Monday, December 08, 2008

Conspiracy nut Alex Constantine writes about...little old me!


WWW--If the exposures of COINTELPRO, CABLE SPLICER, CIA assassinations, FBI break-ins (all covered by the Church committee in the 1970s), and the mid-December 2005 revelations of the NSA's warrantless surveillance of millions of Americans doesn't convince you that conspiracy theorists are redundant, then nothing will. We know things are a mess and that our liberties are in jeopardy, we know already.

Conspiracy guru Alex Constantine has join the ranks of the illustrious with the Libertarian "Reason" magazine (paradoxical name) in writing about...me, again. You see, several weeks ago I got tired of reading all these baseless comments by a bunch of nimrods who have no connection to the Palfrey story whatsoever, and who never even spoke with her. I started doing some web surfing--something I rarely ever do--and found that some of these same bozos were still trying to sell the snake oil that Deborah Jeane Palfrey was "murdered," ostensibly by the government and/or former clients.

The problem--of course--is that it's not provable, and certainly not in a court of law. And that's the whole point to my mind: their theory plays-into-the-hands of the government's prosecutors, because I believe they're in a lot of trouble (de jure) for driving a mentally unstable woman to her death. I also believe that they first deprived the defendant of her of her right to due process by leaking information (an unsigned warrant) to Bill Bastone and the Smoking Gun, thereby creating the whole media circus in the first place.

Additionally, I believe that they and the Court knew full well that Palfrey was suicidal, or at least suspected it enough to warrant a competency hearing.

That's right--by suggesting that the government murdered Palfrey, these conspiracy nimrods let them off-the-hook for gross negligence, abuse of office and the law, and extraordinary incompetence. Alex Constantine? Alex Jones? Kurt Nimmo? Jeff Rense? Who are they? I can prove that I've never worked for the federal government--either as an employee of or as an "asset"--but can they? Can Bill Bastone or Judith Miller for that matter?

Like all good conspiracists, Constantine gives me a lot of power and it sounds like a good gig (if you can get it)!
Off the cuff, I think Janovic is attempting to silence me with bogus arguments - he also cites as unimpeachable proof of "suicide" that she had stated, "They'll never take me alive." I interpret this to mean that she would fight to the death - could be wrong because I'm not a post mortem mind reader (neither is Janovic) - or bravado, possibly, but certainly not concrete "proof" of "suicide." ... ("Researcher Matt Janovic Misrepresents DC Madam 'Suicide' (PART ONE)," Alex Constantine's Blacklist, 11.26.2008)
She did "fight to the death" in case you didn't notice, but being Alex Constantine, you probably wouldn't. [Ed., 12.15.2008--If only her final criminal defense attorney had fought a smidgen as hard as she had. He didn't, he stood down. She shouldn't have listened to him at the end. Finally, Burton was imposed on her.] And exactly how do I--a very little guy mind you--"silence" the great Alex Constantine? That's absurd. He accuses me of what he does for a living, namely making "bogus arguments," when he must know better. Since I know better and know what I experienced on my end with Palfrey, I'm saying that he's not used to being so accurately and effectively challenged.

There's no need to read the mind of anyone when it's obvious that the woman was suicidal during her legal proceedings, from an preponderance of evidence. If Constantine has any clue and has seen the materials from Palfrey's early 1990s arrest and conviction in San Diego for pimping, he would know that she expressed thoughts of suicide when she was in jail back then too, she reported it in a letter to the Court. I could go on and on. She was suicidal, and you're not going to disturb the sleep of the dead to sell merchandise, that's it.

Alex didn't get the desperate emails. Alex didn't watch someone disintegrate over the period of ten months, granted that it was from a physical distance. Alex didn't get the frantic emails of someone shifting-gears in several 180s as to how the investigation into her began. Lastly, Alex wasn't there at all, he wasn't someone Palfrey confided in at times, I was. Yeah, he's Alex Constantine, that guy who wrote the "Psychic Dictatorship" books that I never bothered to read because Oscar Wilde seemed to have something more constructive to offer. Big deal.

Look, if the Church committee's report during the 1970s doesn't give you an indication that we've been going in the wrong direction for a very long time, nothing will. The output of these conspiracy theory people is pretty questionable when they'll jump at any little scrap and making wild leaps of logic as they have now with Palfrey's death, a definite suicide.

