A new, complete collection of articles and resources on this subject is available at the Commonweal Institute. Also see "Making the Integrity of Electronic Voting Into a National Issue".
I put together a collection of voting machine stories and websites. Let me know if you know of other good articles or other resources on this subject.
My "What's Wrong with this Picture?", Seeing the Forest
Who makes the vote-counting machines?
"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
To Register Doubts, Press Here, New York Times, May 15, 2003
New Voting Systems Assailed - Computer Experts Cite Fraud Potential, The Washington Post, March 27, 2003
Black Box Voting - Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century - a website dedicated to this issue.
Electronic Voting - Rebecca Mercuri, Ph.D. - contains many links to websites and stories about this issue.
Diebold - The face of modern ballot tampering
American Coup: Mid-Term Election Polls vs Actuals
Atrios on right-wing Christian Reconstructionists buying voting machine companies
Voter Fraud 2002: Death Stalks America's Democracy (Includes a collection of links.)
Computerized Balloting is Taking Over Elections In Maryland--But Can We Trust the Results?
The Nightmare Scenario Is Here - Computer Voting With No Paper Trail
THE SECRETIVE WORLD OF VOTING MACHINES
Can we trust the vote count anywhere? In any race? In any election?
Hagel’s ethics filings pose disclosure issue
Republican Manufactured Voting Machines Involved in Election Fraud
Votescam: The Stealing of America
Electronic voting system an invitation to trouble
Votescam in the Electronic Age
How to Rig a Touch Screen Voting Machine
HOW SAFE ARE OUR VOTING MACHINES? - Rage Against the Machine
The Real Scandal Is the Voting Machines Themselves
Area Democrats say early votes miscounted, Court hearing delayed as meeting planned on touch-screen problems
Vote Fraud in America
Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002 Elections
Voter News Service: What Went Wrong? and Sideshow's essay linking to this.
Voting machines must provide a voter-verifiable audit trail - David Dill's website about voter-verified audit trails and the recent hearings in Santa Clara County, CA. - with links to to other sites on the voting machine issue.
Computer ballot outfit perverts Senate race, theorist says. At The Register. Also read the reply.
Paranoid party rights in The Guardian.
Commonweal Institute's Uncommon Denominator: "new computerized voting machines are vulnerable to tampering."
Voting Machines: Vote Tampering in the 21st Century (NOT the same site as "Black Box Voting - Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century")
Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project
If voters get a record of their ballot, they can check on the system. A San Jose Mercury News editorial today acknowledged the voting machines problem. 2/21/03
Board faces key decision on voting by computer - POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD WORRIES SUPERVISORS -- The San Jose Mercury News front page story, 2/24/03
* Great resource!* Electionline.org - The Election Reform Information Project
Paperless Voting Machines Under Fire - Newsday, Feb. 25, 2003
Election Guardians
** Key Story -- Scientists question electronic voting, SF Chronicle, March 3, 2003
Voting Technology, California Voter Foundation
Computer-Related Elections, Peter Neumann
Which Corporation Owns Your Vote over at AlterNet.
Election Fraud & Voting Machines - You can't vote them out if you never voted them in. Cronus Connection
Are American elections fixed?
Britain to Launch Electronic Voting Systems -- International Herald Tribune, April 20, 2003
Voters must have faith in the vote count," by the chief elections officer, San Mateo County, California, San Jose Mercury News, May 19, 2003.
2/07/2003
Microsoft and Technology Investment
Brad DeLong is writing about Microsoft making it appear that the Opera web browser doesn't work correctly.
How much of the Silicon Valley slump - and the national technology slump - is the result of the Bush administration's deal letting Microsoft off the hook from their anti-trust conviction?
You simply can not get venture money, or any other type of funding, if you are in any area where Microsoft is, or possibly could be. Of course this is having an effect!
The Bush-Microsoft deal dried up technology investment. You would have to be a fool to invest when a predatory monopoly is given government protection to operate as it pleases. Look what just happened to WebEx, after Microsoft bought PlaceWare. Palm is laying off because of Microsoft's competition in PDAs. How soon does Microsoft take over the embedded software market - cell phones, etc.? Look how many software companies have gone out of business because of Microsoft.
The idea of the anti-trust remedy was to restore competition and innovation. Has there been a SINGLE investment in ANY company that Microsoft could compete with, since the Bush-Microsoft deal?
How much of the Silicon Valley slump - and the national technology slump - is the result of the Bush administration's deal letting Microsoft off the hook from their anti-trust conviction?
You simply can not get venture money, or any other type of funding, if you are in any area where Microsoft is, or possibly could be. Of course this is having an effect!
The Bush-Microsoft deal dried up technology investment. You would have to be a fool to invest when a predatory monopoly is given government protection to operate as it pleases. Look what just happened to WebEx, after Microsoft bought PlaceWare. Palm is laying off because of Microsoft's competition in PDAs. How soon does Microsoft take over the embedded software market - cell phones, etc.? Look how many software companies have gone out of business because of Microsoft.
The idea of the anti-trust remedy was to restore competition and innovation. Has there been a SINGLE investment in ANY company that Microsoft could compete with, since the Bush-Microsoft deal?
Some More on Jobs
Here's a story from this morning's San Jose Mercury News, Sales sluggish in January
WINTER NOT SUCH A WONDERLAND FOR MANY OF NATION'S RETAILERS, confirming what I wrote below. The January "retail jobs surge" wasn't.
WINTER NOT SUCH A WONDERLAND FOR MANY OF NATION'S RETAILERS, confirming what I wrote below. The January "retail jobs surge" wasn't.
Understand the Numbers
Here's the explanation of what's going on with today's employment report, U.S. Unemployment Rate Drops in January,
Here's another story that talks about this, U.S. jobless rate falls to 5.7%.
Economists had predicted that retail hiring would pick up because holiday employment was well below normal. This meant that fewer seasonal workers were laid off in January.In other words, this is an adjusted employment number. USUALLY there is a lot of retail hiring for the Christmas shopping season, so they adjust for a large number of layoffs in January. Obviously there wasn't as much hiring this year, so there were 100,000 or so fewer layoffs in January. Adjusting for the 100,000 expected layoffs makes it look like the retail sector is strong now. Everyone knows it isn't.
Here's another story that talks about this, U.S. jobless rate falls to 5.7%.
Because of the way the government adjusts the figures for seasonal factors, both December's loss and January's gains in retail are probably illusory. Read more about the seasonal problems.That last reference is to this story, Job growth could be an illusion.
When the government reports its monthly numbers, it adjusts them for seasonal factors to allow economists and us interested amateurs to see underlying trends more clearly. But sometimes the seasonal adjustments serve only to cloud the issue.UPDATE - The first story changed since I posted this morning. The first story now has this quote,: instead of the one above
For instance, retail hiring typically soars in November and December as retail outlets get ready for the holiday rush. The seasonally adjusted government data tries to smooth out that seasonal bump, so that normal seasonal hiring would appear as zero job growth in the reported data.
But if the normal seasonal patterns are disrupted, the number becomes distorted. That's what happened this year.
Holiday hiring was well below normal, meaning fewer seasonal workers were laid off in January. That means seasonal adjustments accounted for January's large gain, economists said.
"The big swing of 101,000 jobs in January was statistical, not real," said Joel Naroff, president and chief economist of Naroff Economic Advisors.
2/06/2003
Good News / Bad News
The good news is that the comments have been restored. The bad news is that comments left yesterday appear to have been lost.
The Lesson
The lesson for history to learn from this Korea story (if there is a history after all this is over) is: Never, never give a big speech and declare a group of countries to be "evil," and say you're going to attack first, and start preparing to attack one of the countries, unless you're in a position to do something about it if they BELIEVE YOU! Obviously Korea believed you!
Lesson #2: Don't put your POLITICAL ADVISOR in charge of your foreign policy and war planning, (even if there IS a Congressional election coming up.)
OK, now, with these Korean activities in mind, I have a message that I'd like you to rush straight to General Rove. You also threatened Iran, and they haven't forgotten this, and they're sitting there next to Iraq waiting for our forces to to be preoccupied with that situation. They're heavily armed, and they're smart, and they aren't going to sit and wait for General Rove's attack, currently planned for October 2004. They're also figuring out how to fight back. Just like Korea is doing. DUH!
(Also posted at No War Blog.)
Lesson #2: Don't put your POLITICAL ADVISOR in charge of your foreign policy and war planning, (even if there IS a Congressional election coming up.)
OK, now, with these Korean activities in mind, I have a message that I'd like you to rush straight to General Rove. You also threatened Iran, and they haven't forgotten this, and they're sitting there next to Iraq waiting for our forces to to be preoccupied with that situation. They're heavily armed, and they're smart, and they aren't going to sit and wait for General Rove's attack, currently planned for October 2004. They're also figuring out how to fight back. Just like Korea is doing. DUH!
(Also posted at No War Blog.)
2/05/2003
Is the Republican Party a Cult?
Everybody go read The 8 Basic Elements of Mind Control at Blah3. (Unfortunately I can't link to individual articles over at Blah3 so you might have to scroll or look in the archives to find this.) (Referred by Skippy.)
2/04/2003
Even More on Voting Machines
A reader sent in a link to this article "from Bruce Schneier, one of the foremost security experts in the world."
Did you Do Your Homework?
Did you do your homework assignment? Here is what you would have seen, from The Money Behind the Media:
Over the past 30 years a small group of wealthy conservative philanthropies have quietly funded a movement to change the social, legal, educational, media and political landscape of the United States. Using tax-exempt funds these philanthropies have coordinated their giving to create a suppy-side machinery for implementing their mostly Republican agenda.The test will be comprehensive. Study up, here's the library: Articles and reports tracing the formation of the right-wing ideological movement, how it is funded and how it operates.
2/03/2003
Wow
Wow. Go read the comments to the post titled "Jobs Going Away," the entry about the e-mail I received from a guy who can't get a job because so many jobs are being shipped to India or because of competition from H1B workers here. (And if you have time, read the Business Week Article that it points to, because I'm going to be writing more about it. Yeah, I know, more homework.)
Homework
Here's your homework assignment. Go read The Money Behind The Media, over at Cursor.org. (Be sure to click "Next" at the bottom of the pages.)
Stocks
A bunch of scary economic outlook news from Skippy, including "Market Timers Foresee Imminent Crash for Stocks".
Voting Machines
Testify! has a good piece on the voting machine problem here. (Scroll down to "Vote Scam 2002/2004".)
Last Day to Comment on FCC Ownership Regulations
skimble points out that today is the last day to comment on FCC proposals to relax media ownership regulations, and tell you how to do it.
Word
Hunter S. Thompson, in a Salon interview:
And on that note, I begin another day's blogging.
"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?" he writes, referring to the people currently occupying the White House. "They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis."I couldn't have said it better myself.
And on that note, I begin another day's blogging.
2/02/2003
What's Wrong with this Picture?
See also the Voting Machine Story Link Collection
So the voting machine story is starting to be talked about by more and more people in more and more places - another major story driven by webloggers. I've written about it here, here, here, here and maybe a few other times - there are a number of links to other sources in that last one. Atrios and Sideshow, Bartcop and Testify! have also been writing about this, as have a number of others. (Let me kow and I'll add a link to you.)
For now let's not get hung up on whether Nebraska's Hagel, or Georgia's Chambliss or anyone else won in 2002 because something was rigged. There is no way to know, and it's over, and nothing is going to change anything. Instead, let's just look at what we have here:
- Really rich, far right-wing "Christian Nation" fanatics involved in the ownership of the companies that make the voting machines. That alone should set off alarm bells.
