Drug Company PR Reps Are Trolling My Blog

Ramesh has left a new comment on your post "Reader Mail #62":

After suffering all of my life with depression and then later in life (20-33) with severe anxiety, insomnia, and a general feeling of restlessness to the point I thought I was going to "crawl the walls", I was prescribed Seroquel. I quickly found out I had to take my dose at bedtime due to being so sleepy when I took it during the day. Seroquel has been the ONLY medicine that has worked for me to ease the symptoms of my Bipolar Disorder 1. A Big Thanks to Seroquel for making life easier for me!

Drug company PR reps look for blog posts with the keyword "Seroquel", and then post a favorable comment.

Google is useful! The exact same comment is on this page.iluzzion said:

User Rating: not submitted
After suffering all of my life with depression and then later in life (20-33) with severe anxiety, insomnia, and a general feeling of restlessness to the point I thought I was going to "crawl the walls", I was prescribed Seroquel. I quickly found out I had to take my dose at bedtime due to being so sleepy when I took it during the day. Seroquel has been the ONLY medicine that has worked for me to ease the symptoms of my Bipolar Disorder 1. A Big Thanks to Seroquel for making life easier for me!

102 user(s) found this comment helpful. Did you?

[October 30, 2007]

Here, the user name is "illuzion" and not "Ramesh".

It's nice to catch a drug company PR rep redhanded. Just because a website has pro-drug comments doesn't mean they're accurate!

A pro-drug comment isn't definite proof, but this incident is. Whenever I see someone claiming a psychiatric drug helped them, I'm incredibly suspicious.

Primetime: What Not To Do

On Friday, I watched the Charlie Brown Halloween Special. The 2nd cartoon was about a class election. In sitcoms, elections are usually decided by one vote, and one of the main characters forgot to vote.

Afterwards, I saw the first few minutes of "Primetime: What Would You Do?" It was flagrant pro-State pro-war trolling. It was an interesting reminder. The mainstream media has zero credibility.

They had actors pretending to be antiwar protesters. They also had a paid actor pretending to be a prospective army recruit. The protesters were getting into a fight with the recruit.

They had hidden cameras. People were supposed to come and join the dispute, siding with the army recruit. The announcer was impressed at the patriotic people supporting the recruit.

The fake antiwar protesters weren't even that extreme. They were saying "You're going to other countries and murdering people!" The "over the top antiwar statements" were exactly true! The announcer expressed disappointment, that people express such anti-America sentiment. They played some clips of real antiwar protests, ridiculing the protesters.

I was deeply offended. It was an explicit advertisement for war. It was so pathetic.

Why isn't the opposite viewpoint mentioned in the mainstream media? I'd like to see some comedy show do a bit like this.

guy dressed like Charlie Brown with distinctive shirt (CB): Do we have to do this again?
guy dressed like Uncle Sam (US) holding a football: Come on! Kick the football! You know you want to!
CB: You're going to pull it away and I'll trip and fall. We do this every 2 years.
US: No, it's going to be different this time. I promise. I would never lie to you.
CB: I'm not dumb enough to fall for this again. Do I really look that stupid?
US: I'm going to get it right this time! I'm all reformed!
CB: OK, I'll give it another chance.
(CB tries to kick the football. US pulls it away. CB trips and falls.)
US: What a blockhead! You fell for it again! I can't believe you're that stupid! I fool you every two years! HAHAHAHAHA!!!...
(CB pulls out a gun and shoots US, leaving a bloody corpse.)

The mainstream media would never allow something like the above to air. I really should get a camera and start my own vlog.

Is The BAC Mortgage Bond Buyback A Ponzi Scam Coverup?

Two interesting stories emerged at the same time. Is there a correlation?

First, mortgage bondholders are suing Bank of America and other banks. They are demanding that Bank of America buy back now-junk mortgage CDOs. Those CDOs had a face amount of $47B. Obviously, the fair market value is much less than $47B now.

Surprisingly, the Federal Reserve is joining the party. They are siding with the bondholders, pressuring Bank of America to buy back the bonds. Why should the Federal Reserve care?

Second, some mortgages were sold to multiple CDOs!

You might say "WTF? How does that work? Where does the second payment stream come from?" The answer is that you Ponzi it. You sell a mortgage multiple times. You use the payments from one sale to finance the interest payments on the others. It's accounting fraud. As long as the housing market is booming, you can keep the Ponzi scam running.

One homeowner stopped paying his mortgage. Two different banks tried to simultaneously foreclose! That's how the "same mortgage sold multiple times" scam got caught.

The official reason for the lawsuit is "Bank of America didn't properly administer the mortgages. The mortgage paperwork was bungled. They didn't foreclose in a timely fashion when payments stopped, adversely affecting bondholders."

Is that a lie? Maybe Bank of America executives deliberately sold the same mortgage in multiple bonds. They do *NOT* want a lawsuit and discovery, where this fraud will be exposed.

Normally, when banks sell a crappy product, the buyer is stuck. The banksters usually say "HAHAHA!! We tricked you into buying! You're stuck with the losses now!" In a departure from normal practice, Bank of America will probably buy back the disputed bonds.

One rule of parasite logic is "Never admit wrongdoing!" Bank of America would lose face if they bend over and settle. Every other customer they cheated would come demanding a refund. That would set a bad precedent.

That's why the Federal Reserve is intervening. Bank of America executives say "We don't admit wrongdoing. However, the Federal Reserve asked us politely, so we'll settle." By bringing in the Federal Reserve, this gives a way out.

Executives at Bank of America have enough influence to get the Federal Reserve to do whatever they want. If the Federal Reserve is publicly pressuring Bank of America to settle, Bank of America executives probably approve of the action.

Since the Federal Reserve demanded a bond buyback, they will lend Bank of America money at cheap/free interest rates to finance the buyback. Now, the fraudulent bonds are on Bank of America's books, where nobody will ask questions. Years later, other earnings will offset the loss. Bank of America will quietly write off the loss due to this fraud.

Summarizing my conspiracy theory:

1. Bank of America sold the same mortgage in multiple CDOs.
2. The bondholders realize they were cheated, and are suing.
3. The full extent of the fraud hasn't been publicly exposed yet.
4. Rather than have a trial and discovery, Bank of America *MUST* settle.
5. If Bank of America rolled over without a fight, that would be suspicious. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is pressuring them to settle. That gives them an out.
6. The Federal Reserve will loan Bank of America money at cheap/free rates (less than 1%) to finance the bond buyback.
7. Over time, there will be a bailout via inflation. If you lend someone money at 1%, while true inflation is 20%-30%+, that's a stealth bailout.
   
8. Federal Reserve insiders can lend as much money as they want to whoever they want, without any public disclosure.
9. Bank of America will keep the bonds on their books for the face amount, or do a swap/sale with the Federal Reserve.
10. Once Bank of America buys back the bonds, there won't be any creditors asking annoying questions. They can cover it up.
11. Years later, the bonds are quietly written off as losses. Other earnings will offset the loss.
    

Am I sure this is true? Can I prove it? Of course not. These two stories are incredibly suspicious.