So, blah-blah-blah, Constantine writes a two-parter that focuses on a comment I posted on his own site stating that he and the rest of them are making baseless statements and are full of it regarding Palfrey. That's because they are full of it, and they are making baseless statements for dollars. In the second part of the dopey piece he tries to undermine Dan Moldea's comments that Palfrey told him she'd kill herself if she lost the case, never mind that if you read her public comments from 2007 and 2008 it's obvious that she's periodically expressing suicidal themes, the Tarpon Springs Police Department's final report on her death--no, we're all CIA operatives, something silly like that. Who are they? Who's Constantine? Great, if you don't agree with him, you're CIA, or a liar, how logical.

The biggest problem with the "She were suicided" theory is what I've already pointed-out: Constantine's "big bad government"
-->Űber theory serves the interests of the prosecution under Jeffrey A. Taylor, providing a distraction and a cover for what could very well be incompetence, abuse, and negligence under the color of authority. You would have to ask him directly if this was his purpose, but it's my opinion that that's the real world effect it has.


Here's what I posted at Alex's site today, who knows if he's going to publish it. Frankly, I don't really care...

Mr. Constantine,

Like most of your ilk of parapolitical ambulance chasers ($$$), you just want to sell your merchandise. You're no different from Geraldo, George Lincoln Rockwell, Ted Nugent, Father Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, or any number of demagogues in the storied history of America.

You weren't a part of her story. I was, and did my best to assist her and did general internet research for her in December of last year. This is something I can prove--can you prove any of your straw man assertions? Your "witnesses" are full of crap, incidentally.

I stand behind the February 28th email that she forwarded to just about everyone on the defense team between her and journalist Jason Leopold where she stated "the bastards aren't taking me alive." Others who interviewed her have told me directly that they thought she was acting unbalanced and expressing suicidal themes.

Thanks, you are comparable to Roy Cohn as well, I left him out there, my slip. Your evidence for a Palfrey murder barely meets the standards of the circumstantial.

Yes, I've also looked at the comments of her former condo manager (he's a crank as well), the interviews you're mentioning, but I know otherwise because I had direct contact for ten months with the deceased. She fired at least a couple of her lawyers because they knew she was suicidal. There should have been a competency hearing, and the government prosecutors are guilty of gross negligence in this area. The Court might be as well.

The problem with you Alex is that you only see what you want to see because there's money in it, period. Your readers read it because they want a simple explanation to a complicated modern world. That's shameful. If there would be one lesson learned from the current economic crisis, it's this: "they" aren't as in control of things as you would LOVE to believe because the alternatives are personal responsibility to yourselves and others. That's more complicated than "there's been a coup!" There was one long ago, grow up.

There are very real parapolitical themes to her saga, no doubt, but this contention of murder has no solid evidence whatsoever. You have nothing, nor does that crank Alex Jones, Kurt Nimmo, or the pathetic Jeff Rense who faked a death photo and put it on his site for more hits and sales.

Sell your conspiracy snake oil somewhere else, we know the system's corrupt, we don't need you. By the way: a link to the right of this article misspells Edgar Allan Poe as "Allen," that's incorrect. Never mind...

yours, Matt Janovic

PS: It's funny how you completely ignore and fail to address the February 28th email. Also, it should be known that I never had contact with Dan Moldea during the proceedings, I don't agree with his take on the RFK assassination, and don't respect his or Mr. Constantine's work.
"Researcher Matt Janovic Misrepresents DC Madam 'Suicide' (PART TWO) - DAN MOLDEA IS A SHILL WITH CIA/FAR-RIGHT SPONSORSHIP," Alex Constantine's Blacklist, 11.28.2008: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/11/part-two-researcher-matt-janovic.html

"Researcher Matt Janovic Misrepresents DC Madam 'Suicide' (PART ONE)," Alex Constantine's Blacklist, 11.26.2008:
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/11/dc-madam-researcher-matt-janovic.html


[Ed.--On a final note--isn't it strange how much power these kinds of people ascribe to the federal government? If only they did have these powers, then we might actually be able to fix things!! The oppressed and their shepherds have a way of giving their masters more actual power than they have, but that's a slave for ya.' Whatever, shut-up little man.]

Revised 12.15.2008

Sunday, December 07, 2008

The silver-lining of the economic crisis: the death of the management class


The Tomb of Frederick Taylor--You can't feel sorry for them. They've worn the brown-lipstick, they've kissed-up, and they've done their best to ensure that American workers have no say in hows and the whys of production or what a business delivers as a product or a service. Why ask the people on the ground?