- Electronic voting machines that leave no verifiable, auditable trail beyond what the machine reports as the vote count. You can't verify that whatever was recorded as your vote was what you actually voted, and there is no way to do a recount of the totals other than what the voting machine itself reports. That alone should set off alarm bells.
- Voting machines that come with contracts forbidding looking at the code, so there is no way to check what the machines are actually doing. You can't look at the code that comes with the machines to see if it is set up to download special code on election day. You can't set one up on election day to see if it is downloading code, unless you steal the machine. (And there are ways to tell if the machine is being checked. For example, you don't send code to any machine that someone working for the company isn't looking at, in a polling place, and checking that the modem line isn't monitored.) These contracts alone should set off alarm bells.
- These are voting machines with modems, supposedly to report results, but modems can receive as well as send. The RAM can't be checked because you have to turn it off to move it to check what's in RAM, so the contents of RAM are wiped. And you can't run pre-election tests because the machines might be testing for the right time-and-date before downloading special code.
Who would have imagined that any district would EVER buy such machines? But they do. What competitive company would design such a thing? But they did. The unaccountability of results is suspicious enough, but when you learn WHO is involved with these companies this goes over the top.
This is an easy situation to fix. Demand that voting machines come with a paper printout that the voter looks at to verify that the vote was recorded correctly, and puts this paper record in a ballot box that is watched. That's all there is to it. Why in the world don't these machines come with this simple, common-sense security measure?
Dan Gilmore writes in Saturday's column,
So the voting machine story is starting to be talked about by more and more people in more and more places - another major story driven by webloggers. I've written about it here, here, here, here and maybe a few other times - there are a number of links to other sources in that last one. Atrios and Sideshow, Bartcop and Testify! have also been writing about this, as have a number of others. (Let me kow and I'll add a link to you.)
For now let's not get hung up on whether Nebraska's Hagel, or Georgia's Chambliss or anyone else won in 2002 because something was rigged. There is no way to know, and it's over, and nothing is going to change anything. Instead, let's just look at what we have here:
- Really rich, far right-wing "Christian Nation" fanatics involved in the ownership of the companies that make the voting machines. That alone should set off alarm bells.
- Electronic voting machines that leave no verifiable, auditable trail beyond what the machine reports as the vote count. You can't verify that whatever was recorded as your vote was what you actually voted, and there is no way to do a recount of the totals other than what the voting machine itself reports. That alone should set off alarm bells.
- Voting machines that come with contracts forbidding looking at the code, so there is no way to check what the machines are actually doing. You can't look at the code that comes with the machines to see if it is set up to download special code on election day. You can't set one up on election day to see if it is downloading code, unless you steal the machine. (And there are ways to tell if the machine is being checked. For example, you don't send code to any machine that someone working for the company isn't looking at, in a polling place, and checking that the modem line isn't monitored.) These contracts alone should set off alarm bells.
- These are voting machines with modems, supposedly to report results, but modems can receive as well as send. The RAM can't be checked because you have to turn it off to move it to check what's in RAM, so the contents of RAM are wiped. And you can't run pre-election tests because the machines might be testing for the right time-and-date before downloading special code.
Who would have imagined that any district would EVER buy such machines? But they do. What competitive company would design such a thing? But they did. The unaccountability of results is suspicious enough, but when you learn WHO is involved with these companies this goes over the top.
This is an easy situation to fix. Demand that voting machines come with a paper printout that the voter looks at to verify that the vote was recorded correctly, and puts this paper record in a ballot box that is watched. That's all there is to it. Why in the world don't these machines come with this simple, common-sense security measure?
Dan Gilmore writes in Saturday's column,
The right to vote -- and for that vote to be counted with integrity -- is at the heart of liberty. People are already skeptical. If we continue on this path, pure cynicism will corrode what's left of public trust in an already frayed system.Skepticism is the least of it. Paranoid nutcases like me will let our imaginations take us a lot further than just skepticism when we see "Christian Nation" fanatics buying up the voting machine companies and pushing unauditable voting systems on the public. Oh yeah, we can.
Voting Machines
Atrios is talking about voting machines again today. Here's another about voting machines.
Update - Problems at blogspot today - just go to Atrios for now and scroll to "Thom Hartmann tells us more about voting machines and Chuck Hagel. " I'll update the link and remove this note when the correct link is working.
Update - Problems at blogspot today - just go to Atrios for now and scroll to "Thom Hartmann tells us more about voting machines and Chuck Hagel. " I'll update the link and remove this note when the correct link is working.
2/01/2003
Busy
I've been busy, so please read Dan Gilmore's Saturday column on voting machines here.
And Atrios on this topic here.
And Atrios on this topic here.
1/31/2003
Jobs Going Away
I got an e-mail from someone today, titled America: the first post-modern agrarian society. ...Thanks to American Big Business...
I believe that he's on the East Coast. Here in the Silicon Valley area we hear rumors that things are much better on the East Coast. Things are certainly bad here - 25% office vacancy rate. Very high unemployment. Stores closing. Friends whose unemployment runs out and they go on food stamps.
I don't see how it's going to get better. People are in debt so spending is unlikely to increase. No one is getting raises. I see nothing that promises to bring back the tech industry around here. I mean, sure, the engineer getting $10,000 a year in India will eventually spend some money, but that's a net loss of spending of $90,000 per year for each engineer here who was getting $100,000, and a loss of the whole $100,000 spent here. The overall pool of paid talent is not increasing - these are replacement jobs.
And what do we hear from our country's leaders? Tax cuts for the rich and permanent massive budget deficits for the future are supposed to bring us out of this? They say it will increase the investment capital? Investing in what? They already have zillions and they aren't investing that! It's the old, "It isn't working, so let's do more of it."
There are soooo many ways to title this message:He then points to this Business Week article.
American Technology Leadership: R.I.P
America: We Used to Be Relevent, Now All We Have are Nukes
American Business to American Technologists: Drop Dead!
Congress to Technologists: Too bad you didn't bribe us first!
Business to Technologists: "Hey, You f*cked up! You trusted us!" (w/apologies to J. Belushi)
I've never been a "protectionist" but I now understand exactly why the protectionists have been whining so much about the actions of American businesses. I'm out on the job market and I now get it in a really, really big way.
Apparently, American companies want Americans to buy their very expensive products, just as long as they don't have to hire them to invent/design/produce or otherwise pay them to make such purchases possible. How, exactly, will this country maintain its edge in technology if there are no technology jobs and American business isn't interested in paying anyone except the CEO and the Board?
Another interesting trend I've seen (and been confirmed by several recruiters I know) is making requirements in job postings so fantastic (requiring 15 yrs experience in 20 technologies that didn't exist 15 yrs ago, etc.) that they cannot possibly be filled and then using the "lack of qualified applicants" as a ruse to bring in H1B candidates as just above minimum wage. This is going on all over NYC.
Just try and get a programming or system admin job at a large firm in NYC. You won't.
Think such tactics are illegal? Guess again.
Oh, and don't think going to your congress-weasels will help you -- they rammed an H1B extension (and added a several *million* increase in available visas) through as a hidden rider to a bill just before they split for their December break.
So, while they "decry" the problems in the tech industry and the lack of jobs/jobs-going-overseas they are quietly taking money from all the usual suspects (tech firms, brokerages, et al) to put it to American technology workers as hard and as fast as they can.
I believe that he's on the East Coast. Here in the Silicon Valley area we hear rumors that things are much better on the East Coast. Things are certainly bad here - 25% office vacancy rate. Very high unemployment. Stores closing. Friends whose unemployment runs out and they go on food stamps.
I don't see how it's going to get better. People are in debt so spending is unlikely to increase. No one is getting raises. I see nothing that promises to bring back the tech industry around here. I mean, sure, the engineer getting $10,000 a year in India will eventually spend some money, but that's a net loss of spending of $90,000 per year for each engineer here who was getting $100,000, and a loss of the whole $100,000 spent here. The overall pool of paid talent is not increasing - these are replacement jobs.
And what do we hear from our country's leaders? Tax cuts for the rich and permanent massive budget deficits for the future are supposed to bring us out of this? They say it will increase the investment capital? Investing in what? They already have zillions and they aren't investing that! It's the old, "It isn't working, so let's do more of it."
1/30/2003
The Huge Spending Increase
From a story about federal budget deficits in today's NY Times:
That means that next year, and every year thereafter, we will have to pay somewhere from, $10-30 billion to cover the interest on THIS YEAR'S borrowing, depending on interest rates. That is a HUGE spending increase. And the following year the spending will INCREASE again, because of THAT year's deficit.
Want to talk about where that money goes? Who GETS that $10-30 billion? How much control over U.S. policy will they be buying?
The Congressional Budget Office said today that the federal government shortfall would rise to $199 billion this year from $158 billion last year — even without any of Mr. Bush's new tax or spending proposals.So WITH the war, tax cuts and spending increases, we might be looking at a $300-400 billion deficit THIS year.
That means that next year, and every year thereafter, we will have to pay somewhere from, $10-30 billion to cover the interest on THIS YEAR'S borrowing, depending on interest rates. That is a HUGE spending increase. And the following year the spending will INCREASE again, because of THAT year's deficit.
Want to talk about where that money goes? Who GETS that $10-30 billion? How much control over U.S. policy will they be buying?
out of toucfh
NY Times today
This puts both men squarely at odds with American consumers, who are quite fearful about the economy, judging by confidence figures released Tuesday that came in at a nine-year low. Stock investors, who are famously positive well before an economic recovery is evident, also seem stuck in a doubting mood, unwilling to bet yet on a turnaround that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Greenspan seem to be anticipating.
McNeil Leher yesterday - $1-200 per person, not even enough to buy a dinner for one person. That was the person criticizing Bush's plan!
Everyone in the debate is paid at the top. Unrealistic, out of touch
One of the participant said that giving more money to the rich means that there is more money available for investment. How out of touch are these people? There are billions and billions of dollars in venture capital funds, just sitting in the bank. There are trillions that have been taken out of the markets, waiting on the sidelines for a good investment environment.
NY Times today
This puts both men squarely at odds with American consumers, who are quite fearful about the economy, judging by confidence figures released Tuesday that came in at a nine-year low. Stock investors, who are famously positive well before an economic recovery is evident, also seem stuck in a doubting mood, unwilling to bet yet on a turnaround that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Greenspan seem to be anticipating.
McNeil Leher yesterday - $1-200 per person, not even enough to buy a dinner for one person. That was the person criticizing Bush's plan!
Everyone in the debate is paid at the top. Unrealistic, out of touch
One of the participant said that giving more money to the rich means that there is more money available for investment. How out of touch are these people? There are billions and billions of dollars in venture capital funds, just sitting in the bank. There are trillions that have been taken out of the markets, waiting on the sidelines for a good investment environment.
1/29/2003
Money
Obviously someone else has noticed that you can get a pretty good return on your money just by moving it to Euros.
1/28/2003
Dean
I'm not sure yet who I support for President, but I like what I hear from Dean. I'm posting a "Dean Meetup" button on the left, scroll down a ways. It's a great idea - go check it out.
The Speech
I really think that Bush is surrounded by people who are afraid to contradict him or bring him bad news. I think he isn't aware of events outside of the good news that is brought to him. "Yes sir, you are the chosen one, sir. GOD has chosen you, sir."
No one even told him that the aluminum tubes story turned out to be phony. No one even dares tell him it's pronounced "nuclear."