Were Bank of America (and other banks) running a mortgage bond Ponzi scam? Were they selling mortgages multiple times, and using the proceeds of one sale to pay interest on the others? If it is true, the banksters would be very eager to cover it up.

These two stories are incredibly suspicious.

CEO Attitude

At my wage slave financial programmer job, the CEO had a meeting where he gave a speech. He spoke for an hour, but actually said nothing.

That's an important parasite skill. Talk without saying anything, while reciting the correct buzzwords and phrases. It's an imitation of the way a real leader would talk.

I once saw Hillary Clinton give a speech. She spoke for an hour, without actually saying anything. If you speak in vague platitudes, then everyone will be happy. If you are specific, then someone might be offended. If you're a high-ranking State parasite, you have to give the illusion that you're a good leader, while saying nothing.

Some people were smiling and nodding as if it were the most brilliant speech they'd ever heard. I felt like punching them. However, they may have been genuinely fooled.

The CEO had a Q&A period afterwards. I considered asking "What are your plans for after the US financial system collapses?" He probably wouldn't have had a sense of humor. He'll be one of the last to know it's over.

A week later, I saw him around. I tried smiling at him. His reaction was telling. His body language said "Why is a peon like you being friendly with me?!" That's a key CEO attitude. Everyone else is inferior. (I'm not a typical slave, but he didn't notice.)

This is the problem with the US economy. The actual leaders are fake leaders. Their power is backed by State violence. The CEO is selected based on his ability to play the psychopath parasite game, and not based on his ability to be a real leader.

Many slaves believe that their leaders are intelligent and honest and have high emotional awareness. If that were true, then psychopaths would be excluded, no matter what system is in place. If you're sane, it's obvious who's a psychopath.

When the leaders are all psychopaths, then intelligent and honest people are excluded. From the psychopath's point of view, an intelligent and honest person is a punk who doesn't know his proper place.

A government violence monopoly maximizes the parasites' theft opportunities. The biggest psychopaths gain control of the State, so their crimes are cloaked under color of law.

A really free market is the best system for minimizing the damage of psychopaths. Intelligent people would form business that are much more efficient than those run by psychopaths. In the present, the State prevents this. If you have a business that challenges psychopaths, then they will lobby the State to crush you. Existing laws will be stricly enforced. They will lobby for new laws. You would be the victim of frivolous criminal charges, convicted in a sham trial.

Unfortunately, psychopaths won't voluntarily relinquish their power. You can't logically convince them, because they're psychopaths. The best solution is agorism, where intelligent and honest workers build a new system as the old one falls apart.

Market Crop Circles And Pay-Per-Quote

This story was funny. High-frequency traders stuff the market with quotes. Someone drew a chart of quote changes. There are amusing patterns.

The high-frequency traders flood the market with quotes. They change the quote by a penny. They change the quantity. They move back and forth 1k+ times per second.

How does this lead to profit? They may fool poorly-written algorithms.

By flooding the market with quotes, they may slow the server at a stock exchange or trader. If you have a slower connection or a poorly-written algorithm, the large volumes of quotes will hurt your program.

A quote doesn't cost nothing. Everyone must spend computing power processing each quote. Some high-frequency traders are publishing quotes in excess of computing power.

Right now, exchanges charge $0 per quote. To discourage high-frequency trading quote abuse, exchanges could start charging a millionth of a penny per quote. This would only deter people abusing high frequency quoting.

The fee could only be charged if your quote-to-trade ratio exceeds 1k or 10k, so serious traders and market makers would not be affected.

What useful work do high-frequency traders do? None. It's only "useful" in the context of a corrupt market. If the rest of society were interviewing the financial industry for a job, the banksters would not be hired. The State enables banksters and traders to earn high profits, without doing any useful work.

TBA Mortgage Bonds

The mortgage foreclosure scandal is interesting. Summarizing, the legal paperwork for many mortgages is defective. Without proper paperwork, the current mortgage owner lacks legal standing to foreclose. They may even lack standing to collect mortgage payments.

The paperwork was forged at nearly every step. This applies to "liar loans", when the mortgage was sold to a bank, when the mortgage was placed in a CDO, when the CDO was falsely given an AAA credit rating, and now when foreclosing. It's a systemic problem, and not just a couple of lazy/dishonest people. If you're "too big to fail", then there's no penalty for incompetence or fraud. Why be honest and skilled, when you can get a bailout?

There's a widely cited article about "document forging services". One firm had explicit fees for forging mortgage paperwork.

"Create Missing Intervening Assignment" $35

"Cure Defective Assignment" $12.95

"Recreate Entire Collateral File" $95

How can anyone publish a price list like that? That's blatant flagrant fraud. One firm explicitly said "Don't worry if the mortgage paperwork isn't in order! We'll forge and backdate whatever documents you need!"

As usual, the lawyers who organized the "document forging service" will face no penalties. They will get, at worst, a slap on the wrist.

The paperwork was left vague on purpose. This way, if someone asked questions later, documents can be forged as needed. If you have proper paperwork, you can't retroactively change your story.

There's a special type of mortgage bond called a TBA mortgage bond. Here's a source. Big banks trade billions of dollars a day of these.

For a TBA mortgage bond, the bank is buying an *UNSPECIFIED* mortgage bond. It's based on mortgages that haven't been issued/bundled yet. The mortgages are supposed to meet certain criteria.

Who would do that? Who would buy a bond without knowing any of the details? These are still heavily traded.

Is it really that much work to review every single mortgage? If a mortgage is worth $200k+, then wouldn't you hire someone to spend a few minutes verifying each of them before buying? If you figure $30/hr and one person can do 10 per hour, that's only an expense of $3 per mortgage, a negligible expense. The banks don't do this, because they don't really care what's in the mortgage bond. They can trick some fool into buying it. If you slap an AAA rating on it, then insurance companies and pension funds will buy without thinking.

Banks are willing to buy any mortgage bond, without bothering to read the details. That explicitly encourages fraud. All the big banks still heavily trade TBA mortgage bonds.

A lot of investment money is "stupid money". The fund manager is almost always gambling with other people's money. Why should he care?

I was really surprised when I heard about TBA mortgage bonds. Who would buy a mortgage bond where the details are unspecified? That explicitly encourages fraud and incompetence.

The housing bubble and foreclosure scandal are a symptom of a much bigger problem. All the leaders are psychopaths.

If all the leaders are honest and intelligent and emotionally strong, then the psychopaths are excluded. When all the leaders are psychopaths, then the honest and intelligent people are labeled as deviant.

When most/all leaders are psychopaths, they collude to keep out honest and intelligent people. Via State violence, psychopath-led organizations are not subject to market competition. A really free market is the best way to provide protection from psychopaths. With a government violence monopoly, psychopaths seize control of the State. Then, "color of law" provides the illusion of legitimacy for their crimes.

TBA mortgage bonds are a symptom of a much bigger problem. Big banks still heavily trade TBA mortgage bonds. Who would buy a bond where the details are unspecified?

Juan Williams and the NPR Religious Cult

NPR is a dangerous religious cult that's threatening America. Even though the 1st Amendment forbids a State religion, NPR receives some government funding.