No, they won't listen to anyone but ownership, and often, they won't even do that, amazing as it sounds. This is why they're all going to be kicked out soon. Apparently, corporations aren't "immortal entities" after all. "Management" is just another word for "overseer" when it comes down to it.

Watching this particular species of social animal croak is a delight, the height of schadenfreude. Any American who's worked under a tyrannical boss knows these bastards for what they are: pea-brained roadblocks to fairness and innovation in the workplace. The most any of them have accomplished is dividing the social bonds between people and running the institutions so badly that they crash. Their time has finally come...to push the mops that have always been beckoning to them to come back home to their true vocations, namely shoveling shit.

These shovels, the sponges, dishcloths, irons, and garbage cans are calling out to them like the Sirens did to Odysseus, longingly. Finally, these little men are going to have to shut-up and have their share of crow as so many former apparatchiki did when the Soviet system collapsed. The public is already beginning to demand accountability, making probes and trials a real possibility.

Will Congress save the day and deflect the forces of law and order from apprehending the Bush II administration? The same with Wall Street's corporate crime wave? Who's going to be the scapegoat, the sacrificial lamb? To be sure, it's going to be someone.

But what's going to be the best is watching the many of these types who were stupid enough to break the law under the duties of their self-appointed jobs being arrested. Certainly, they're going to cling-to their kingdoms in hell for a short time, but then the subpoenas and the criminal and civil suits will come. Most of them will simply be discarded along with the rest of the American working-class, that group they stupidly convinced themselves that they were never a part of.

The only thing management has ever cared about is the perpetuation of management.

That's not a solid platform for any system as we have ample-proof of today. Even bad ideas die hard. Taylor posited the theory that human beings are naturally lazy--indolent--and had to be driven to work if they were going to work at all. This meant the imposition of an authoritarian culture in the workplace, something that wasn't exactly new 100 years ago! Taylor's writings--at best--read like a tract by Ebeneezer Scrooge and Lenin, with a dose of your senile old uncle who drools in the corner at family-gatherings.

Taylor was a High Priest of business Bolshevism; contemporary business/tech/financial elites hold values that aren't especially different from Taylor's and his robber baron "acolytes." Like the phenomena of Social Darwinism, Taylor was just giving a more pointed voice and direction to what was already the overriding spirit of his time. That Americans must work so hard merely to survive is a testament to the anti-humanist and authoritarian nature of forced production in the United States. Why it would behave any differently having its roots in the days of the robber barons, a time when there was virtually no regulation of the economy whatsoever.

Taylorism was adored by the Soviet system's architects, admirers of American authoritarian methods of production.
Lenin and other leaders of the Soviet Union displayed even greater enthusiams for Fordism [standard-parts put together on an assembly line] and Taylorism than the Americans had. When the Soviet Union embarked on a Five-Year Plan that specified mammoth regions of technology based on hydroelectric power and prodigiously rich stores of Siberian natural resources, it turned to American consulting engineers and industrial corporations for advice and equipment. The Soviets constructed entire industrial systems modeled on the steel works in Gary, Indiana, and hydroelectric projects on the Mississippi. (Hughes, Thomas P. American Genesis, University of Chicago Press. 2004. P.8)
Work, work, work, and more work, because there's work to be done and nations to be built. Except that that's not the case any more, at least not in the "developed world." Things need repairing and maintenance, but nation building is over in North America.

What happens when the justifications for work are only in-place to perpetuate a hierarchy? That system eventually falls over its own internal paradoxes, just as the Soviet system belatedly did in the early 1990s. But no, the candidates tell us, "Work, work, work--you're gonna have to work harder than ever!" Why? Just to be able to live, to have shelter and be able to eat? That's a violation of a human being's basic human rights.

With a genuinely scientific approach, Americans wouldn't be working the hours they do because there would be an efficient division of the work, making it more manageable with greater rewards for every contributor. Most major industrial production should be nationalized, or more accurately, owned and directed by the American public. A logical distribution of wealth would also make for a more stable economy, a dynamic one instead of the historical pattern of boom-bust cycles.