No one even told him that the aluminum tubes story turned out to be phony. No one even dares tell him it's pronounced "nuclear."
Spines
CNN: Kennedy to seek new measure on war with Iraq.
Senator Kennedy is asking for a new vote.
Senator Kennedy is asking for a new vote.
"Much has changed in the many months since Congress has debated war with Iraq," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a statement released after President Bush's State of the Union address, in which Bush tried to rally the American people to the need to disarm Iraq.It looks like the Dems are growing spines.
"U.N. inspectors are on the ground and making progress, and their work should continue," Kennedy said. "Osama bin Laden and the Korean nuclear crisis continue to pose far greater threats [than Iraq]."
Double Standard
skimble writes about the difference in treatment of Martha Stewart and Thomas White (ex-Enron, current Bush Administration.) Stewart is a Democrat and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with public humiliation, White has a get-out-of-jail-free card and a look-the-other-way pass from the press.
1/27/2003
Another Scenario
A friend writes with a scenario - U.S. and British forces invade and become bogged down in house-to-house fighting in Baghdad's suburbs, taking and causing heavy casualties. There are very heavy civilian casualties that are well publicized by the European press. (Civilians initially refuse to enter shelters, remembering the 1991 U.S. bombing of a civilian shelter bunker with a "penetrator" bomb that incinerated everyone inside.)
The heavy casualties result in massive civilian protests in London, some erupting into riots. There is a no-confidence vote and Blair's government falls. The new government withdraws British forces, leaving the U.S. alone and bogged down in urban street fighting.
The heavy casualties result in massive civilian protests in London, some erupting into riots. There is a no-confidence vote and Blair's government falls. The new government withdraws British forces, leaving the U.S. alone and bogged down in urban street fighting.
Scenarios
February, 2003, America invades Iraq.
Two days after U.S. invasion begins, China attacks Taiwan. Simultaneously North Korea attacks South Korea. America must divert some forces to Asian theater. Iraq campaign slows.
Responding to right-wing American think tanks' public advocacy that America follow Iraq conquest with initiatives to change other Middle Eastern governments, the Saudis, Syrians and Kuwaitis begin secretly supporting and funding Hamas, Hezbollah and other organizations to send fighters to Iraq to attack and bog down the American troops. American casualties begin to climb.
Late February, Kurds seize northern Iraq and part of Turkey. Kurds, having infiltrated Iraqi intelligence, convince Iraqi “sleeper” agents to launch biological attacks on Israel, hoping to goad Israel into attacking Baghdad, thereby weakening Iraq’s ability to oppose to Kurdish state. Israel responds against Iraqi cities.
March, Iran responds to “axis of evil” threats by attacking US fleet and invades Iraq from the west. They announce they have developed a dozen nuclear weapons and will use them on our forces and American homeland if their forces are attacked with nuclear weapons in any American attempt to reverse their gains. With insufficient forces in the Middle East American forces overwhelmed and begin retreat. Iran seizes western Iraq and southern oil fields.
Late March, Al-Queda launches major attacks in Kashmir, driving India to attack Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalists seize power in Pakistan and Indonesia, immediately supplying al-Queda with nuclear weapons. U.S. initiates bombing campaign against Pakistan.
April, responding to heavy civilian casualties in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, Asian and European civilians demand boycott of U.S. products. International investors begin selling assets and pulling funds from U.S. OPEC announces oil will move to the Euro currency for all transactions. Dollar plunges, reaches eight dollars per Euro, causing oil to exceed US$240 per barrel. Stock market plunges to 1200. U.S., unable to borrow money to finance deficit, begins to default on bonds.
Two days after U.S. invasion begins, China attacks Taiwan. Simultaneously North Korea attacks South Korea. America must divert some forces to Asian theater. Iraq campaign slows.
Responding to right-wing American think tanks' public advocacy that America follow Iraq conquest with initiatives to change other Middle Eastern governments, the Saudis, Syrians and Kuwaitis begin secretly supporting and funding Hamas, Hezbollah and other organizations to send fighters to Iraq to attack and bog down the American troops. American casualties begin to climb.
Late February, Kurds seize northern Iraq and part of Turkey. Kurds, having infiltrated Iraqi intelligence, convince Iraqi “sleeper” agents to launch biological attacks on Israel, hoping to goad Israel into attacking Baghdad, thereby weakening Iraq’s ability to oppose to Kurdish state. Israel responds against Iraqi cities.
March, Iran responds to “axis of evil” threats by attacking US fleet and invades Iraq from the west. They announce they have developed a dozen nuclear weapons and will use them on our forces and American homeland if their forces are attacked with nuclear weapons in any American attempt to reverse their gains. With insufficient forces in the Middle East American forces overwhelmed and begin retreat. Iran seizes western Iraq and southern oil fields.
Late March, Al-Queda launches major attacks in Kashmir, driving India to attack Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalists seize power in Pakistan and Indonesia, immediately supplying al-Queda with nuclear weapons. U.S. initiates bombing campaign against Pakistan.
April, responding to heavy civilian casualties in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, Asian and European civilians demand boycott of U.S. products. International investors begin selling assets and pulling funds from U.S. OPEC announces oil will move to the Euro currency for all transactions. Dollar plunges, reaches eight dollars per Euro, causing oil to exceed US$240 per barrel. Stock market plunges to 1200. U.S., unable to borrow money to finance deficit, begins to default on bonds.
Scam E-mail
A friend received the following e-mail.
IMPORTANT - In case you don't "get it," do not go to this website and provide your account and password!
From: PayPal@billingdept.comShe wants to know what law enforcement agency this can be reported to. Does anyone know?
Subject: PayPal information UPDATE. *URGENT*
Dear Paypal Member Case #840650,
We have worked hard to help your Paypal experience be even better. However, we have to ask aII our members for updated\correct biIIing information. PIease be advised this is mandatory. lf we do not get your updated biIIing information, your account wiII be revoked and put under review and may be canceIIed. Before we start we will need you to provide us with your email address and password. To send us that info please visit our Secure Site Paypal Billing Site http://updatepaypal.cjb.net
IMPORTANT - In case you don't "get it," do not go to this website and provide your account and password!
1/26/2003
Why Punish Achievement?
I saw one of those typical right-winger letters to the editor yesterday saying we should cut taxes on the rich because, "Why Punish Achievement?"
I was thinking, this crowd thinks we shouldn't tax income that comes to people through an inheritance. So that's taxing achievement?
I was thinking, this crowd thinks we shouldn't tax income that comes to people through an inheritance. So that's taxing achievement?
Who Is Our Economy For?
In today's New York Times there's a story, Is There Such a Thing as a Jobless Recovery? From the story,
Productivity means increases in wealth. But whose wealth? When you're working harder on the job for the same pay, that's called a productivity increase, and SOMEone is getting richer. But obviously it isn't YOU. Statistics show the wealth in America is concentrating at the top. WE're working (if we have jobs) and THEY're getting rich.
Who is our economy for? Why are we tolerating this?
After falling into recession in 2001, the economy did indeed recover in 2002, hard as that is to believe. Despite a sluggish fall, most economists believe the United States expanded at close to 3 percent last year (final statistics are still being compiled).So the unemployed aren't finding jobs, more people are becoming unemployed, the people still working have to work harder to do the jobs the unemployed were doing, and many of them are afraid they're going to lose their jobs.
But because productivity — the amount of goods or services produced for each hour worked — is climbing relatively fast, last year's relatively tepid expansion created almost no new jobs. Instead, businesses are finding ways to get more production out of each current employee. In fact, the unemployment rate has risen from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 6 percent today.
Productivity means increases in wealth. But whose wealth? When you're working harder on the job for the same pay, that's called a productivity increase, and SOMEone is getting richer. But obviously it isn't YOU. Statistics show the wealth in America is concentrating at the top. WE're working (if we have jobs) and THEY're getting rich.
Who is our economy for? Why are we tolerating this?
1/25/2003
Bush Has Squandered Our Trust
I posted this as a comment at DailyKos, and decided to post it here and No War Blog as well.
What gets me is that Iraq could very well be the threat that the Bushies say. Iraq could very well be working on biological weapons or hoarding chemical weapons. They very well could be a threat to us, supplying terrorists, planning to hit us with smallpox, etc.
If so, Bush has handled this outrageously! He has lied about Iraq. He lied about connections with Al-Queda. He lied about that report saying Iraq could have nukes in 6 months. He lied about the aluminum tubes. Getting caught lying at a time when they need the world to trust them is very bad. That, and other things he has done, have split us off from the rest of the world.
Then, Bush pumped fear into the country, instead of being a leader that helps the public with their fears. They pumped fear into the population and then used that to get more of their far-right agenda passed. That is a very divisive thing to do and the country will be divided as a result for a long time.
And Bush has politicized Iraq as well as the war on Al-Queda. They blatantly used Iraq to manipulate the election. This was even more divisive, but worse than divisive it undoes their credibility even with their own supporters who now assume everything has a wink and a nod behind it - that they're "only saying that" to win. Even the supporters don't trust Bush but go along because they fell Bush is doing what he has to do to beat the liberals and want to be on the winning side.
And there has been this whole secrecy thing! Particularly excluding Democrats from consultation on matters of national security! What happens if this war in Iraq goes badly and they have to come to us for emergency appropriations, or for an emergency draft? They've divided the country before the war even starts.
So here we are, unable to trust our own leaders. We may very well be under the kind of threat they say! If so, they have squandered their ability to pull us together by using the divisive tactics, and squandered the world's trust by lying to us. So here we are, not really knowing for sure if we're threatened, pumped full of fear by our own leaders... what a mess!
What gets me is that Iraq could very well be the threat that the Bushies say. Iraq could very well be working on biological weapons or hoarding chemical weapons. They very well could be a threat to us, supplying terrorists, planning to hit us with smallpox, etc.
If so, Bush has handled this outrageously! He has lied about Iraq. He lied about connections with Al-Queda. He lied about that report saying Iraq could have nukes in 6 months. He lied about the aluminum tubes. Getting caught lying at a time when they need the world to trust them is very bad. That, and other things he has done, have split us off from the rest of the world.
Then, Bush pumped fear into the country, instead of being a leader that helps the public with their fears. They pumped fear into the population and then used that to get more of their far-right agenda passed. That is a very divisive thing to do and the country will be divided as a result for a long time.
And Bush has politicized Iraq as well as the war on Al-Queda. They blatantly used Iraq to manipulate the election. This was even more divisive, but worse than divisive it undoes their credibility even with their own supporters who now assume everything has a wink and a nod behind it - that they're "only saying that" to win. Even the supporters don't trust Bush but go along because they fell Bush is doing what he has to do to beat the liberals and want to be on the winning side.
And there has been this whole secrecy thing! Particularly excluding Democrats from consultation on matters of national security! What happens if this war in Iraq goes badly and they have to come to us for emergency appropriations, or for an emergency draft? They've divided the country before the war even starts.
So here we are, unable to trust our own leaders. We may very well be under the kind of threat they say! If so, they have squandered their ability to pull us together by using the divisive tactics, and squandered the world's trust by lying to us. So here we are, not really knowing for sure if we're threatened, pumped full of fear by our own leaders... what a mess!
Even More Pension Trouble
I've been writing about problems with pension funds for a while. Finally the problem is becoming publicly serious enough that it is gaining the attention of the mainstream press. (The problem isn't growing - awareness of the problem is growing. The problem is already huge.)