Imagine if someone said:

"If I'm on an airplane, and I see someone listening to NPR, I feel threatened. Is he going to raise taxes? Is he going to advocate for laws that cripple my business? Are religious extremists with guns going to kidnap me for violating some obscure law?"

NPR acts like a crazy religious cult. Consider:

1. NPR issued a memo, saying that NPR employees are barred from attending the Stewart/Colbert rally. NPR restricts what cult members may do, even when not at work.
   
2. NPR places restrictions on what NPR contractors/employees may say, even when not at work.
3. By extension, NPR places restrictions on what employees/cultists may think. If you have the "wrong" personal beliefs, you aren't welcome.
4. Many mainstream media corporations bar employees from self-publishing on the Internet, without their employer's consent/censorship.
   
5. NPR says "Journalists must be impartial!", which is parasite-speak for "You must have the bias we want, while pretending to be impartial."
6. If you break the rules, you are excommunicated/fired.
   

If you work for NPR, there are restrictions on where you can go. There are restrictions on what you can say. There are restrictions on what you can do while you are not at work. That makes NPR a crazy religious cult.

There was another issue, "How much State funding does NPR receive?" The answers were conflicted. NPR receives funding at a national level. Each local affiliate also receives State funding. NPR receives another State subsidy in the form of broadcast spectrum. NPR receives the monopoly right to use certain frequencies for their broadcast, another State subsidy.

Even "private donors" may be State insiders. If a CEO gives $1M to NPR, that's a type of State funding. The "donation" may be in exchange for favorable "news" coverage.

Fox also receives State funding. Like most large corporations, the News Corporation has debt on its balance sheet. This debt is at a negative real interest rate, making it an indirect State subsidy. The State cable monopoly carries the Fox channels. If I tried starting my own TV channel, then the State cable cartel would not carry my channel. I can self-publish on the Internet, but that isn't going to be as valuable as having my channel bundled with the others when you buy a cable package.

Juan Williams was working as a freelancer for Fox in addition to NPR. This gave NPR cultists a reason to want to get rid of him. Fox propaganda contradicts NPR propaganda.

This is a very disturbing trend. Someone says forbidden statement X. Then, they are fired, and usually blacklisted from getting another job.

At least Juan Williams isn't unemployed. His value to Fox increases, after being unfairly fired by NPR. Fox gave him a $2M contract.

Surprisingly, there was backlash against NPR this time. People are saying "Is it right to fire someone, just because they said something you didn't like?"

Even more offensive, Juan Williams' boss refused to meet him in person, to discuss his firing! The boss knows, on some level, "I did something wrong." That's scummy, especially since he was there for years. When I was unfairly fired, the person who organized it was never present.

That's a common State parasite attitude. "I'm the boss and you're not. Therefore, all my decisions are correct." In a State corporate monopoly, you become CEO by playing the parasite manipulation game, and not by being an actually skilled worker.

Depending on the contract details, Juan Williams should be owed the remaining amount. However, it may have a general "at will" clause, or a vague "personal conduct" clause. It probably isn't practical for him to sue for payment. Besides, he got a good contract from Fox News. Typically, when someone is excommunicated from the mainstream media, they are blacklisted and never find another mainstream media job.

Juan Williams' forbidden statement was "People in Muslim religious clothes make me feel uncomfortable, because I'm concerned about violent terrorism." The mainstream media plays a lot of anti-Islamic implied hate speech. Juan Williams crossed the line and was explicit.

An actual terrorist would try to wear inconspicuous clothing, rather than religious attire.

The whole "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy is anti-Islamic hate speech. If you support property rights and religious freedom, it's obvious they should be allowed to build whatever they want on their property. When the mainstream media doesn't say "WTF? Respect property rights and religious freedom!", they are promoting anti-Islamic hate speech. Religious freedom means respecting all religions, including the ones that are wrong.

The "guys framed by the FBI for a bomb plot" incident is more anti-Islamic hype. Summarizing that incident, a paid FBI informant talked people in to plotting to blow up a synagogue, when they probably would not have tried it without his prodding.

I have noticed one thing about strict Islamic people. They tend to be more severely pro-State brainwashed than most Americans. That's probably due to a religion that allows less individual freedom. There is a body language difference between strict Islamic people and typical Americans.

This is a disturbing pattern. A celebrity or journalist makes forbidden statement X. Then, he is fired. Usually, the victim never finds another mainstream media job, but Juan Williams was lucky. The mainstream media is a crazy religious cult that demands strict control of its members.

"Competitive Devaluation" Fnord

I heard another new fnord phrase. It's "competitive devaluation". It's another way of referring to the "Worldwide Hyperinflation Race".

If you give a complicated obscure name, then an evil idea sounds noble. "Competitive devaluation" makes it sound good. If you say "The banksters are printing money and giving it to themselves.", then it sounds evil.

That's a common and amusing State trick. They make up nice-sounding names for evil ideas. If you keep inventing new names, then the same old evil is disguised.

Eric Holder Promises To Enforce/Ignore Federal Anti-Marijuana Laws

This story is pretty funny. If California decriminalizes marijuana, attorney general Eric Holder says that he will still strictly enforce Federal anti-marijuana laws.

"Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if the state's voters approve a ballot measure to legalize the drug," Pete Yost reports for the Associated Press.

I guess he should have a meeting with Eric Holder from February 2009.

Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday that the Justice Department will no longer raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, and marks a major shift from the previous administration.

That would make a good Daily Show bit. Jon Stewart took a week off, and hasn't had the opportunity to ridicule that yet. I wonder if any of his writers read my blog?

In 2009, Eric Holder said he would respect states that wanted to nullify Federal anti-marijuana laws for "medical marijuana". Now, he says that he will strictly enforce the law no matter what states do.

Once a bad law is on the books, State thugs can arbitrarily decide to start enforcing it more strictly or leniently. A bad law has inertia. The people who profit from it will always lobby to block repeal.

This also illustrates the fallacy of nullification. Even though people in California want to nullify Federal anti-marijuana laws, Federal thugs have more guns and will violently enforce their laws.

California's "legalize marijuana" law would only have teeth if it said "Any Federal agent who arrests someone for possession of marijuana is guilty of assault and trespassing. They will be arrested and prosecuted." Then, California police would have to be prepared to back that order with force.

However, that could lead to a civil war, if both sides resorted to violence. Unfortunately, State parasites are cowards. Politicians in California would never try this.

It's amusing to see Eric Holder "flip-flop", regarding whether he would respect the right of states to nullify Federal anti-marijuana laws. I'm surprised he isn't more sharply criticized for this. Why isn't the mainstream media calling out Eric Holder for reversing his February 2009 statement?

Annoying Baseball Playoffs

I'm pretty annoyed at the baseball playoffs and World Series. What's the point of watching when you know you can't see the end of the game?

The games don't end until midnight or later. I have a job and have to get up early for work. There's no way I can stay up to watch the end of the game.

It's typical corporate thinking. There's short-term gain from dragging out the game for 4 hours and padding it with extra commercials. It's alienating potential future fans, when you can't see the entire game.

Audience Of Professional Actors At Town Hall Meetings

This story was pretty funny. There will be an Obama "Town Hall Meeting" on MTV. There was a "casting call" published. They are hiring professional actors to be in the audience.