This isn't how ownership and employers want you to think, but if this economic crisis should teach us anything, it's that they're the parasites, the exploiters of our labor, and that we don't need them. We never needed them, and their claims of ownership are shoddy. Management has been their flesh column to block the progress of everyone else. If anything, management has been an obstacle of efficiency in production in meeting the essential needs of American workers. This class has been a general drain and an authoritarian roadblock to natural change in the workplace, a buffer between ownership and workers.

Now, these individuals have taken their system over the cliff. This was the natural result of dissolution, when ideas and practices that no longer work and rarely ever did, stop working. With the practically inevitable nationalization of Ford and General Motors, we're seeing the end of "Fordism" and "Taylorism" as core principles in production and the structure of private business and financial organizations.

Are we a "body politic" again? It remains to be seen. Society isn't a machine, but an organism, and organisms require that we're flexible to change.

Future social institutions will have to embody a reasonable degree of this flexibility through an expansion of workplace democracy through the support (allowing it to happen) of the federal government, but not necessarily under its direction. Innovation has been repressed for far too long and the road ahead is a high-tech one with a green-lining. The "Socialists are taking over"? Authoritarian ones did long ago in the United States, and the Cold War was just a matter of competing power structures, a game of semantics and straw men. Similar games are being played (badly) today.

Why do so many of us fear freedom and liberty? Because that means more responsibility and accountability for all, and equality under the law. We have only ourselves to blame for not fighting corporatism in America as we should have. That's reason enough to make up for lost time.

Step 1: Attention management! Clear-out your desks, you bums, and get out. You're fired. Have a nice day, m'kay?

Those folks in Chicago are going to win their strike. The world will take notice of this and workers in other nations are going to emulate it, even in China. You have to make a new day in America happen, and the world can change. Make it happen.

"Speak Out For A Special Prosecutor For Bush/Cheney At The Obama Change Site" by the Pen


We Were Promised Change, And Change Is What We Will Hold Our New
President To

Of all the things that must change, the FIRST thing that must change
now is that the rule of law and respect for the Constitution must be
fully restored. Obama has set up a site where he professes to want to
know what his priorities should be. Therefore let us all go there and
make the number one idea this one.

Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush
Administration

The direct link is rather longish, so we have set up a special action
page that will open up a new window and forward you directly (or else
look for the link at the very top) to the page where you can vote for
this most critical idea.

Special Prosecutor Voting Link:

Important: To cast a vote, when you get to the voting site, click on
the box with the current number count to the left of the main header
for the idea, NOT on the widget on the right hand side of the page
lower down, which just reloads the same page.

President-elect Obama recently said, "If I found out that there were
high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws,
engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I
think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law."
Attorney General-designate Eric Holder recently said top Bush
Administration officials "authorized the use of torture, approved of
secret electronic surveillance of American citizens, secretly
detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the
Writ of Habeas Corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants, and
authorized the use of procedures that both violate international law
and the United States Constitution."

We must now hold them to honor their words of accountability.
The Bush administration has refused to investigate its own crimes and
President Bush may issue blanket pardons before he leaves, indeed we
fully expect him to even try to pardon himself. But that is all the
more reason why we must keep as much heat as possible on the
potential for real post inauguration prosecutions. No pardon could
possibly be broad enough to exonerate the entire litany of the crimes
of the outgoing White House without itself raising serious
constitutional questions.

President Obama must appoint a Special Prosecutor - ideally Patrick
Fitzgerald - to fully investigate these crimes and prosecute those
responsible to demonstrate that we are truly a Nation of Laws and no
one - including the President - is above the law. And you can make
sure that happens by going to this link and helping to make the
appointment of a special prosecutor the number one idea on the Obama
"change" site by a very large and dramatic margin.

Special Prosecutor Voting Link:

And then after you vote, if you haven't requested your "Impeach
Both!!!" cap yet (we just shipped out another 1000 this week), if you
want to go back and get one the page left behind by the link above
will allow you to do that. Because anyone who thinks that the Bush
administration has even now finished committing high crimes has
greatly misunderestimated their depth of incorrigible malfeasance.
Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it. Our new
president has asked us to be involved in telling him what to do. Let
us find out if that was for real or not, by continuing to speak out,
in greater numbers than ever before.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

On the Chicago sit down occupation at Republic Windows and Doors


Chicago, Illinois--I'm sorry, but I hate this city, it sucks. But it's going to suck a lot worse there if more working-class Americans don't start standing up to power and the banks as these folks at the Republic Windows and Doors plant are.