Companies that promise employee pensions are required to set aside enough money to cover their future pension obligations. During the big stock runup, pension funds grew faster than the obligations, and companies TOOK MONEY OUT of the funds, increasing their apparent profit. Now that stocks are in the process of returning to reasonable levels, the companies need to put that money back, plus enough to cover additional shortfalls. This means that the companies must report lower profits, reducing their stock price.
An additional component is that companies must calculate future obligations, which involves forecasting the rate of return the funds will receive on the money they have. Companies have been using very high rates of return for these forecasts. The higher the forecasted rate of return, the lower the amounts they need to have in the fund now, and the money not put into the fund goes to the bottom line, which raises their stock prices, which means executives get huge bonuses. (See where this is heading?) They're using forecasts of 8.5% returns!
This is my most recent entry about the pension problem. It references earlier entries
Companies that promise employee pensions are required to set aside enough money to cover their future pension obligations. During the big stock runup, pension funds grew faster than the obligations, and companies TOOK MONEY OUT of the funds, increasing their apparent profit. Now that stocks are in the process of returning to reasonable levels, the companies need to put that money back, plus enough to cover additional shortfalls. This means that the companies must report lower profits, reducing their stock price.
An additional component is that companies must calculate future obligations, which involves forecasting the rate of return the funds will receive on the money they have. Companies have been using very high rates of return for these forecasts. The higher the forecasted rate of return, the lower the amounts they need to have in the fund now, and the money not put into the fund goes to the bottom line, which raises their stock prices, which means executives get huge bonuses. (See where this is heading?) They're using forecasts of 8.5% returns!
This is my most recent entry about the pension problem. It references earlier entries
1/23/2003
The Fattest Target Since Pearl Harbor
From a great, great piece by Gene Lyons:
Update - Korea. What I said the other day - "Speak loudly and carry a don't-do-squat stick!"
It doesn't appear to have registered that if the White House geniuses really thought Saddam capable of attacking with "weapons of mass destruction," the well-publicized U.S. troop buildup in Kuwait offers the fattest target since Pearl Harbor.Not to mention the need for a draft to replace them - if we REALLY believe he has weapons of mass destruction and would use them. But I think the Korea situation shows us the reaction of the Bushies to a country that they actually DO think can harm us - instead of just using that as a rationale for a war they want.
Update - Korea. What I said the other day - "Speak loudly and carry a don't-do-squat stick!"
Exploring Other Weblogs
Dave Winer writes this about the cost of prescriptions and later points to this scary story at Brian D Busk's Weblog, about what can happen to you if you do not have health insurance. READ IT and be very afraid.
Nathan Newman on China.
TalkLeft has the Gary Hart speech that we should all read.
Everything at The Hamster is good today, as always.
Toby’s Political Diary talks about the relationship between Bush’s Texas record as executioner, and his drive for war against Iraq.
Thinking it Through writes, ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER RIGHT-WING NUTJOB GETS A JOB WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Everything at TBOGG is always great every day.
Slacktivist has a bunch about Bush’s new appointee to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS.
skimble caught a piece about Helen Thomas calling Bush “the worst president ever” and then read the piece below that.
Nathan Newman on China.
TalkLeft has the Gary Hart speech that we should all read.
Everything at The Hamster is good today, as always.
Toby’s Political Diary talks about the relationship between Bush’s Texas record as executioner, and his drive for war against Iraq.
Thinking it Through writes, ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER RIGHT-WING NUTJOB GETS A JOB WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
Everything at TBOGG is always great every day.
Slacktivist has a bunch about Bush’s new appointee to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS.
skimble caught a piece about Helen Thomas calling Bush “the worst president ever” and then read the piece below that.
1/22/2003
I Report - You Decide
Got this e-mail from a reader. In the right-wing Fox Limbaugh Drudge spirit of just passing this kind of thing along, here it is:
The Bush administration is about to start shipping a lot of smallpox vaccine. During the cold war the US spooks always watched for any kind of mass vaccination program against biowarfare agents. We knew that the Soviets vaccinated its military VS several agents, so we supposed that biowarfare was an option in battle situations. But civilian protection would presage something more sinister. Now the US is doing exactly that but under the excuse that we are afraid that somebody else will spread smallpox into our population.You decide. Leave me out of it. Remember - if Clinton were President, imagine what the wingers would be posting! They flatly claim he launched that strike on Bin-Laden to divert the press from Monica stuff - saying he "bombed an asprin factory." Now they'd be saying that his poll numbers are down, so he would do something like this. But leave me out of it. :-)
Supposedly, only a couple or three smallpox stocks were left in freezers after the disease was eradicated form the earth. The US, of course, has one of those acknowledged stocks and perhaps some that are more carefully hidden. Add to this the fact that the Anthrax spores used in the mail attacks came from a US Government lab (1) and you realize that was a practice run to gauge the public reaction and response.
If Smallpox is released in this country, it will be by some elements in this current government and blamed on Iraq and/or Bin Laden. The Patriot Act and some other enabling legislation allows a virtual suspension of civil liberties in case of such a public health crisis. Doesn't this remind you of an analogous turn of events (Reichsteig Fire, etc.) in Germany (2) during the late Twenties and early Thirties.
(1) Graduate training as a medical microbiologist and service on an industry advisory board to the EPA's anthrax task force convinces me of this fact.
(2) Don't forget, those events staged by the Nazi party were partly financed by G.W. Bush's Grandfather.
State of the Union (2)
I came across this great preview of the State of the Union speech. Hilarious!
State of the Union Speech
I expect that President Bush will use the State of the Union speech to do everything he can to scare the crap out of the American people. Rather than use his position of leadership - the "bully pulpit" - to calm a frightened public, Bush will continue to use language intended to whip up fear.
This is their tactic. Our fear has been so useful to them. A terrified public will rally behind their leaders for their own protection. When we're under attack we must stand together. We will support our leader and will not tolerate breaking ranks.
They terrify us and then they harvest the results.
By terrifying us the right keeps us distracted, and uses the panic to push their agenda through the Congress. The Republicans politicized "the war" and the fight against terrorism. They drummed up the Iraq scare to influence the election – and it worked. A terrified public supports massive increases in military spending. It supports restrictions on the media. It supports restrictions on political criticism.
Terrify us, then harvest the results.
Terrify, then harvest. The new mantra of the Republicans: "Terrify, then harvest. Terrify, then harvest!"
This is their tactic. Our fear has been so useful to them. A terrified public will rally behind their leaders for their own protection. When we're under attack we must stand together. We will support our leader and will not tolerate breaking ranks.
They terrify us and then they harvest the results.
By terrifying us the right keeps us distracted, and uses the panic to push their agenda through the Congress. The Republicans politicized "the war" and the fight against terrorism. They drummed up the Iraq scare to influence the election – and it worked. A terrified public supports massive increases in military spending. It supports restrictions on the media. It supports restrictions on political criticism.
Terrify us, then harvest the results.
Terrify, then harvest. The new mantra of the Republicans: "Terrify, then harvest. Terrify, then harvest!"
1/21/2003
Thanks BuzzFlash
Some of the best things to read here are:
Paying for the War, Military, Etc.
When Facts Collide with Support
The Commonweal Institute - Heritage Foundation of the Left
Getting Rolled
Remember to bookmark Seeing the Forest and visit again!
Paying for the War, Military, Etc.
When Facts Collide with Support
The Commonweal Institute - Heritage Foundation of the Left
Getting Rolled
Remember to bookmark Seeing the Forest and visit again!
New - BuzzFlash Headlines
Scroll down a ways and you will see on the left (of course) a new section at Seeing the Forest - news headlines from BuzzFlash!
More about BuzzFlash - see this piece.
More about BuzzFlash - see this piece.
1/19/2003
Raising some Rabble with the Righties
I just posted this as a comment (in the "Standards" entry) over at tacitus.org. (In response to a comment by "nerf" in the entry below.)
Let me get this right - Bush went AWOL for 18 months, because he refused to take a drug test - and you guys don't think there's anything wrong there?Go over there and raise some rabble.
That's desertion in time of war. Whether the Nat Guard was called up to VietNam or not, it's STILL desertion in time of war. Not to mention the drug implications!
You want to bring up Clinton? Ok, Clinton got a student deferment - JUST LIKE CHENEY DID. Just like ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DID.
And Clinton got a blow job. Get over it.
Now, let's talk about Bush. He was a military pilot who refused a drug test. He deserted the military in time of war. That's a capital offense, guys! Please, tell me again how this is not a big deal.
1/17/2003
Skippy Pointing to Bush AWOL Questions
Skippy pointed me to a site titled A Military Career Distinguished Only by Favoritism looking into Bush's National Guard AWOL situation.
Where was Bush? Why is this not a major issue? Even if just to be cleared up! What do we have here, Stalin? No one can question the king?
Where was Bush? Why is this not a major issue? Even if just to be cleared up! What do we have here, Stalin? No one can question the king?
More Pointing
Now I'm going to point to Paul Krugman's column today, which ends with the line,
I want to point out that the costs of tax cuts for the wealthy arrive sooner than that. We currently pay over $300 billion per year for interest costs because of Reagan's budget deficits. That amounts to a $300 billion tax increase, paying for Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy. The kicker is, by and large, the wealthy receive that interest.
So what we saw in the early 80's wasn't just a tax cut for the wealthy, it was also the creation of a huge government spending program, almost the largest item in the U.S. budget, almost entirely to the wealthy. This is also what the Bush tax cuts mean for our future. A huge spending increase - increased future debt interest payments from us to the wealthy.
The current tax cuts are coming out of our Social Security money! We pay into Social Security, it runs a surplus, but that surplus is going out to the tax cuts for the rich. So not only will will have to pay interest to the wealthy, we will have to pay that interest instead of retirement payments to ourselves.
Trust me: we're going to miss Rubinomics. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.He's saying here that we'll eventually pay a great price for Bush's deficits.
I want to point out that the costs of tax cuts for the wealthy arrive sooner than that. We currently pay over $300 billion per year for interest costs because of Reagan's budget deficits. That amounts to a $300 billion tax increase, paying for Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy. The kicker is, by and large, the wealthy receive that interest.
So what we saw in the early 80's wasn't just a tax cut for the wealthy, it was also the creation of a huge government spending program, almost the largest item in the U.S. budget, almost entirely to the wealthy. This is also what the Bush tax cuts mean for our future. A huge spending increase - increased future debt interest payments from us to the wealthy.
The current tax cuts are coming out of our Social Security money! We pay into Social Security, it runs a surplus, but that surplus is going out to the tax cuts for the rich. So not only will will have to pay interest to the wealthy, we will have to pay that interest instead of retirement payments to ourselves.
Pointing To
Someone pointed out that I have been doing more "pointing to" than "talking" here lately, and he's right and I want to apologize. I know how much many of you depend on me so much, and I have been letting you down. (Especially you, Mr. Green Ralph Nader voter, Bush elector. You know who I'm talking about.) There will be much talking soon and the masses shall rejoice. Then, of course, Mr. Green Ralph Nader voter, Bush elector, will tell me I'm talking too much. But that's why I have a blog and he doesn't. (Yet.)
In the spirit of pointing to instead of talking, I want to point you to The Sideshow today, writing about a poll showing most Americans believe that most or some of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqis! Sideshow writes about the press allowing the Bush lies through, but also points out something important here:
In the spirit of pointing to instead of talking, I want to point you to The Sideshow today, writing about a poll showing most Americans believe that most or some of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqis! Sideshow writes about the press allowing the Bush lies through, but also points out something important here:
Still, bottom line: Ordinary people should bother to notice. Yes, the press at this point should be spelling out that none of the hijackers were Iraqi, but a year ago their actual nationalities were all over the media and now only 17% remember that?I've written that you can often tell the message that leaders are sending by checking out what the intended audience is hearing. But the intended audience has SOME responsibility, especially when they are allowing the country to go to war.