This post attempts to defend the casting call. I wasn't convinced. The excuse is "It's MTV's casting call and not the Presidents." That makes it acceptable? If MTV does a bad job with casting, then they probably won't get the President as a guest again. Besides, there probably are undercover State spies working for Viacom; it's well-known that State spies infiltrate most large corporations.

Unless they say at the beginning of the show "The audience is paid professional actors!", then it's immoral to pretend to have a "town hall meeting". You're providing the illusion of openness, while it's completely scripted.

This is disgusting and offensive. There was another candidate who used an actor, pretending to be a "regular guy".

Another example is "mental health drug" commercials. The "patient" is an actor, and not someone who actually has a mental illness.

Statists love "town hall meetings". They pretend to have an open forum, when they're really tightly controlling things. The town hall meeting provides the illusion of openness.

You only get to ask pre-approved questions. If you aren't going to ask the "right" question, then you don't get to give your question. The moderators screen the questions ahead of time. If you don't ask the question you tell the moderators you're going to ask, then you get tasered.

The power to cut off someone's microphone is also a great censorship tool. If someone asks a tough question, the politician gives a fake evasive vague answer. The questioner can't say "Answer my question you twit! Don't give me an evasive answer!" The microphone is passed to the next person.

They're taking it one step further. The audience is now professional paid actors. Why do they even bother faking it? Enough people are fooled by the charade.

Town hall meetings are offensive. It's pretend debate and openness. Just once, I'd like to see someone ask at a town hall meeting "Isn't all taxation theft? Isn't government just one huge extortion racket?" The fact that this question never comes up indicates that it isn't really an open forum.

The Food Safety Modernization Act

Evil laws are always given noble-sounding names. One example is the proposed "Food Safety Modernization Act" (S510). It should be called the "The Ban Small Farms And Heirloom Seeds Act" or "The Monsanto Corporate Welfare Act". (The Senate didn't have a final vote on S510 before adjourning.)

The law itself is actually vague. It says "FDA bureaucrats may do whatever they want." The FDA may then impose regulations that cripple/ban small farms. The FDA might declare heirloom seeds "unsafe".

More laws are written by regulators than by Congress. Other examples are the fake healthcare reform law and the fake financial reform law. A lot of the details will be determined later by bureaucrats/regulators.

In addition to lobbying Congress, insiders also lobby regulators. There's a "revolving door". You work as a regulator for a few years, and then you get a high-paying job in the industry you formerly regulated. If you make the "right" decisions as a regulator, you're rewarded with a high-paying job later.

Some people say that it's unconstitutional, when Congress delegates law-writing power to unelected bureaucrats. The regulations are exactly like a law, with potential violence or jail time for violating them.

When Monsanto sells seeds, they sell "terminator seeds". The plant has no seeds or infertile seeds, so the farmer must buy seeds again next year. "Terminator seeds" are completely unnatural. They're the product of an evil corporate cartel in a non-free market.

With "heirloom seeds", the farmer can keep the seeds to plant next year. Monsanto executives would prefer to have heirloom seeds declared illegal. The Food Safety Modernization Act is vague enough that the FDA could do this.

The Food Safety Modernization Act is only slightly more evil than laws that already exist. If it's illegal to grow hemp in your backyard, then why not make it illegal to grow tomatoes in your backyard? If incandescent light bulbs are illegal, then why not make heirloom seeds illegal?

Most of the recent "food safety" scares occurred at large corporate farms. The "solution" is more regulations that will cripple small farms. Regulations are a regressive tax, because the compliance costs is usually fixed, independent of the size of your business.

These "food safety" scares are heavily hyped by the mainstream media. Via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", these heavily hyped accidents are an excuse for laws that restrict people's freedom. Instead of forcing large corporations to behave, the actual effect of the regulations is that they cripple small businesses and small farms.

One example is the raw milk ban. People should be able to buy raw milk if they want to. If you buy directly from the farmer and drink it right away, it should be safe. If the milk sits in a supermarket for a week before someone buys it, then of course you have to pasteurize it. The "raw milk ban" favors corporations at the expense of small farmers.

A small business owners values his reputation, and must be careful. A large corporate cartel has a State-backed monopoly/oligopoly. It makes no difference if they have a good product or poison people. The way the legal system and regulatory system works, there's no penalty for selling contaminated food.

As another example, it's illegal to sell corn labeled as "non-GMO corn" (not genetically engineered). The FDA says "GMO corn is safe, so that label is unreasonable." However, the FDA is denying people the right to choose. If some people (irrationally?) prefer non-GMO corn, then they should be allowed to buy it.

Monsanto and large corporate farms would love to declare heirloom seeds and small farms illegal. The Food Safety Modernization Act is a typical corporate welfare law, disguised as a safety law.

Even though large corporations receive huge State subsidies, small farms are successfully competing with them. As usual, large corporations lobby the State to eliminate competition.

Some small farmers might be selling directly for cash off-the-books. The Food Safety Modernization Act could make this riskier, if "possession of tomato plants/seeds" is declared to be a crime.

"Ban heirloom seeds" and "ban small farms" doesn't pass the "too obviously evil" test. However, it's only slightly more evil than laws almost everyone already accepts. The actual law is vague, but the FDA bureaucrats could make a very pro-Monsanto interpretation of the law.

"This law is too obviously evil!" or "This law is obviously Unconstitutional!" argument doesn't work. Insiders may do as they please. Police/thugs then enforce those bad laws, saying "I'm just doing my job. I have to respect the rule of law."

State insiders know who are the masters and who are the slaves. If you say that a law is flagrantly Unconstitutional or too evil, then they will just laugh at you.

Foreclosure-Based Economy

Some large banks have been forced to halt foreclosures. Due to a legal technicality, the banksters can no longer prove who actually owns the defaulted mortgages. They lack the legal standing to foreclose.

If you stop paying your mortgage, I can't foreclose. I don't own the mortgage. Similarly, the foreclosing bank has to prove legal ownership of the mortgage.

This has crossed the line from incompetence to fraud. Some lawyers and executives have signed mortgage foreclosure legal documents without reading them first. These are the "robo-signers". Some documents may have been forged and back-dated. This is perjury, rather than mere incompetence.

I doubt there will be any serious penalties. It will be, at worst, a slap on the wrist. If you lie to State insiders, then you go to jail like Blagojevich or Martha Stewart. If State insiders forge documents, they're just doing what's necessary to keep the economy moving.

The laws regarding foreclosures and liens are very strict and specific. In the 18th and 19th century, land ownership abuse was common. This led to very strict and specific laws. It's foolish to change these laws because some banksters were sloppy with their paperwork.

Some State comedians have been saying "We have to keep foreclosing. Otherwise the economy will collapse."

WTF? The USA has a foreclosure-based economy.

Let's translate from brainwashed zombie economist to English. "We have to keep foreclosing. Even though there are no buyers, we have to kick people out of their homes. We were sloppy with our paperwork, and we need another bailout. Our $100B+ bonuses have to come from somewhere, and kicking people out of their homes is the way we make our money. So what if we rigged the housing market against these suckers? It's their fault. They deserved to be cheated. The slaves have to know that if they don't pay us, we'll steal their home. That's an important principle we must defend at all costs."