Already, the comparisons to the 1936-37 Flint, Michigan sit down strike are coming, and they're becoming apt. The time to hit employers and ownership is here, and the fist is beginning to clench again when the options of apathy and complacency are gone. Habits die hard, people tend to prefer to be told what to do, but that's ending anyway. Fear is the great controller, but how many cars was anyone buying during the Great Depression? Who was buying them? The workers struck anyway, for their futures and for their families.

You know, nobody important: just our grandparents and parents, because history affects others, and never ourselves. Americans are also being stripped of this convenient attitude by events.


Most Americans think that in a major economic downturn they're even more expendable, that they have even less leverage. This is, flatly-put, utterly wrong and defeatist thinking that we've all been conditioned to. It's in times like this that employers are most vulnerable, and it's in these kinds of environments that workers must start hitting them where they live and demanding more, much-much more.

In the case of the Republic Windows workers, they're getting shafted by the creditors of the company, a name that should sound familiar: Bank of America, recipient of $25 billion in bailout money. How is any of this going to "fix" the economy?

No, these workers should remain there until this is sorted-out in an amicable way. If it isn't, they have to weigh their options. Drama is a very real possibility.

Most of the workers at the factory are Hispanic-Americans. The majority of them were unionized under the UEW (United Electrical Workers), whose leadership are aiding in the fight and negotiations with the now-bankrupt company. The real problem right now appears to be Bank of America, meaning a very real and dramatic confrontation could be coming between them and the UEW.

The time has come for a new step in the history of the labor struggle, and once again, Chicago is center stage. One Big Union.


The Cat Deficit


tv--Where are all the cats on television? OK, there's a program on tonight on Animal Planet, but overall, cats are underrepresented in television land, never mind the halls of Congress. Why is this? Look, cats will always be better to watch than all other pets combined and they're funny too. Cute? Fuhgeddaboutit. There is Ken Russell's "A Kitten for Hitler," but that doesn't count. This whole state of affairs is puzzling.

So where are the cats? Huh? Where?

Every time I go to the Field Museum in Chicago (which isn't often), I go to the Egyptian section...to see the mummified cats. OK, I look at the artifacts from Pompeii too, I'm a sucker for the morbid, and 3,000 year old dice are cool too. The cats are the best. The Egyptians loved their cats so much that if someone killed a cat they were immediately killed for it. They loved their cats so much that they mummified them so that they could be with them forever in the Egyptian (as opposed to the others) afterlife. That's love, it couldn't be anything else. The Romans and Persians also loved cats, so there must have been something redeeming about them.

I can relate to all cat lovers: I love my cat, Saffron, a precocious little American short-hair tabby, a cute little gray (no, not an alien, I'm beating you to it).
Our feline friends tend to have a more nurturing quality to them, and I argue that they bring out the best in humanity, they humanize us and we can learn from them. Cats don't lie, either, there are no cat politicians. They might try to get one past you--getting into food because they're hungry--but lie? Never. Only people can do that, thanks to language.

We want our cats and we want them now. Where are
the goddamned cats? In troubled times, cats can be the difference between chronic depression and poetic happiness. Religion? Who needs that when you have a cat, or several cats (just don't get too many, that sometimes becomes a problem with some of the ladies out there). Cats, h-mmmm? I've seen a few on Anthony Bourdain's show on the Travel channel, and they weren't even sitting on a plate. There just aren't enough cats, and that-is-that...wrote Matt (fancy that).

No, there's no deficit of cats on television, what we have is a general cat-as-trophe. Show me the dead bodies and the flooded plains, the general strikes, the murders, epidemics, economic collapse, war, terrorism, the riots--but throw the image of a cat in there every once and awhile and it helps alleviate the tension. A college roommate of mine once wrote an absurdist play about a man whose shoulder sprouted a cat's head, a comedy of manners. How horrible is that?

Why a cat? Because cats are funny, they're good friends, and they're unpretentious and unfazed by much. Cats would be good at poker if they were able. Cats are innately positive creatures, even when they're bad.


Nobody says (until now), "There's a cat in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge," because everyone wants to say, "Ohhhh, kittttyyyy!" My whole point: cats mean good health and happiness (just clean the box). Forget the wives, forget the American Dream, forget religion, and all the rest. Cats are nature's perfection, they're smart, they're where it's at. I'm almost certain that cats tricked us all into creating civilization so that they'd have houses to live in. Now, that's smart. Dogs aren't as smart--they lack the tact--and they don't hold a candle to a cat. Send in the cats!

