happened that day. I've written articles on it and will continue to echo this truth until it becomes culturally known, but we created this problem in 1979, ravaging a region with a war they thought we were coming in aid to, unbeknownst we caused it by intentionally drawing the Soviets off sides into "their own Vietnam." The goal wasn't to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was to string them out as long as we could in a war they couldn't win, and we took millions of Afghanistan lives with us. There would have been nowhere near the fatalities incurred had we not intervened and brought destruction to foreign soil. A bit of a tangent perhaps, but it really shows you how sick Rudy Giuliani is with his pro-active, neoconservative approach to global affairs. The masses in this country have been ruled by fear too long. Understand Rudy Giuliani and the neoconservatives before heading to the polls.
http://americanwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-are-to-blame-for-creating-terror-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ7-3M-YrdA
The fear I mention refers to an ad set to air on FOX News Channel and locally in New Hampshire and Florida. It's an illustration of the governing through fear approach the current administration has taken onto the third world, and an example of how more extreme this approach would grow under Rudy Giuliani. The link to the commercial is below.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/23304-rudy-the-next-crisis-is-a-moment-away?play=1
The transcript states:
"An enemy without borders. Hate without boundaries. A people perverted. A religion betrayed. A nuclear power in chaos. Madmen bent on creating it. Leaders assassinated. Democracy attacked. And Osama Bin Laden still making threats. In a world where the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who is ready."
"I'm Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message."
If I were just to read the transcript without the knowledge it was a Giuliani advertisement, I would think, "Yep, that's America under the neoconservatives." Seriously consider the following:
"An enemy without borders."- This easily refers to U.S. global imperialism and the enemy we are to the third world countries we destabilize and rob of resources.
"Hate without boundaries."- Same as above
"A people perverted."- The war wagers currently in the White House and the one trying to get in.
"A religion betrayed." That would be the Christians who put Bush into office twice, who've seen nothing productive for their cause since the elections.
"A nuclear power in chaos." Again, us.
"Madmen bent on creating it."- I think I've made my point.
Though my favorite is, "Democracy attacked.", as if the neoconservatives are taking credit.
The scariest line of them all though is the teaser, "In a world where the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who is ready." How appalling to approach on the offensive instead of recognizing the cause of the problem. For all that Giuliani mentions 9/11, he is seriously inept in understanding what happened that day. I've written articles on it and will continue to echo this truth until it becomes culturally known, but we created this problem in 1979, ravaging a region with a war they thought we were coming in aid to, unbeknownst we caused it by intentionally drawing the Soviets off sides into "their own Vietnam." The goal wasn't to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was to string them out as long as we could in a war they couldn't win, and we took millions of Afghanistan lives with us. There would have been nowhere near the fatalities incurred had we not intervened and brought destruction to foreign soil. A bit of a tangent perhaps, but it really shows you how sick Rudy Giuliani is with his pro-active, neoconservative approach to global affairs. The masses in this country have been ruled by fear too long. Understand Rudy Giuliani and the neoconservatives before heading to the polls.
http://americanwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-are-to-blame-for-creating-terror-us.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)