This is the problem with the USA. "Rule of law!" has degenerated into "Insiders get a bailout while individuals lose their homes and their savings."

It is offensive. The banksters received trillions of dollars in bailout money. People lost their jobs, and now can't pay their mortgage. The banksters get a bailout, but individuals lose their homes and their savings.

I didn't buy a home during the housing bubble. My reward should be that I can buy a home cheaply now. Unfortunately, that isn't happening. Speculators are buying the foreclosed homes with bankster financing. Statists are trying to prop up the housing market. That denies me the opportunity to buy cheaply.

Instead of buying a home, I invested in the stock market. I didn't lose everything like the people who have an underwater mortgage. I did lose a huge chunk of my savings. When you compare to true inflation, it's even worse.

A mortgage contract with a bank is not a valid contract. When you borrow money from a bank, the bank literally prints new money and lends it to you. In order for a contract to be valid, both sides must contribute something tangible. A bank performs no real work when they lend you money. This is not "Rule of law!" It's "Rule of banksters!"

The banksters rigged the housing market, causing a bubble. They got a bailout. Not satisfied with that, they insist on kicking people out of their homes, due to a depression the banksters themselves created.

For example, instead of bailing out the banksters directly, Congress could have given each American a check for $10k. (300M Americans * $10k = $3T, approximately what the banksters received) Then, people could have paid off their mortgages or spent it on other things. Instead, insiders stole trillions of dollars. Then, they further insist on foreclosing on those junky mortgages.

Insiders say "Respect the rule of law!" when they want to steal from you. Then insiders say "We want a bailout! Give us money or the economy collapses!" They can't have it both ways.

The banks already received trillions of dollars in bailout money. Why not let some slaves keep their homes on a legal technicality?

The banksters are saying "The US economy will collapse if we can't foreclose!" I can't believe anyone can say that without laughing. They are literally saying that the USA has a foreclosure-based economy.

Carl Paladino

Carl Paladino upset the guy who was "supposed" to win the NY Republican governor nomination. The mainstream media is pursing a massive smear campaign against Carl Paladino. That makes me think "He must be a good candidate."

Cuomo's primary qualification is "My father was governor."

Carl Paladino is running as a "Tea Party" candidate. However, that doesn't prove he isn't scum. Many of the "Tea Party" candidates probably are "controlled opposition". They're criticizing big government now, but probably will act differently once they're elected. Insiders may have picked people who "say the right thing". The mainstream media only promoted "approved" Tea Party candidates.

Ronald Reagan talked a good talk about evil big government. While he was President, the Federal government got bigger, both on an absolute basis and as a % of the economy.

It's very easy for State insiders to derail an electoral reform movement. The State media cartel promotes candidates who say some of the right things, but will still obey orders once elected. None of the mainstream "Tea Party" candidates say "All taxation is theft!".

If a politician breaks campaign promises, then the slaves have no recourse. All they can do is wait for the next election, and vote for a different insider-picked candidate.

For example, Carl Paladino was criticized for saying "State schools should not teach children that homosexuality is as desirable as heterosexuality. You shouldn't mistreat homosexuals, but you shouldn't actively encourage it." He contradicted State propaganda.

Actually, I noticed that's what actually happens. A parasitic homosexual person psychologically dominates an emotionally weak person, and makes them their gay sex slave.

I doubt that Carl Paladino would achieve any real reform as governor. It's still amusing to see the State media cartel slander him. I'm not holding my breath waiting for reform to occur via voting. It's still nice to see some candidates indirectly criticizing the State.

Is GM Going Bankrupt Again?

Here's an amusing anecdote. For their past several new cars, my parents have always bought from GM.

The GM dealer was so rude to them, that they decided to buy a Toyota. The GM dealer literally didn't return their calls.

Brett Favre

I don't understand the current scandal regarding Brett Favre. While playing for the Jets two years ago, the Jets hired a female masseuse. Allegedly, Brett Favre had an inappropriate relationship with her.

Why did the woman wait two years before making a claim? The State explicitly encourages people to wait years, before making sexual harassment claims.

"Sexual harassment" cannot occur in a really free market. If a worker feels mistreated, then they should switch jobs. In the present, the State places artificial barriers in the labor market. A mistreated worker doesn't have the option of quitting. "Sexual harassment" laws are an attempt to patch an unfair system.

If a woman makes a false sexual harassment claim, then the employer will generally fire the man without investigating. It isn't worth the potential legal liability to the employer.

Also, prostitution should not be a crime. If the Jets want to hire a prostitute for their star quarterback, then that should not be illegal. Instead, they hire a "massage therapist" and pretend to not know what's actually happening.

The Brett Favre scandal is an example of State propaganda. Prostitution should not be a crime. "Sexual harassment" laws are used for abuse. "Sexual harassment" cannot occur in a really free market; an abused employee would switch jobs. This Brett Favre scandal contains many evil fnords.

Quantitative Easing 2

Federal Reserve comedians announced plans for more "quantitative easing". "Quantitative easing" means "We're printing more money and giving it to our bankster friends."

Why are they calling this "Quantitative Easing 2"? When did "Quantative Easing 1" end? The Federal Reserve has been printing a boatload of money for the past few years. State comedians are saying "double-dip recession", as if the first one ever ended.

WTF? The Fed Funds Rate is already 0%-0.25%. They can't go lower. Recall that "real interest rate" equals "nominal interest rate" minus "real inflation rate". You can't lower nominal rates below 0%, but you can raise the inflation rate.

One way to raise inflation is via Federal deficit spending. Another way is via increased debt monetization. Normally, the Federal Reserve only purchases short-term Treasury debt. The Federal Reserve may purchase longer-term Treasury debt, flattening the yield curve.

Most banks have leveraged long positions in Treasury debt. When the Federal Reserve buys, bond prices rise. The banksters buy Treasury debt from the government, and then sell it to the Federal Reserve for a profit.

The Federal Reserve can purchase whatever it chooses, paying with newly-printed money. If Ben Bernanke wanted to, he could purchase houses directly, pushing up prices. That would be too obviously corrupt. Instead, the Federal Reserve buys mortgage bonds, either directly or via repurchase agreements. The Federal Reserve values the transaction at the book value, rather than the fair market value, bailing out banks. Knowing that the Federal Reserve would be buying, insiders bought mortgage bonds and then sold them to the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve can lend as much money as it chooses to whoever it chooses, without any public disclosure. Suppose that the Federal Reserve lends Goldman Sachs $1T for a year at 0.5% interest while true inflation is 20.5%. It's like the Federal Reserve gave Goldman Sachs $200B.

When it's a loan instead of a gift, that provides an illusion of legitimacy. When you lend someone money at a negative real interest rate, it's like a gift, because the loan can be repaid with devalued money.