"Sunny Von Bulow dead after 28 years in coma"


WWW--I'm underwhelmed, except that it's the exact same length of time America has been in a coma. It cost a minimum of half-a-million to maintain her body every year. That's a waste of money, a total waste that could have helped the living. By all accounts, she was dead before the coma...just ask Klaus. I hear he's a real hoot at a party, a great conversationalist with an aristocratic sense of humor.

O.J. Simpson's memorabilia was his and yet not his...


WWW--This trial has been very interesting to me for a number of reasons. My brother has worked for over a decade in advertising and had the misfortune of meeting a lot of Northern Indiana businessmen over the years (hint: car dealers think "Top Gun" is the "greatest film ever made"--wrong again).

As one might vividly imagine, most of them are antisocial turds with less personality than a houseplant, but a few of them actually wanted to chum it up with "the help," so my brother had to oblige their overinflated egos.

One of these clowns was a very big O.J. fan. He took my brother down into the basement den of his very expensive and poorly-designed-and-built clapboard where there was a wall literally covered with sports memorabilia.

And there it was, it even had its own display-nook: O.J.'s 1968 Heisman trophy.

"He lets me keep it for him, and I give him money every once in a while," he said (I'm paraphrasing now, isn't it thrilling?). This was within the last eight years. Yeah, it's crazy, but these things just have a way of coming to me and not the reverse, a kind of "Jungian" latticework of coincidence that's plagued my life from its inception.

What is there to gather from this? That O.J. has such an enormous ego that in his mind he wasn't "selling" anything, but "allowing" fans to "rent" his memorabilia in return for an audience with him, to be on his "good" side. I won't even go into what it must have been like to have been on his "bad" side, that's now a foregone conclusion after this trial.

In 1999, O.J.'s Heisman was sold to a Philadelphia--that wonderful town Poe loved so much--businessman named Tom Kreissman, except that he went and sold it to the man who O.J. and his co-conspirators attacked in a Vegas hotel, Alfred Beardsley:
Nevertheless, it’s believed that he bought the 1968 Heisman trophy -- the first and maybe only one ever to be auctioned — from the winner of that 1999 sale. The trophy was originally sold to Tom Kreissman of Philadelphia at Butterfield’s auction house on Sunset Boulevard for $230,000. But a source at Butterfield’s says Kreissman returned and sold it a couple of years later. It’s thought that Beardsley was the buyer. ("O.J. Simpson's 'Victim' Part of a Long-Running Feud," Foxnews.com, 09.20.2007)
And why wouldn't Beardsley have "sold" or rented the thing out to raise money for himself and "the Juice"? Why not?

The unintelligent businessman told my brother, "I went to USC when O.J. was playing there, I've known him since then," and "I'm actually borrowing it from another collector." He exhaled on and on, painting a scenario in which all of these successful old school fans of O.J.'s were shuffling these artifacts around to hide them from the Goldman and Brown families who were doing their best to track down all of the assets he was selling off to pay them from the 1996 civil suit ruling ($33 million).

Hey, who says once something's sold that it's really "
sold"?

Over time, O.J. had a number of folks around him who felt he "owed" them money, and the trophy changed hands several times before 1999, and likely afterward:
The man Simpson accused of stealing the items from him is Mike Gilbert, another one-time associate. As Simpson's licensing agent in the late 1990s, Gilbert admitted snatching Simpson's Heisman Trophy and other items from his client's Brentwood home as payment for money he said was owed to him. He later turned the items over to authorities, save the trophy's nameplate.

Gilbert swore he'd go to jail before turning the nameplate over to the Goldman family, which was trying to collect on the $33.5 million civil judgment won against Simpson. Gilbert later surrendered it under court order. ("O.J.'s Vegas Accuser Says He Wants Charges Dropped," Foxnews.com, 09.15.2008)

Yeah, real class act folks there. After 1999, the trail appears to grow cold, wikianswers-be-damned, the Wikiuniverse almost never being correct about anything.

I think that the Goldmans had a good idea this kind of shell game (aka "three card monty") was going on with wealthy fans of O.J., a constant shifting of the memorabilia around with a rental fee and lots of broken promises. Egomaniacs like Simpson can convince themselves of almost anything, the same applying to pea-brained American businessmen with penis envy.