SlashDot
I see I'm a moderator over at SlashDot today. I'm taking bids here to "mod up" posts. Leave a comment including a dollar amount and your credit card number, and I'll go "mod up" your message or "mod down" a message you disagree with.
(If you don't know about SlashDot and their moderating system, read the next post instead.)
(If you don't know about SlashDot and their moderating system, read the next post instead.)
Trying Too Hard
The right is trying a little too hard to smear John Kerry. They're circulating a story that he said he "EXPRESSED 'HATRED' OVER TRIPS TO IOWA."
Actually he said - about the need for campaign finance reform - "I hate going to places like Austin and Dubuque to raise large sums of money. But I have to."
He hates having to raise the money. The right smears him, claiming he said he hates Iowa. Typical.
Remember when they dredged up a letter Clinton wrote as a student, saying that he could understand why some people loath the military, and turned it into a widely-repeated smear that Clinton had written that he "loathed the military"?
Actually he said - about the need for campaign finance reform - "I hate going to places like Austin and Dubuque to raise large sums of money. But I have to."
He hates having to raise the money. The right smears him, claiming he said he hates Iowa. Typical.
Remember when they dredged up a letter Clinton wrote as a student, saying that he could understand why some people loath the military, and turned it into a widely-repeated smear that Clinton had written that he "loathed the military"?
1/16/2003
Terrify, then Harvest
Bush and the rest of the right-wingers have been working hard to scare the hell out of the public for some time now. And they have been harvesting the results politically. Now they're harvesting cash, too.
Here's the headline piece in today's right-wing Heritage Foundation TowhHall.com e-mail. (To help you get the flavor of TownHall, today's e-mailing links to articles by "Thomas, Novak, Mackenzie, Fields, McCaslin, Williams, Kudlow, Elder, Chavez, Bartlett, Tyrrell, Chapman, and Coulter".)
Bush formula: Terrify, then harvest.
P.S. One of the TownHall articles promotes Lieberman's candidacy!
Here's the headline piece in today's right-wing Heritage Foundation TowhHall.com e-mail. (To help you get the flavor of TownHall, today's e-mailing links to articles by "Thomas, Novak, Mackenzie, Fields, McCaslin, Williams, Kudlow, Elder, Chavez, Bartlett, Tyrrell, Chapman, and Coulter".)
BIOCHEMICAL ATTACKS ON U.S. COULD BE IMMINENTSo let's click on the URL, and find out how to protect ourselves from IMMINENT chemical and biological attacks.
Are you ready to protect your family? Unfortunately, most Americans aren't prepared to survive terrorist attacks. Worse, the U.S. government has told us nothing about what we can do to protect ourselves. Don't be a sitting duck! Find out what you can do to protect yourself from coming attacks.
While you are vulnerable, you are far from helpless. In a moment I’ll share five simple but potentially life-saving steps to take immediately to protect yourself. But first, you must understand the threat:...Saddam Hussein Could Launch
Deadly Biochemical Attacks Against
America Within 60 Days
A few missiles fired against the U.S. could set off a nationwide plague, which would cripple, disfigure, and even kill millions of American citizens....
And, eventually, it gets to the point,Terrorists Already Have Nuclear Weapons
I've been selling Surviving Terrorism in various newsletters and magazines for $199.00. Hundreds of people have bought it at this price. I’m convinced the potentially life-saving information it contains is worth every penny. In fact, this is still the price I am selling it for to the general public (check out my home page here).I used to write direct mail, so I understand how this is being used. TownHall sent it out - so it's approved. Their approval demonstrates that they recognize how this "wartime Presidency" crap is about selling stuff to the rubes.
However, for a limited time, you can have this life-saving special report for only $97.00. That’s less than half price!
Bush formula: Terrify, then harvest.
P.S. One of the TownHall articles promotes Lieberman's candidacy!
Code Words for Southern Bigots
In case anyone missed the point, Bush chose Martin Luther King's birthday to announce he opposes Affirmative Action.
You can be sure the message was heard clearly by those for whom it was intended. "Lott's gone, but we're still with you."
You can be sure the message was heard clearly by those for whom it was intended. "Lott's gone, but we're still with you."
Adjustments
Jobless claims down by 32,000. But they warn that it might be off because -
This is why the monthly employment numbers look so much worse than the adjusted weekly numbers. The monthly numbers are calculated using a different method, including surveys - actually checking with homes and businesses to see what's going on out there.
The level was much lower than Wall Street economists had been expecting but a Labor analyst warned that adjustments intended to deal with seasonal fluctuations in claims may have had a downward impact on the numbers.I'll bet this is the adjustment they made - this time of year there are a bunch of new unemployed because retailers lay off the Christmas help. They adjust for that so we don't get suddent huge jumps in the new unemployment claim figures. But this year retailers didn't HIRE as much extra Christmas help, so the adjustment wasn't needed. They made this mistake at the end of summer. They adjusted for all the kids who usually leave summer jobs, even though very few were hired this year.
"The seasonal factors expected a lot more (claims) than we experienced," the analyst said.
This is why the monthly employment numbers look so much worse than the adjusted weekly numbers. The monthly numbers are calculated using a different method, including surveys - actually checking with homes and businesses to see what's going on out there.
1/15/2003
Democrats Didn't Cave!
The Democrats didn't cave. That's news, and it merits a headline.
And guess what, when they didn't cave they got what they wanted.
And guess what, when they didn't cave they got what they wanted.
Animals
I'm a vegetarian, and this LA Times op-ed piece today tells you why. (I eat some fish and once in a while I eat non-corporate-farmed turkey.)
Factory farmers may do as they please in the care of animals, with no standard to consult but industry norms dictated by a rigid economic calculus and a view of animals as unfeeling machines.It's just one more aspect of the corporate ethic that is harming us all in so many ways. No regard for the environment. No regard for our kids. No regard for the poor. No regard for the elderly. No regard for our health. And this kind of stuff - horrible, cruel treatment of animals.
In the merciless calculations of industrial production, the animals are not allowed to move because they would burn off more calories and require more feed. In short, as former presidential speechwriter Matthew Scully wrote in his book "Dominion," "Instead of redesigning the factory farm to suit the animals, they are redesigning the animal to suit the factory farm."What sort of harm does eating meat - participating in this corporate atrocity - do to our humanity? Is there karma? Do we have a spirit? I don't know. I just know when something is really, really bad I shouldn't participate.
In their overcrowded battery cages, the birds would peck each other to death. The producer responds to this descent into cannibalism by searing off the birds' beaks.
The tendency of stressed pigs to bite tails is addressed just as summarily by lopping off the tails.
What cannot be achieved through genetic manipulation is achieved by blunt force and sharp tools. For the misshapen and mutilated animals on factory farms, there is no breeze, no ray of sunshine, no rich soil under foot, no opportunity to root or graze in pasture.
An examination of the industrialization of animal agriculture raises important questions about public policy issues, including water and air pollution, public health threats from overuse of antibiotics and the loss of small farms as a result of corporate consolidation. But above all it raises questions of conscience and human responsibility in the care of animals.I was volunteering at the Santa Cruz SPCA several years ago, and one day I took care of a little pot-bellied pig. It was just like a little dog. It wagged its tail and came running over to me. It liked it when I scratched it behind the ears. I haven't touched red meat since that day.
Some of us distance ourselves from the violence of meat, milk and egg production through vegetarianism. But we can all agree on this: If animals are reared for food, their lives should not be plagued by the occasional torture and the daily torments and deprivations of the factory farm.
To My Green Friends
My Green friends will like this over at Testify!
You already know what I think.
Update - Here's what Zizka thinks. Also here. He left a comment, but I'm pointing it out here.
You already know what I think.
Update - Here's what Zizka thinks. Also here. He left a comment, but I'm pointing it out here.
Shit Approaches Fan
I have been writing about the problems with corporate pension funds. This Dow Jones Newswire story just appeared online, Most Pensions Funds Suffer Shortfalls
And it will be worse that you hear about. This appears in the story,
And it will be worse that you hear about. This appears in the story,
The median expected rate of return on pension assets for S&P companies in 2001 was 9.2 percent, according to Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. analyst David Zion, the author of a well-regarded study on pension underfunding.In other words, they're in as much trouble as they are in, and that is with them reporting expected earnings of 8.5 percent on their funds next year. Yes, that's right, they're saying their funds will increase 8.5% in 2003. Part of why they are in this trouble is they reported "expected" increases of 9.2% in 2001, which, of course, didn't happen. Imagine how bad the books would look if they were reporting realistic returns on their pension fund investments!
Zion said numbers for 2002 aren't yet available, and predicted the median rate for 2003 will be 8.5 percent.
1/14/2003
Are You in a Union?
Are you in a union? Not in your line of work, you think? You're a programmer? Working in sales? A middle manager? Marketing? (Weblogger?) Two years ago programmers, system administrators, web designers, product managers, marketing managers, all thought they owned the world. Now many can't find a job and have been looking for 6 months or a year or more. Wages are dropping, working conditions are deteriorating, jobs are being exported and the people they are exported to aren't paid squat so they aren't going to be buying whatever we do still make here.
Click here for some things to think about. Wherever you work. Whatever you do. This is a good time to learn what would be involved in getting a union or a "professional association" going at your company. Assuming you're still employed, that is. Otherwise, maybe you should have gotten that union going while you still had time! (YES I'm talking to all of you HP workers, too, now that the second wave of layoffs is underway!)
From the AFL-CIO page, How & Why People Join Unions,
Click here for some things to think about. Wherever you work. Whatever you do. This is a good time to learn what would be involved in getting a union or a "professional association" going at your company. Assuming you're still employed, that is. Otherwise, maybe you should have gotten that union going while you still had time! (YES I'm talking to all of you HP workers, too, now that the second wave of layoffs is underway!)
From the AFL-CIO page, How & Why People Join Unions,
People who work for a living know about the inequality of power between employers and employees. Workers want to form unions so they can have a voice on the job to improve their lives, their families and their communities.The AFL-CIO site is a good website. Take a look around. Take a look at Executive Paywatch in the Eye on Corporate America section!
Fury and Accusations
I'm reading this story, and I come across this line:
The GOP response to these demands Tuesday was fury and accusations.So I'm thinking, "What else is new?" It doesn't matter what the article is about, does it? The Republican response to anything that doesn't go their way is always fury and accusations. Like a whining little kid. "It wasn't me! Billy did it!"
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich Endorses Commonweal Institute
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has provided an endorsement for the Commonweal Insititute.
Bold
In the news: Bush Could Revive 'Bold Initiative' for N. Korea
Gotta give those right wingers credit for sticking to their talking points. A week or so back a focus group must have said that X% of target demographic Y responds favorably to the word "bold." So now everything is "bold."
Even this message is bold. (That's an HTML insider joke.) I'm on board with the great white father, please don't put me in an internment camp.
Gotta give those right wingers credit for sticking to their talking points. A week or so back a focus group must have said that X% of target demographic Y responds favorably to the word "bold." So now everything is "bold."
Even this message is bold. (That's an HTML insider joke.) I'm on board with the great white father, please don't put me in an internment camp.
Was Bush a Bed-Wetter?