The banksters are hostile to Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" proposal. Bankster lobbyists totally gutted the "banking reform" law. Right now, the banksters can print new money and lend it to themselves at artificially cheap rates. There's zero public disclosure. Technically, TARP was unnecessary. The Federal Reserve could have lend each insolvent bank unlimited money at 0%. However, the banks were so insolvent that it would have failed the "laugh test". The Federal Reserve bureaucrats couldn't do it without consciously realizing it was a massive con. Legally, the could have done it. Banks have received lots of cheap Federal Reserve loans, in addition to TARP.

"Quantitative easing" means "We're printing new money and lending it cheaply to our friends." This isn't free. Everyone else pays the cost via inflation.

State comedians give complicated noble names to evil idea. "Quantitative easing" makes it sound like a good idea. They should call it "quantitative stealing". "Print new money and give it to our friends" is a more accurate name.

Robert Kahre Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Here's a fake news story that seems like it's from bizarro universe:

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to political prisoner Robert Kahre. Robert Kahre is serving a lengthy jail term in the USA for protesting the IRS and fiat money.

Kahre made a tax evasion scheme that exploited a clever legal loophole. American Eagle gold and silver coins have a legal tender value that's far less than the fair market value. Robert Kahre classified his employees as independent contractors and paid them in American Eagle gold and silver coins. Valuing the transaction at the legal tender amount, it was less than the IRS reporting threshold.

However, Kahre charged the transaction as an expense to his corporation based on the fair market value.

This was a clever tax loophole. Unfortunately, IRS thugs don't have a sense of humor. Rather than merely disallowing the transaction, they pursued criminal charges against Kahre. Criminal penalties for tax evasion are a type of economic terrorism.

FBI/IRS thugs conducted a military-style raid of Kahre's business.

Unfortunately for Kahre, the US legal system is a sham. The first trial led to a hung jury. The prosecutors got a mulligan, and secured a conviction in the re-trial. Robert Kahre is now serving a prison sentence as a political prisoner.

The Nobel Prize Committee is pleased to honor Robert Kahre for his sacrifice. Monetary freedom and tax freedom are very important.

Unfortunately, the US media completely censored this story. Instead, they fabricated the news that Chinese traitor Liu Xiaobo won the award.

A spokesman for the US media said "It's important to keep the American slaves clueless. Political oppression is something that happens in other countries, and not the USA.

It's shameful the way that the Chinese government has corrupted the Nobel Prize Committee. They used the Nobel Prize to make a cheap political point, while ignoring the real problems that occur in their own country."

The USA media spokesman was also referring to Chinese President Hu Jintao's 2009 Nobel Prize win, celebrating his victory against Tibetan terrorists.

To a brainwashed zombie, that news story seems silly. The Nobel Prizes are a sham.

It's hypocritical to accuse China of abuses, while there are political prisoners in the USA. Robert Kahre and Sholom Rubashkin are nonviolent offenders. They are jailed for political reasons. They are jailed for things that aren't real crimes, according to natural law.

In the USA, every jailed nonviolent offender is a political prisoner. The USA leads the world in prison population, both on a per capita basis and on an absolute basis. By that standard, the USA is less free than China.

By criticizing China's abuses, that helps cover up US abuses. Tax freedom and monetary freedom are important. The "pro-democracy" protesters in China are advocating for the wrong type of freedom. Democracy is fake freedom and not real freedom.

The Interstate Notarization Act

There's an amusing scandal. Many mortgages have been bought and sold many times. There is no longer any paperwork that proves who is the legal owner of the mortgage!

This is very amusing. The banksters aren't following their own foreclosure rules!

It isn't just amusing incompetence. There also was fraud. Some banks have started foreclosure proceedings, even though they can't prove they legally own the mortgage. When filing the foreclosure legal documents, the bank's lawyers and executives swore that they checked the mortgage paperwork. The bank's executives and lawyers are guilty of perjury, for lying about mortgage paperwork in court documents.

I doubt there will be any serious penalties. It will be, at worst, a slap on the wrist.

The scandal was uncovered by some homeowners trying to stall foreclosure. They demanded that the bank produce the loan paperwork. In some cases, the bank couldn't do it! This led to the current scandal.

Just before recess, Congress passed a law to try and bail out the negligent banksters. It was called "The Interstate Notarization Act". It would have required state courts to accept documents notarized in another state.

How does this bail out negligent banksters? With that bill, they could "forum shop". If state A has lenient notarization laws, then the bankster lawyer could get the mortgage paperwork notarized in state A in order to foreclose in state B.

Fortunately, President Obama used a pocket veto to kill this bailout law. It would be better to force the banksters to clean up their paperwork, rather than give them a favorable law. Congress will probably revisit the issue in the lame duck session after the election.

In the US political system, a "pocket veto" occurs when Congress passes a law just before adjourning. The President can veto the law by refusing to sign in, rather than by formally vetoing it and sending it back to Congress to try to get a 2/3 vote to override the veto.

In the banking fake reform law, there was an interesting clause. When a mortgage is sold, the originating bank is required to keep a 5% interest in the mortgage. That would solve this problem. The originating bank would always have the legal standing to foreclose, even if nobody can figure out who actually owns the remaining 95% of the mortgage.

There's another interesting part about selling mortgages. Suppose you owe a $500k mortgage on a house that's now worth $300k. If the mortgage were not sliced and sold, the lender could reasonable renegotiate for a $300k mortgage, rather than have the legal expense of a default and foreclosure. When the mortgage is sliced and sold in bonds, you can't renegotiate. If there are A-B-C tranches of the mortgage bond, then which tranche loses out when the mortgage is renegotiated? One tranche might prefer to renegotiate, but the other might prefer to foreclose.

What should happen if the banksters can't figure out who actually owns your mortgage? In that case, you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage. It isn't clear what the State legal system will actually say. If nobody produces mortgage paperwork before the statute of limitations expires, then the homeowner should get to keep their house.

This scandal is amusing. The banksters aren't following their own rules! It's really sloppy accounting. Some banksters are guilty of fraud, for filing fraudulent foreclosure paperwork. I doubt there will be any serious penalties.

An Example of State Censorship

This post on the NY Times blog was interesting. It's about a cake seller who was shut down by NY health inspectors.

Notice that comments are disabled on this post (but not others). Someone probably was publishing comments criticizing State regulation of the food industry.

That's a common trick on mainstream media websites. If people publish comments that contradict their lies, then they disable the comment section.

"Food safety" laws are a type of tax. They're designed to impose extra costs on small businesses. Food safety laws make it illegal for someone to bootstrap a restaurant business, working out of their home kitchen.

I have no idea if he was targeted because he had an unsafe kitchen, or if he was competing too successfully. It's probably the latter.

Worldwide Hyperinflation Race

In the USA and Europe, there is massive inflation to bail out the banksters. Aiming for stable exchange rates, other countries are also inflating their money.

Politicians in other countries value their exports to the USA. As dollar inflation occurs, prices of non-US goods rise relative to US-produced goods. To keep exports at the same level, the other country must also inflate.

Consider a factory owner in China. The factory exports to the USA, receiving dollars. The factory owner trades his dollars with China's government for newly-printed yuan. China's government merely holds the dollars, rather than buying tangible goods. The net effect is that the USA exports inflation to China. In effect, China's politicians are subsidizing the banksters in the USA.