My feeling is that these people aren't mere fans, but criminals--all of the players involved in ferring around O.J.'s memorabilia. Beardsley is just a flash point. I hope that this verdict smokes the rest of them out and that they pay the price of aiding a vile murderer simply because they love football too much. To these clowns, the murders don't even matter--only football does. What a pathetic bunch. I wouldn't use that Heisman for a doorstop, although it would make a great lighter/ashtray combination with a few modifications.

None of it matters, the game is over, finally, at long last. But I still have to wonder: where's O.J.'s 1968 Heisman...and why would anyone in their right mind want it? They may as well buy one of those lousy John Wayne Gacy oil-paintings while they're at it.

"O.J. Simpson's 'Victim' Part of a Long-Running Feud," Foxnews.com, 09.20.2007: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297400,00.html

"O.J.'s Vegas Accuser Says He Wants Charges Dropped," Foxnews.com, 09.15.2008: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296934,00.html

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Michael Moore's plan to save the auto industry


WWW--Michael Moore's proposal makes sense--nationalize the auto industry, make it create mass transit, and get us off of oil entirely. Very good, I endore this one.

Sign if you agree:
http://bravenewfilms.org/petitions/show/32-support-michael-moore-s-plan-to-save-the-big-3



Here's the plan:


Friends,

I drive an American car. It's a Chrysler. That's not an endorsement. It's more like a cry for pity. And now for a decades-old story, retold ad infinitum by tens of millions of Americans, a third of whom have had to desert their country to simply find a damn way to get to work in something that won't break down:

My Chrysler is four years old. I bought it because of its smooth and comfortable ride. Daimler-Benz owned the company then and had the good grace to place the Chrysler chassis on a Mercedes axle and, man, was that a sweet ride!

When it would start.

More than a dozen times in these years, the car has simply died. Batteries have been replaced, but that wasn't the problem. My dad drives the same model. His car has died many times, too. Just won't start, for no reason at all.

A few weeks ago, I took my Chrysler in to the Chrysler dealer here in northern Michigan -- and the latest fixes cost me $1,400. The next day, the vehicle wouldn't start. When I got it going, the brake warning light came on. And on and on.

You might assume from this that I couldn't give a rat's ass about these miserably inept crapmobile makers down the road in Detroit city. But I do care. I care about the millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on these car companies. I care about the security and defense of this country because the world is running out of oil -- and when it runs out, the calamity and collapse that will take place will make the current recession/depression look like a Tommy Tune musical.

And I care about what happens with the Big 3 because they are more responsible than almost anyone for the destruction of our fragile atmosphere and the daily melting of our polar ice caps.

Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.

And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist).

Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.

But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten.

For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.

Of course, the auto magnates used to be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country.

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.

So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)

3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?

These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.

What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots.

Yours,
Michael Moore

LBJ Library releases final recordings...and implicates Richard Nixon in treason


Austin, Texas--The library is reporting that these are the very last tapes, covering the final months of the President Lyndon Baines Johnson from May 1968 to January 1969.

What's revelatory is his discussion with Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen and the person-in-question, Richard M. Nixon. During the Watergate hearings Dirksen was the Republican congressman who stated that Richard M. Nixon would "split the party."
"This is treason," Johnson said, referring to people close to Nixon, during a conversation with Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen. The Democratic president never accused the Republican who would succeed him of treason, but said, "If Nixon keeps the South Vietnamese away from the (peace) conference table, that's going to be his responsibility." ("New tapes show LBJ worried about Vietnam, Nixon," AP, 12.04.2008)
So, he's stated that Nixon's operatives were committing "treason," yet never "accused" Nixon of them in the tapes directly. The problem is, he was telling Dirksen just those very words. Isn't it great to have the press tell us our history, even when evidence suggests otherwise, right before our eyes?

Nixon's operatives were in South Vietnam doing their best to scuttle peace negotiations until the elections were over in the United States, namely, after November 1968. Their approach was to keep South Vietnamese leaders away from the negotiating tables to hurt the chances of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. This is an attempt at prolonging a war, which is treason.

In our timeworn American political tradition, this was brought-up during the Watergate hearings and quickly swept under the rug like the allegations of CIA drug smuggling in Southeast Asia during the war and in the Iran-Contra pipeline.