Democratic Veteran is looking for a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) expert to help him get Bush's DD-214 released. From DemVet:
The DD-214, for those of you not familiar with them, is a document given to everyone who separates from the service. The reason it's important is that it contains a "characterization" of the serviceman/woman's service. Pre-1974 or so, the program used what were called Separation Program Codes or Numbers (they are called both) which gave a very interesting set of characterizations to the separating member. Some of them were things like "bed-wetter", "homosexual"; you get the picture. Now for the punchline, a person could get an Honorable Discharge and have an SPC/SPN which was far from a characterization of Honorable. This system was amended in the '70's after it became common knowledge about the unfairness of the system and its often arbitrary application to people who were ummmm not mainstream or just not great performers or just did not show up, but you couldn't Courts-Martial sound like anyone we know?I think this is a worthy cause. Let's find out what Bush is hiding.
1/13/2003
New Weblog Links
You may have noticed that I have added quite a number of weblogs to my Essential Links list. I went crazy last week and added so many that I forgot everyone I had added so I didn't mention that I added any. Please let me know what's missing.
ALSO I have changed my method of keeping my links up-to-date. I am using Blogrolling.com instead of manually adding links myself with hand HTML. One advantage is that Blogrolling also keeps track of whether blogs are recently updated, so if you see |UP| before the name of a weblog, it means that it has been updated in the last 3 hours. (I can change that.) If YOU are a weblogger and you use Blogrolling, just click the "Blogroll Me" link on the left to add Seeing the Forest to your links. If you are a weblogger who has not added Seeing the Forest to your links ... well ...
ALSO go try out the "Roll your own me-zine" link over on the left there. I'd put a link here as well but then you wouldn't go try it over on the left there like I told you to.
And finally, you can syndicate Seeing the Forest using the XML link over there.
ALSO I have changed my method of keeping my links up-to-date. I am using Blogrolling.com instead of manually adding links myself with hand HTML. One advantage is that Blogrolling also keeps track of whether blogs are recently updated, so if you see |UP| before the name of a weblog, it means that it has been updated in the last 3 hours. (I can change that.) If YOU are a weblogger and you use Blogrolling, just click the "Blogroll Me" link on the left to add Seeing the Forest to your links. If you are a weblogger who has not added Seeing the Forest to your links ... well ...
ALSO go try out the "Roll your own me-zine" link over on the left there. I'd put a link here as well but then you wouldn't go try it over on the left there like I told you to.
And finally, you can syndicate Seeing the Forest using the XML link over there.
Pension Trouble
I've been writing about a coming crisis with pension plans. There's more news. In today's NY Times, Companies Fight Shortfalls in Pension Funds,
All of this also means that many companies are less healthy than their books currently show. So stocks that already have really high PE ratios, actually would have even higher PE ratios if you had a way of knowing how healthy the companies REALLY are. (Earning 10% - give me a break.)
A second story today, US Airlines Pension Gaps Seen Wider -Fitch,
How many of them do you think were convinced to vote Republican?
After a three-year bear market, many major American companies are spending large amounts to shore up pension plans that have deteriorated, sometimes drastically.The story goes on, (and here it gets a bit technical),
Many companies are also considering ways to reduce their pension obligations to workers, possibly undermining benefits for millions.
The council, a business group that lobbies on employee benefits issues, is urging Congress to make permanent a temporary interest rate increase it granted companies for use in calculating total liabilities in 2002 and 2003. Without Congressional action, the temporary rate will expire at the end of this year, possibly doubling the amounts some companies will have to put into their pension plans, Mr. Gebhardtsbauer said.In other words, they want to CLAIM that they are earning up to 10% on their accounts when calculating how much they will have in their pension accounts, which means that if they do NOT earn 10% (and they aren't), the funds won't be there for retirees and they will have to reduce promised payments. As the NYTimes story says, allowing companies to claim high returns also means that their shortfalls are actually as much as double what they are currently claiming! Maybe even more.
All of this also means that many companies are less healthy than their books currently show. So stocks that already have really high PE ratios, actually would have even higher PE ratios if you had a way of knowing how healthy the companies REALLY are. (Earning 10% - give me a break.)
A second story today, US Airlines Pension Gaps Seen Wider -Fitch,
"These growing obligations will inevitably lead to large increases in required cash contributions to pension plans, compounding the financial stress and cash flow concerns that already exist in the industry," he said.I've also been writing about how 401K plans actually screwed workers and handed the money that would have been used to fund their pensions over to the rich. (Pension plans - the company puts the money in and promises you a monthly amount for life. 401Ks - you put the money in (or not) and you try to make it grow (or not) and maybe you have money when you retire - but you must save enough to last if you live to 100 just in case you do, where a company pension plan only has to put in enough for the average lifespan. The ENTIRE obligation for retirement is thrown onto your back. The money that used to go to employee pensions is handed to the stockholders instead, 90% of them being a few rich people.) If you read the NY Times article, it looks like the people who were able to stick with pension plans instead of being shuffled off to 401Ks are also about to get screwed.
How many of them do you think were convinced to vote Republican?
1/12/2003
New Congressional Ethics Rules
The new Republican Congress has removed many of the tough ethics rules. One example, lobbyists can now deliver food to members of Congress and their staff, up to $50 per person per meal. So what do Republicans say about a $50-per-person meal?
"What we are talking about is Chinese food," said Jo Powers, the spokeswoman for David Dreier, the Republican representative from California who leads the rules committee. "It's not like steaks are being delivered."That's how Republicans feel about meals that cost "only" $50 per person!
Another change allows charities to pick up the tab for travel and lodging for members to attend their events. Critics say this harks back to the days when House members cavorted with special interests on free trips to golf resorts. But, Ms. Powers said, "sometimes a member will be a big draw for charity." "If it will help the charity double their take, it's worth bringing them down," she added.Just to be clear, the Heritage Foundation is a "charity." Scaife's foundations are "charities." The Federalist Society is a "charity."
1/11/2003
Hullabalo
Digby says,
"Throughout the campaign, as George W. Bush assured us that George W. Bush was "a leader because he could lead," (while others were quietly winking about the "grown-ups" keeping the frat boy out of trouble) I kept wondering," What will George W. Bush do when his grown-ups disagree?" How does a man like this make such a decision? How will someone with so little experience with responsibility --- someone who doesn't have even have an interest in understanding the complexities of making life and death decisions --- how does someone like this weigh competing interests, particularly since he doesn't appear to have developed even a Reaganesque set of basic principles to which he can always refer for simple guidance? "Maybe I'll stop posting for the night so you can go read the whole thing. It's just great!
CalPundit has all kinds of good things, and thinks we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to require the President to have press conferences.
1/10/2003
Jobs and Stocks and Wishes
Yesterday the stock markets soared, because the weekly "new unemployment claims" dropped a bit.
Today the report is, OOPS, actually in December the economy LOST 101,000 jobs.
Tell me, WHO is going to lead the economy out of the doldrums? WHERE are the customers going to come from?
The other day a friend was telling me about the last several months before his company went under. He said all the signs were clearly there, but people couldn't accept it. People would seize on every small piece of potential good news and take it as a sign of imminent recovery. A major customer called and said there might be an order coming - everyone would rejoice, some would even buy new cars. (Of course the order never came.) The landlord let them out of a lease on one of their buildings - celebration, speeches by the CEO about the beginning of the turnaround. People held onto their stock, sure it would rise tenfold to previous levels. Finally, of course, inevitably, came the end.
Today the report is, OOPS, actually in December the economy LOST 101,000 jobs.
The U.S. labor market took a turn for the worse in December as the economy lost 101,000 jobs, the government said on Friday, in contrast to expectations companies would add workers. The jobs drop was the largest since February, when the economy lost 165,000 jobs.So today stocks are ... up.
Tell me, WHO is going to lead the economy out of the doldrums? WHERE are the customers going to come from?
The other day a friend was telling me about the last several months before his company went under. He said all the signs were clearly there, but people couldn't accept it. People would seize on every small piece of potential good news and take it as a sign of imminent recovery. A major customer called and said there might be an order coming - everyone would rejoice, some would even buy new cars. (Of course the order never came.) The landlord let them out of a lease on one of their buildings - celebration, speeches by the CEO about the beginning of the turnaround. People held onto their stock, sure it would rise tenfold to previous levels. Finally, of course, inevitably, came the end.
1/09/2003
Over at Toby's Political Diary
Over at Toby's Political Diary - Let It Begin Here, Solidarity Forever is an inspiring piece.
It is time to resurrect this concept—that solidarity among Americans means there is a limit to the income inequality that we will tolerate, a limit to the social costs corporations can impose, and an entitlement to a European quality of life, with vacation, health care, retirement, unemployment, training and an adequate welfare system.An informative piece is The Tax Cut and the 2 Million ton Cap.
The bottom 80% of Americans lost ground in terms of share of income since the time of Ronald Reagan. The top 20% gained some share of income, but the top 5% gained nearly 75% of all share of income given up by the bottom 80%.Visit this weblog and read these pieces. I always gain from the experience.
This is not class war. It is class rape.
Just Gets Bigger
MaxSpeak notes points out that factoring interest costs into Bush's tax cut proposal brings the cost up to $899 billion. PLUS that isn't really a 10-year number, so if you factor in the years 2011 and 2012 it adds ANOTHER $600 billion. Go read why.
Plus, the costs of increased military budgets and other things Bush is doing aren't yet factored into deficit projections. He really is trying to ruin our government!
Plus, the costs of increased military budgets and other things Bush is doing aren't yet factored into deficit projections. He really is trying to ruin our government!
The Lotte
From On A Path,
"Bitter brew? For the past couple of weeks, those wags at Kramerbooks & Afterwords Cafe in Dupont Circle have been marketing a beverage called the "Trent Lotte." The menu describes the $3.25 item as "separate but equal parts of coffee and milk"Take a look at more at On A Path.
Murdoch Gives Justice Thomas $2 Million Bribe!
According to today's NY Times, Justice Clarence Thomas will receive a $2 million bribe from Rupert Murdoch!
50% to Seniors!
The other day I wrote, "If you have 1,000 people, and one of them gets $1 million, and the rest get nothing, these people will get an average of $1,000."
Now Bush is telling the public that 50% of dividends go to seniors, and the chorus is on the radio, etc., telling people that this tax cut will supplement the Social Security payments of old people across the nation.
Let me explain how 50% of dividends go to seniors. If you have 10,000 people, and one of these is aged 50 and gets $5,000,000 from dividends, and another one is 66 and gets $5,000,000 from dividends, and the rest of us get nothing, then 50% of the dividends go to seniors, and we all get an average of $1000.
And, to repeat myself again, the rest of us get nothing.
Now Bush is telling the public that 50% of dividends go to seniors, and the chorus is on the radio, etc., telling people that this tax cut will supplement the Social Security payments of old people across the nation.
Let me explain how 50% of dividends go to seniors. If you have 10,000 people, and one of these is aged 50 and gets $5,000,000 from dividends, and another one is 66 and gets $5,000,000 from dividends, and the rest of us get nothing, then 50% of the dividends go to seniors, and we all get an average of $1000.
And, to repeat myself again, the rest of us get nothing.
Explaining PE Ratios
I was probably a bit technical in my previous post.
The way to value a stock is the ratio of its price to the earnings of the company. Theoretically each shareholder will receive some return based on the earnings of the company - either the company pays a dividend or the company reinvests profits into the company, making the company more valuable, increasing the potential for some future, larger dividend stream. And sometimes a company is sold and shareholders are sent checks. So to determine how much the share of stock is worth to you, you decide what multiple - how many times the company's earnings - you are willing to pay to hold onto the share. That multiple is called the PE Ratio, which means the ratio of the price of a share to the company's earnings per share.