Why are foreign bureaucrats so eager to export to the USA, in exchange for a piece of paper? That can't continue forever.

Foreign politicians are eager to manipulate exchange rates. When politicians do this, currency speculators say "Woohoo! Free money!" It's like the government is writing currency speculators a check, when politicians try to manipulate currency exchange rates.

How does inflation subsidize the banksters? Suppose the bank owns a $1M mortgage on a house currently worth $400k. That's a $600k loss. If there's 100% inflation, then it's a $1M mortgage on a house currently worth $800k, for a loss of only $200k. If there's 200% inflation, then the bank can sell the foreclosed house with money left over. In this manner, inflation helps bail out insolvent banks. The loans can be repaid with devalued money; the assets backing the loan are worth more.

The foreclosure process takes a year or two. Over time, inflation helps bail out the banksters. The bank is borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate of 0.25%, while inflation helps underwater loans become more solvent.

Banks don't care about the actual inflation rate. They borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and make loans, profiting from leverage and the interest rate spread and the yield curve. Right now, the banksters are borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate and buying Treasury debt. That's the reason the banks are making huge profits while the rest of the country is stuck in a recession/depression.

The current situation is pretty ridiculous. The USA is inflating to bail out the banksters. Other countries are inflating to keep stable exchange rates with the US dollar. It's a worldwide hyperinflation race.

Gold/Silver Ratio

My post on "Gold Bubble?" attracted some negative E-mails. Someone insisted "You're wrong! There is a gold bubble developing!" The discussion degenerated into "Is not!", "Is so!", "Is not!", "Is so!".

Another argument for "There is no gold bubble." is the gold/silver ratio. Consider this chart.

Looking at that chart, the gold/silver ratio has actually decreased since Q4 2008, from around 80 to 65. By that measure, gold is getting cheaper.

There's a problem with analyzing the FRN-denominated price of gold and silver. You get confused between dollar inflation and a bubble. If you consider gold/$ or silver/$, there's a division by zero error.

The gold/silver ratio is (gold/$) divided by (silver/$). The '$' drops out, and you have a price quoted in terms of real money. Even if there were no State fiat paper money, the gold/silver ratio would still be meaningful.

The gold/silver ratio should be approximately the same in every country. Otherwise, someone could buy in one country and sell in the other, conducting arbitrage.

When evaluating the gold/silver ratio, it's invalid to consider periods before 1975. In the USA, private gold ownership was illegal before 1975. Before 1913, the gold/silver ratio was set by law. State bureaucrats set the gold/silver ratio artificially low, compared to the fair free market price. This enabled seignorage profit for the State, when silver dimes/quarters/dollars were minted.

If you consider the gold/silver ratio, there is no gold bubble. The gold/silver ratio is near the median value since 1975. According to the gold/silver ratio, gold is at worst slightly overpriced.

Verizon LG envTouch Sucks!

I'm so annoyed at my LG envTouch phone (VX11000). It's such a POS.

My phone needs are very simple:

1. Compose blog drafts on the subway, and upload them to my PC and Blogger.
2. Use it as a phone.
   

If I got a Blackberry or Android phone, a $30/month data package would have been required. The LG envTouch only had a $10/month data package. I thought I was saving $20/month, but the LG phone was a huge disappointment.

My phone has a notepad feature. However, there's a 300 character limit. I found a workaround with bitpim, post line numbers, and a PHP script.

The phone-PC synch software is lousy. Fortunately, bitpim works well. I use bitpim to transfer the memo.dat file to my PC, and then use PHP to parse it and remove my line numbers and sort by line number.

I've had a lot of problems with the USB driver. Some "Windows Update" probably caused to to fail. After it not working for a week, I finally got it to work yesterday. The problem was one of:

1. I had to uninstall/reinstall the driver several times.
2. I had to go into the phone's ##service menu undocumented feature and change some settings. I went to clr->data->(1 2 3) and changed it to USB and changed the baud rate.
3. When uninstalling the driver, you have to do it from "device manager" instead of from "add/remove programs".
4. I connected in "music synch" mode and not "data" mode. If you exit "music synch" mode on the phone it reverts to data mode, which works instead of directly connecting in data mode.
   

After much fiddling, I finally got the USB synch feature to work again. I have no idea what the actual problem was. It looks like it was a driver/Vista issue.

There's also the "phone randomly shuts off" problem. That doesn't bother me, because I turn the ringer off anyway. I get more spam calls than real calls.

I still have 15 months left on my contract, so I'm stuck with this POS phone for now. I'd really like a Maemo/Meego Nokia phone, but they're only available on GSM (AT&T and T-Mobile). Verizon's network is CDMA. I have a "family share" plan with my mother and sister, and they want to stay with Verizon.

I'm definitely not getting another LG phone. It seems that Verizon figured out that the envTouch is a POS. They don't seem to sell it anymore.

It looks like my next phone will be Android or a Blackberry. I'm leaning towards a Blackberry, but I'm not going to decide for another 15 months.

William Shatner's New Sitcom Sucks

I was watching a UFL game on last Thursday, just to see what it's like. My sister objected. I decided to look into William Shatner's new sitcom "S*** My Dad Says".

Why do they need a gratuitous swear word in the title? "Stuff My Dad Says" would have been better.

The plot was astoundingly bad. The son wanted to buy landline Internet access, and his father objected. My sister pointed out "Why doesn't the son get wireless Internet?" It's embarrassing that none of the writers noticed that.

Previously, when watching a lousy show, I would think "It's going to get better." Now I realize that, if a 5 minute excerpt sucks, then the whole show is likely to suck. My sister said "I'd rather watch the UFL.", and put the football game back on.

Frequently, when I watch TV, I think "I could do better." I should try. It's on my list of things to do. It's hard to get past mainstream media censorship.

Rick Sanchez

This is a very frequent pattern. A mainstream media personality says something forbidden. Then, he is fired and blacklisted and never finds another job.

If you're a mainstream celebrity, that's a very cushy job. You're a replaceable cog. If you deviate from the script, you're fired and replaced.

Rick Sanchez' forbidden statement was "Jewish people have disproportionately large influence in the mainstream media."

It seems that Rick Sanchez was going to be fired anyway, due to a management change at CNN. It's much better to say "We fired him for being racist.", because that fits in with the theme of State censorship. If CNN wasn't planning to fire him, he would have been allowed to apologize and the incident wouldn't have been incessantly hyped.

Mainstream media discussion of racism is an evil fnord designed to promote racism. Now, some people might say "Rick Sanchez was fired by anti-hispanic Jews."

Journalists and celebrities are employees, not owners. They are dependent on a handful of insiders for access to their audience. If they disobey, their career is over.

Whenever a mainstream media journalist/celebrity is fired for saying X, that's a good indication that X reflects a forbidden truth.

Gold Bubble?

A lot of State comedians are saying "There's a bubble developing in gold." They can't acknowledge inflation, so instead they call it a bubble.

Compare gold hype to stock market hype:

Compare

The price of gold just went up a lot. It's too late to buy! There's a bubble!

or

The price of gold just went down. That proves that gold investors are idiots.

to

The stock market is rising! Buy before you miss the opportunity!

or

Stocks are cheap now! It's a good time to buy!