Historically the stock market goes through cycles of people being willing to pay higher multiples and lower multiples, and over time you see clear patterns. Stocks go through periods where people want to buy stocks and are willing to pay more for them, and the average PE ratios increase. Then something happens and people decide that stocks have less general value than they thought, so they sell stocks, and the prices of stocks decrease, until people decide that stocks are a good deal and start buying them again. Over time you can see a pattern of how high PE ratios can get before people start selling, and how low they can get before people start buying. Historically the average is about 15 or 16.
Stocks are seriously overvalued! Look at the charts referenced below to see where the stock market PEs are now, compared to history. Today the PE ratio of the S&P 500 is 24.6. If you look at historical charts of PE ratios, you'll see that the cycles range from a high of a little over 20 (except this time) and then fall (a "bear market") to a low of under 10 (often well under 10) before they start a new rising cycle (a "bull market"). Currently stock PE ratios are well above historical highs! I think the PE of the stock market just before the 1929 crash was 21. (Remember, it's a cycle, stocks fall below the historical R of about 15 before they start to rise again.) And all this is calculated using the earning as reported by the companies in the last few years. That includes companies like Enron and WorldCom. As we now know, they were inflating their earnings.
Core Earnings Standard & Poors has a new way to calculate earnings, called Core Earnings. Core Earnings don't use any of the bullshit that companies like Enron were using. This document explains Core Earnings, and says that for the 12 months ending June, 2002, Core Earnings for the S&P 500 were $18.48 per share. Compare that to the "As Reported" earnings of $26.74 per share, and think about what this means for current PE ratios. Current PE ratios are calculated using "As Reported." So using Core Earnings the current PE is closer to 50. (It is important to remember, the historical charts referenced here use "As Reported" earnings, so you can't compare current Core Earnings PE ratios, except to the point that you think companies were inflating earnings in the last few years and whether you think they were doing more of this than was done historically. If you think they were doing more of this in recent times, than historical "As Reported" PE ratios would likely be closer to current Core Earnings.)
Charts. I'm linking here to a few charts showing the ratio of stock prices to the earnings-per-share, not the price of the stock, so there is no need to adjust for inflation, etc. They show you where stocks are valued at different points in the cycles.
Take a look at these charts and decide for yourself whether stocks are priced where they should be, underpriced, overpriced, way overpriced, way seriously overpriced, dangerously seriously overpriced, or hairy sweaty steaming grunting screaming indubitably massively terrifyingly holy-shit way-momma uglified oh-my-god end-of-the-world overpriced. (I describe, you decide.)
Here is a chart showing the range of PE valuations (calculated various ways) for 100 years (ending 2001).
Here is a chart of PE ratios (also calculated various ways) from 1929 to 2001.
These charts (PDF - see page 2) also show where the stock market is now, relative to history.
Here is another chart of historical PE ratios.
The way to value a stock is the ratio of its price to the earnings of the company. Theoretically each shareholder will receive some return based on the earnings of the company - either the company pays a dividend or the company reinvests profits into the company, making the company more valuable, increasing the potential for some future, larger dividend stream. And sometimes a company is sold and shareholders are sent checks. So to determine how much the share of stock is worth to you, you decide what multiple - how many times the company's earnings - you are willing to pay to hold onto the share. That multiple is called the PE Ratio, which means the ratio of the price of a share to the company's earnings per share.
Historically the stock market goes through cycles of people being willing to pay higher multiples and lower multiples, and over time you see clear patterns. Stocks go through periods where people want to buy stocks and are willing to pay more for them, and the average PE ratios increase. Then something happens and people decide that stocks have less general value than they thought, so they sell stocks, and the prices of stocks decrease, until people decide that stocks are a good deal and start buying them again. Over time you can see a pattern of how high PE ratios can get before people start selling, and how low they can get before people start buying. Historically the average is about 15 or 16.
Stocks are seriously overvalued! Look at the charts referenced below to see where the stock market PEs are now, compared to history. Today the PE ratio of the S&P 500 is 24.6. If you look at historical charts of PE ratios, you'll see that the cycles range from a high of a little over 20 (except this time) and then fall (a "bear market") to a low of under 10 (often well under 10) before they start a new rising cycle (a "bull market"). Currently stock PE ratios are well above historical highs! I think the PE of the stock market just before the 1929 crash was 21. (Remember, it's a cycle, stocks fall below the historical R of about 15 before they start to rise again.) And all this is calculated using the earning as reported by the companies in the last few years. That includes companies like Enron and WorldCom. As we now know, they were inflating their earnings.
Core Earnings Standard & Poors has a new way to calculate earnings, called Core Earnings. Core Earnings don't use any of the bullshit that companies like Enron were using. This document explains Core Earnings, and says that for the 12 months ending June, 2002, Core Earnings for the S&P 500 were $18.48 per share. Compare that to the "As Reported" earnings of $26.74 per share, and think about what this means for current PE ratios. Current PE ratios are calculated using "As Reported." So using Core Earnings the current PE is closer to 50. (It is important to remember, the historical charts referenced here use "As Reported" earnings, so you can't compare current Core Earnings PE ratios, except to the point that you think companies were inflating earnings in the last few years and whether you think they were doing more of this than was done historically. If you think they were doing more of this in recent times, than historical "As Reported" PE ratios would likely be closer to current Core Earnings.)
Charts. I'm linking here to a few charts showing the ratio of stock prices to the earnings-per-share, not the price of the stock, so there is no need to adjust for inflation, etc. They show you where stocks are valued at different points in the cycles.
Take a look at these charts and decide for yourself whether stocks are priced where they should be, underpriced, overpriced, way overpriced, way seriously overpriced, dangerously seriously overpriced, or hairy sweaty steaming grunting screaming indubitably massively terrifyingly holy-shit way-momma uglified oh-my-god end-of-the-world overpriced. (I describe, you decide.)
Here is a chart showing the range of PE valuations (calculated various ways) for 100 years (ending 2001).
Here is a chart of PE ratios (also calculated various ways) from 1929 to 2001.
These charts (PDF - see page 2) also show where the stock market is now, relative to history.
Here is another chart of historical PE ratios.
Stocks
At risk of repeating myself. (Well, actually, repeating myself.) The current PE (Price to Earnings) ratio of the S&P 500 is 24.6. This is where the stock market usually falls FROM, not TO. And this isn't even Core Earnings, it's earnings calculated the old-fashioned, corrupt way. Click here to see some charts. (Two links at the top of the page: Still Overvalued and Another Perspective.)
1/08/2003
When Facts Collide With Support
John Balzar has a very interesting op-ed piece in today's L.A. Times, A Scientific Name for Teflon Politics, explaining how people can continue to support Bush even if they don't like anything he's doing. It's called 'cognitive dissonance.'
Because of 9/11 many Americans have been convinced it is vital to their safety and to the country to support Bush. So what happens when confronted with facts that might undermine that support?
Because of 9/11 many Americans have been convinced it is vital to their safety and to the country to support Bush. So what happens when confronted with facts that might undermine that support?
"People abhor inconsistency; they just don't like conflicting beliefs in their lives," Cooper explained. When two things we believe are in conflict, we iron out the wrinkles of dissonance.Lots of Americans clearly are choosing option 3. (Update) Later in the piece,
So if you believe in George W. Bush -- and polls say that a significant majority of Americans do -- but don't approve of cutting pensions for long-term workers, then (1) you can turn against Bush. Or (2) you can decide that Bush is right and that corporate interests are more important than worker pensions. Or (3) you can take the easy path and simply deny that pensions are in jeopardy.
With cognitive dissonance in mind, we can theorize why corporate and Wall Street scandals have not become a gripping crisis in American politics. Many people, it appears, resist evidence that free-market elitists have made a mockery of our treasured values of hard work and fair reward. To acknowledge it could call into question one's very purpose in society. It cannot be!There's a lot more to Balzar's piece, so go read it.
It Didn't Work, So Do More of It
I thought Bush's "1.6 trillion dollar tax cut" was supposed to fix the economy. Now it's worse. Bush's logic is, "It didn't work, so let's do it more."
Over at WTF, Maru has this from last night's Crossfire:
Over at WTF, Maru has this from last night's Crossfire:
Rep. McDermott: Would you like to talk about how many people have lost their jobs since he took over? I mean, didn't he cut taxes a trillion dollars? He cut it a trillion dollars, and what do we have? More people lost their jobs. We're further in the hole. We're in deficit spending; this guy wants to go to war, which is a drag on the economy. And, at the same time, he wants to cut taxes. Now you can't do that. You cannot pay for a war and also give it out the back door.Actually, he has a lot more than this so go check it out! (And keep an eye on Novak's name as the transcript progresses.)
Changes at Commonweal
Commonweal Institute has a new front page. This front page leads to a page that is largely the old front page. I think it improves the tone of their message. What do you think?
1/07/2003
Understanding the Tax Cuts
Bush's tax cut proposal:
The White House said the plan will give 92 million taxpayers an average tax cut of $1,083 this year.Here's how to understand how "you" are going to come out ahead from the Bush tax cut proposals: If you have 1,000 people, and one of them gets $1 million, and the rest get nothing, these people will get an average of $1,000.
Hooray for P.L.A.
P.L.A. points out that during the campaign Bush claimed that it is "ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship" that "create jobs," not government policies. But NOW Bush is claiming that HIS plan will "create jobs."
They Haven't Thought it Through
Ted Barlow is writing about what will happen to tax-free municipal bonds - and the ability of towns, counties and states to raise money - if dividends are no longer taxed. The incentive to buy these bonds goes away! Is this part of the plan to gut our government, or have they not thought this through?
I'm wondering what happens to stocks that are purchased because the value of the stock might go up? These are typically companies that reinvest their profits into their business, and start-ups. These types of companies will no longer be attractive, because you'll have to pay a capital gains tax when you sell them, and the only way to get your gain is to sell them - where investing in an established, profitable company paying a dividend means you will pay NO taxes.
What does this do to the reason we have a stock market - to provide a source of investment capital for new companies, and companies that want raise money to innovate? Why would you want to purchase a stock that might go UP when instead you can purchase a stock that does not go up, but pays dividends? The implications are enormous!
Update - Thinking more about this... Imagine the pressure there will be from stockholders wanting companies to cancel R&D projects and instead increase dividends!
Here's a good one - this is an incentive for companies to borrow huge amounts of money and pay it out as dividends. Which brings to mind this scenario - a company's stock sinks to $1 per share. So they borrow enough to pay a $1 per share dividend and declare bankruptcy! This "no tax on dividends" scam opens up so MANY wonderful doors! And this is with just a few minutes of thinking about it. IMAGINE what kinds of scams and market distortions we'll see if they pass this!
I'm wondering what happens to stocks that are purchased because the value of the stock might go up? These are typically companies that reinvest their profits into their business, and start-ups. These types of companies will no longer be attractive, because you'll have to pay a capital gains tax when you sell them, and the only way to get your gain is to sell them - where investing in an established, profitable company paying a dividend means you will pay NO taxes.
What does this do to the reason we have a stock market - to provide a source of investment capital for new companies, and companies that want raise money to innovate? Why would you want to purchase a stock that might go UP when instead you can purchase a stock that does not go up, but pays dividends? The implications are enormous!
Update - Thinking more about this... Imagine the pressure there will be from stockholders wanting companies to cancel R&D projects and instead increase dividends!