State comedians denigrate gold investors at every opportunity.

If you consider the FRN-denominated price of gold (gold/$), it's risen rapidly. If you look at gold/silver, gold/copper, gold/oil, gold/corn, or gold/wheat, then there's much more price stability.

In fact, corn and wheat have risen substantially faster than gold so far this year!

It's much more accurate to say "The value of the dollar is crashing!" than "There's a gold bubble!" State comedians can't acknowledge dollar hyperinflation, so they make up excuses.

Copyforbid

Statists give noble-sounding names to evil ideas. One example is "copyright".

Really, "copyright" should be called "copyforbid". Copyright allows the owner to forbid other people from making copies.

Copyright is a State-created right. It doesn't exist according to natural law. Copyright is enforced via a lawsuit. Copyright lawsuits are legal extortion.

Copyright has its origins in censorship. When the printing press was invented, it was seen as a threat to the king's authority. The solution was that the king's censors read the proposed book. If approved, the author was given a license to print it. This later was translated into giving the author exclusive printing rights. In the present, most copyrights are owned by corporations and insiders.

In the present, intellectual property laws are used for extortion. Via copyright, patents, and trademarks, insiders extort from non-insiders. Insiders use copyright to restrict the freedom of non-insiders.

When debating statists, the words themselves have a pro-State bias. Terms like "copyright" and "intellectual property" have an inherent pro-State troll bias. They should be called "copyforbid" and "intellectual unproperty".

Colbert And Congress

Stephen Colbert testified before Congress. He was talking about "illegal immigration". He participated in the "Take Our Jobs" program, where people were offered the chance to take a farming job normally held by "illegal immigrants".

I don't see how working on a farm for a day makes him an expert on "illegal immigration". Watching his show, he was joking around and not working seriously.

It was obviously a publicity stunt, both for Steven Colbert and for Congress. Some Congressmen complained that Colbert disrespected them by telling jokes during the meeting.

Why would they be surprised? Steven Colbert offended people at the White House Correspondents' dinner, by pointing out some of the bad things they do.

The correct answer is "Congress deserves no respect. They're a bunch of terrorists."

However, Steven Colbert didn't really challenge Congress. By going to Congress to testify, Steven Colbert implicitly acknowledges Congress' legitimacy.

Steven Colbert represents the "debate ceiling". A celebrity can't show less respect for Congress than Colbert, and still keep his job. Colbert didn't say "All taxation is theft! Your authority is not legitimate!" He only partially disrespected Congress.

This seems like an entirely manufactured scandal. Congressmen should not be surprised that Colbert joked during the hearing. Colbert only made minor criticism, rather than questioning government's legitimacy.

"Best of FSK" - September 2010

According to Google Analytics, my most popular posts in September were:

1. Who's the Richest Man in the World? (314)
2. The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (303)
3. Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (283)
4. BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (257)
5. The Compound Interest Paradox (162)
6. Ruby on Rails Sucks! (160)
7. Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (133)
8. The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (115)
9. Satanic Death Hospitals (113)
10. Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (105)
11. Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008 (100)
12. The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (92)
13. Righthaven vs. Charles Johnson (RadGeek) (87)
14. Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (80)
15. The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (79)
16. Verizon LG enV Touch, Bitpim, and Open Source (73)
17. The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 1/12 - Overview and Background (68)
18. The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (68)
19. Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (66)
20. The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (60)
21. E-Gold Founders Plead Guilty to Money Laundering (59)
22. The Five Levels of the Economy (48)
23. Gold and Silver Buyer's Guide (48)
24. How Well Does GLD Track Gold? (46)
25. Oracle Sues Google Over Java/Android (46)
26. Death Note and Code Geass Fnords (43)
27. Congress Killed Superman (43)
28. Agorist Philosophy Overview (42)
29. Concerned Citizens And Parents Against Voluntaryism (42)
30. Economic Police State (42)
31. Your Strawman Corporation (41)
32. StackOverflow Sucks! (40)

If you only consider posts published in September 2010, the most popular posts were:

1. Righthaven vs. Charles Johnson (RadGeek) (87)
2. Oracle Sues Google Over Java/Android (46)
3. Congress Killed Superman (43)
4. Concerned Citizens And Parents Against Voluntaryism (42)
5. Economic Police State (42)
6. Parking Ticket Death Penalty (36)
7. Auto IRA (34)
8. Philadelphia Blogger Tax (33)
9. Treasury Debt Default? (33)
10. Are State Parasites Getting Scared? (31)
11. The Florida Bar Association Works For the IRS? (31)

Windows Vista Reinstall Update

I had to reinstall Vista after my USB devices stopped working. Everything is finally working properly.

When I did a fresh Vista reinstall, everything worked. I installed SP1, and my USB devices stopped working. After SP2, they started working again. It definitely was a Vista issue.

I noticed that SP2 has a release date of August 2010. Windows Update didn't install it for me. I wonder if that virus "Antivir Solution Pro" disabled Windows Update?

I finally got everything working properly on my PC. You have to periodically do a "full OS reinstall" to keep a Windows PC working properly. I'm still annoyed at Microsoft. I should make my next PC be Linux.

Nazi Social Contract

Statists say "By living in the USA, you consent to the social contract. If you don't like it, then leave."

The fallacy of "If you don't like it, then leave!" is that other countries are just as bad or worse. There are international treaties. There are laws restricting immigration. State insiders in various countries collude to keep the slaves in line.

If you take an extreme example, you could say "The Jews living in Nazi Germany consented to their own murder. The 'social contract' in Germany allowed it. By not fleeing, the German Jews consented to being murdered."

Similarly, you could say "The people murdered in the Soviet Union or Communist China consented to it. The 'social contract' allowed it."

In his "war crimes" trial, Saddam Hussein said "I was the absolute dictator of Iraq. By definition, everything I did was legal." If you support "social contract" theory, you should support that argument. The social contract in Iraq said "Saddam Hussein is dictator."

A statist would say "Those are extreme examples. The USA isn't that evil." The fact that the USA is not as evil as other countries, does not justify the bad things that happen. That's like saying "I'm a good husband. I only beat my wife once per week. Other husbands do it daily."

There is no "social contract". If you take an extreme/accurate view, then a "social contract" can justify any evil. In the USA, I probably won't be sent to a death camp based on my blog. The State steals more than half my labor/life via taxes. There are many laws restricting my freedom and my choices.

For example, it's difficult/illegal for me to buy raw milk, even if I think it's better than pasteurized milk.

It's illegal for me to work as a doctor, because I don't have a State permit. Even though I don't want to work as a doctor, the AMA licensing cartel restrict my choices. I pay higher prices and get lower quality medical care, due to the State medical cartel. Under the guise of "protecting patients from bad doctors", State parasites protect insiders. A bad doctor does not suffer from market competition. Generally, a bad doctor keeps his State license, unless he really messes up or offends State insiders. The State licensing cartel protects bad doctors who managed to jump through the hoops and get a license.

The fact that the USA is more free than other countries does not justify evils that do occur. Unfortunately, the trend in the USA is towards less freedom rather than towards more freedom.