Here's a good one - this is an incentive for companies to borrow huge amounts of money and pay it out as dividends. Which brings to mind this scenario - a company's stock sinks to $1 per share. So they borrow enough to pay a $1 per share dividend and declare bankruptcy! This "no tax on dividends" scam opens up so MANY wonderful doors! And this is with just a few minutes of thinking about it. IMAGINE what kinds of scams and market distortions we'll see if they pass this!
Taxing Businesses
Businesses are taxed on their profits. Businesses that do not have profits do not pay taxes. Therefore cutting taxes will not help a company become profitable. Taxes are not a "cost." The costs of doing business (salaries, cost of goods, other costs of doing business) are deducted before profits are determined. That's what a profit is. Taxes are calculated as a percentage of profits. (This discussion leaves out any property taxes, and tax breaks that some companies purchase with campaign contributions, hiring a politician's son or other relative, or other bribes, or otherwise obtain by doing things like opening a Post Office box in Bermuda or moving patents overseas...)
Well-run companies hire and fire based on their need for employees. If a drop in business leaves little for employees to do the business will lay off employees, retaining just enough to do the work necessary to meet the demand for the products or services offered. If there is an increase in business the company will hire enough employees to meet the demand.
Handing a bunch of cash to employers will not cause companies to hire employees if there is no demand for their products or services. It might, however, cause them to increase campaign contributions or payments to politicians' Swiss bank accounts. Or, it might be a reward for previous contributions or payments. (I would rather not not be sidetracked by a discussion of the merits of pre-paying your bribes or waiting until after the tax break is received.)
Giving tax breaks to companies or to rich people does nothing to increase employment.
Another implication from businesses being taxed on their profits is that businesses do not "just pass on taxes to the customer."
A well-run business charges the most it can get for its product or service. If the business has competitors it has to price its product or service in some relationship to competing products or services. Were a business to add to to prices to cover taxes this would increase the price above what had been determined to be the optimal price! Perhaps a competitor is not as profitable, and therefore doesn't pay as much in taxes. That means the competitor will have a pricing advantage. If a company were to raise prices to cover taxes the it would mean the company was previously negligent in not pricing as high as the market would bear. Finally, increasing prices to cover taxes would increase profits, which would increase taxes, which would require an additional price increase, which would increase profits which would increase taxes.
Companies do not pass on taxes to their customers.
Well-run companies hire and fire based on their need for employees. If a drop in business leaves little for employees to do the business will lay off employees, retaining just enough to do the work necessary to meet the demand for the products or services offered. If there is an increase in business the company will hire enough employees to meet the demand.
Handing a bunch of cash to employers will not cause companies to hire employees if there is no demand for their products or services. It might, however, cause them to increase campaign contributions or payments to politicians' Swiss bank accounts. Or, it might be a reward for previous contributions or payments. (I would rather not not be sidetracked by a discussion of the merits of pre-paying your bribes or waiting until after the tax break is received.)
Giving tax breaks to companies or to rich people does nothing to increase employment.
Another implication from businesses being taxed on their profits is that businesses do not "just pass on taxes to the customer."
A well-run business charges the most it can get for its product or service. If the business has competitors it has to price its product or service in some relationship to competing products or services. Were a business to add to to prices to cover taxes this would increase the price above what had been determined to be the optimal price! Perhaps a competitor is not as profitable, and therefore doesn't pay as much in taxes. That means the competitor will have a pricing advantage. If a company were to raise prices to cover taxes the it would mean the company was previously negligent in not pricing as high as the market would bear. Finally, increasing prices to cover taxes would increase profits, which would increase taxes, which would require an additional price increase, which would increase profits which would increase taxes.
Companies do not pass on taxes to their customers.
1/06/2003
Skippy is launching a campaign to syndicate radio talk-show host Randi Rhodes.
friends, we are sure you are familiar by now with the plight of randi rhodes, a fine lefty on the radio in miami, who cannot get her bosses, clear channel, to syndicate her show because, according to her own testimony, rush limbaugh threatened to leave clear channel if they syndicate randi.Go help.
Bush's Real Agenda
Don't be fooled for a minute by anything you hear claiming that Bush's tax cuts are about stimulating the economy or anything else. That's crap. It's bullshit. It is a smokescreen for what Bush is doing. Tax cuts are about gutting our ability (yes, OUR - that's who the gubmint IS, we the people, all that stuff from civics class...) to provide for our people.
New York Times, August 25, 2001:
I previously wrote about this here.
New York Times, August 25, 2001:
President Bush said today that there was a benefit to the government's fast-dwindling surplus, declaring that it will create "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress." He said that was "incredibly positive news" because it would halt the growth of the federal government.He said this in one of those unguarded moments when he goes off script. Well, the government is having an incredible amount of "growth" right now in military spending, so he didn't mean spending. "Growth of government" is more Republican code words. He's talking about medical care, pensions, policing corporate crime, cleaning up the environment - the things that our government does for US.
I previously wrote about this here.
Fascinating Blog
So I've been exploring the Wealth Bondage blog, and came across Self Esteem for Judas:
"Having betrayed Christ, and founded the Market, Judas -- this was before Prozac -- hung himself in a horse collar. Today, he would be elected President."It's a very ... interesting ... weblog.
Rats
Remember the Bush "rats" campaign ad? Thomas Leavitt approaches rat stories from his unique perspective.
Wealth Bondage
Wealth Bondage approaches the right-wing's creation of conventional wisdom from their unique perspective.
Democrats Not Invited
Read this article in today's NY Times. More Democrats Not Invited, by Mr. "I'm a Uniter not a Divider."
Ed Gillespie, one of the best-connected Republican lobbyists, recalls returning to work right after the election. He was greeted in his office by a hard-charging young Democratic member of his lobbying firm.
"If you need me this morning," the young man said to Mr. Gillespie, "I'll be in the garage washing your car. Would you like me to do the hubcaps?"
1/05/2003
Paying For the War, Military, Etc.
The word "taxes" has been the subject of intense, well-funded, well-crafted, right-wing messaging directed at the public for 30 years. So now there is a negative connotation associated with the word - almost as bad as the dreaded 'L' word, "liberal." So instead of using the 'T' word, let's try a different approach. Think of taxes as paying for the Iraq war and increased military and government services. Who will pay for these things?
The new Bush proposal will ask that people who receive dividends not be asked to pay anything for the war or other government services. (Keep this in mind - they say that this will benefit most Americans because most Americans own stocks. But this is crap - regular people have stocks in a 401K or IRA, and don't pay taxes on dividends NOW, because you don't pay taxes on gains in a 401K or IRA. And if the stocks are in a pension plan you also don't pay taxes on dividends.)
Here's what WILL be taxed:
-Money made from working at a job in an office or at a factory or as a janitor, etc.
-Money made from savings interest.
-Money made if you are a plumber, etc. (even though you are paid by people who already paid taxes on their income, so it will be "taxed twice," which is the justification for no dividend taxation. But that sort of nonsense justification only applies to money made by the really, really rich. Wink, wink, nod, nod.)
-Money you receive as unemployment benefits.
-A big chunk of your income from your job will go into Social Security - but only the first 85,000 is taxed - if you make more than that the tax stops. This is the largest tax most Americans pay. This money is currently going back out to the rich as tax cuts, because the deficit resulting from these tax cuts is also using up the Social Security surplus.
In other words - the money that YOU make.
Here's money that WILL NOT be taxed:
-Money made from inheriting huge fortunes.
-Money made from selling stocks. (Taxed at a much lower rate.) (This benefits primarily the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made from receiving dividends. (This benefits primarily the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made from selling a company. (Taxed at a much lower rate.) (Needless to day - this benefits primarily the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made from stock options received for being an executive at the company that laid you off. (This benefits the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made by corporations that move intellectual property offshore, then license it back to their U.S. branch. Example, a patent on a drug is "owned" by the Bermuda branch and licensed to the U.S. pharmaceutical company for the entire amount of their U.S. profits, so they pay no U.S. taxes on those profits.
-Money made by corporations who have moved their mailing address offshore. (But these corporations WILL be allowed to continue to receive lucrative government contracts.)
-Money and services received by executives as "expenses."
-Income after the first $85,000 is not taxed for Social Security.
In other words - the money that THE REALLY RICH make.
Remember, your Social Security retirement money was given away to the really rich in the 1980's, through tax cuts. Now the money you currently pay into the Social Security system is also being handed to the rich through even more huge tax cuts. And the portion of the tax money that you pay that goes out as interest on the debt is also being given to the rich in the form of debt interest payments. A lot of the military budget is handed to wealthy corporations. The pension money that you would have received if you worked at a corporation was handed out to the rich in the 1980's in the form of increased stock price when pensions were stopped, and you were instead told to save your own money through an IRA or a 401K account.
You pay. They get. And it's just getting worse.
Update - a few words from No More Mister Nice Blog
The new Bush proposal will ask that people who receive dividends not be asked to pay anything for the war or other government services. (Keep this in mind - they say that this will benefit most Americans because most Americans own stocks. But this is crap - regular people have stocks in a 401K or IRA, and don't pay taxes on dividends NOW, because you don't pay taxes on gains in a 401K or IRA. And if the stocks are in a pension plan you also don't pay taxes on dividends.)
Here's what WILL be taxed:
-Money made from working at a job in an office or at a factory or as a janitor, etc.
-Money made from savings interest.
-Money made if you are a plumber, etc. (even though you are paid by people who already paid taxes on their income, so it will be "taxed twice," which is the justification for no dividend taxation. But that sort of nonsense justification only applies to money made by the really, really rich. Wink, wink, nod, nod.)
-Money you receive as unemployment benefits.
-A big chunk of your income from your job will go into Social Security - but only the first 85,000 is taxed - if you make more than that the tax stops. This is the largest tax most Americans pay. This money is currently going back out to the rich as tax cuts, because the deficit resulting from these tax cuts is also using up the Social Security surplus.
In other words - the money that YOU make.
Here's money that WILL NOT be taxed:
-Money made from inheriting huge fortunes.
-Money made from selling stocks. (Taxed at a much lower rate.) (This benefits primarily the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made from receiving dividends. (This benefits primarily the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made from selling a company. (Taxed at a much lower rate.) (Needless to day - this benefits primarily the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made from stock options received for being an executive at the company that laid you off. (This benefits the top few % of wealthy.)
-Money made by corporations that move intellectual property offshore, then license it back to their U.S. branch. Example, a patent on a drug is "owned" by the Bermuda branch and licensed to the U.S. pharmaceutical company for the entire amount of their U.S. profits, so they pay no U.S. taxes on those profits.
-Money made by corporations who have moved their mailing address offshore. (But these corporations WILL be allowed to continue to receive lucrative government contracts.)
-Money and services received by executives as "expenses."
-Income after the first $85,000 is not taxed for Social Security.
In other words - the money that THE REALLY RICH make.
Remember, your Social Security retirement money was given away to the really rich in the 1980's, through tax cuts. Now the money you currently pay into the Social Security system is also being handed to the rich through even more huge tax cuts. And the portion of the tax money that you pay that goes out as interest on the debt is also being given to the rich in the form of debt interest payments. A lot of the military budget is handed to wealthy corporations. The pension money that you would have received if you worked at a corporation was handed out to the rich in the 1980's in the form of increased stock price when pensions were stopped, and you were instead told to save your own money through an IRA or a 401K account.
You pay. They get. And it's just getting worse.
Update - a few words from No More Mister Nice Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)