Special counsel John Dohr's investigators discovered corroboration into these stories and LBJ sounds absolutely certain that this was occurring in Vietnam. He had intelligence and media reports to suggest this was so, and he went so far as to contact Richard Nixon--then running for the White House--and confronted him over it. LBJ continued to harangue the President-elect after the elections for several days. Nixon being Nixon, he lied and did his best to dissuade LBJ that this was not the case.

But never mind LBJ--he didn't know what treason or abuse of office was, he had no experience there...excepting in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, when he authorized wiretaps of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (with the aid of Bill Moyers) and many civil rights era leaders, strong-armed everyone who got in his way, and so on. A wolf knows a wolf.

Do a search on John Dohr and his role in the Watergate investigations and hearings, and while you're at it, try finding much of anything on the Watergate probe's findings in any detail. You're not going to find much. Why is that?
Unsurprisingly, CBS neglected even one mention of this--the most important revelation--from their broadcasts, instead focusing on LBJ's reactions to the riots at the Democratic Convention and other errata. Big surprise.

"New tapes show LBJ worried about Vietnam, Nixon," AP, 12.04.2008:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=32294008

The LBJ Library and Museum: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu


WTOP Radio: DC US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor claims prosectuors "quite anguished" over Palfrey suicide


"Prosecutors in the office who handled the case were quite anguished about how that turned out. Nobody was happy with that result." --Outgoing U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey A. Taylor.

Washington D.C.
--This is something else: soon-to-be ex-U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey A. Taylor is saying that the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey upset members of the prosecution and that it was a "shock" when she committed suicide on May 1st, 2008.

Funny that they suddenly get all teary-eyed after their absurd zealousness in prosecuting her to the point of death.

This is a lie and Taylor is a black liar who's hiding something along with his associates. That something is that he and the prosecution had ample reason to think that Palfrey was unstable, might kill herself and did nothing about it.

Even as a low-level member of her defense team, I knew for certain by February 28th, 2008 that the defendant was unstable when she forwarded me and the rest of the defense team an exchange between herself and journalist Jason Leopold. Would it have mattered had I forwarded it to the prosecution or the Court? Doubtful, and I wasn't going to violate attorney-client privilege when my contact with her was only via email. There wasn't enough to go on, and others missed the import of the email entirely.

Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane
Yet Taylor is stating that he wasn't aware of how unstable Palfrey was. This is going to be found to be a lie, a fabrication to protect the members of the prosecution from gross negligence in their mishandling of the case, their over-zealousness, and the fact that a competency hearing should have been convened. Why wasn't this done? Ask Taylor and ask Federal District Judges Gladys Kessler and James Robertson.

Is this one of the reasons why Judge Kessler was removed from the case? Did she have an awareness that Palfrey was in fact suicidal? I haven't listened to the entire WTOP radio broadcast, but I assume that their own Neil Augenstein interviewed Jeffrey Taylor and D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier who was on-hand for gender backup so that the prosecution of the deceased didn't look too much like a victory for entrenched patriarchy (it was). Where were the other prosecutors like Catherine Connelley, William R. Cowden, and Daniel Butler? They must have been busy getting ready for the wave of firings with the new president coming into office in January 2009.

This comment by Taylor was illuminating:
"That's not to say we're not uncomfortable with the havoc that [we] can wreak on the lives of these individuals. We are careful, but at the same time have an obligation having brought the charges to prove that case." ("Prosecutors 'quite anguished over D.C. Madam's suicide," WTOP, 12.04.2008) He omits "we" in the sentence, so I reinserted it for his (and our) edification.

The Palfrey prosecutors should be "anguished" over it alright, they destroyed her life, humiliated over a dozen former escorts on the stand for a few days, and did their best to ensure that the defendant wouldn't receive a fair trial. They have a lot to feel "bad" about and it's this writer's humble curse that it haunts them until the day each of them die.
I don't imagine that hey were asked by WTOP who leaked the unsigned warrant to The Smoking Gun's Bill Bastone, it being just another elephant in the room that they must ignore to get out of office safely, unscathed by civil suits from Palfrey's estate. Did they know Palfrey was suicidal?

They knew. They knew Palfrey was unstable and suicidal when she stated she wouldn't serve even one more day in prison several times in the mainstream media. When I decided to help her, I knew "this isn't going to end well. " It was obvious over time. They knew full-well that their case was political, but they lie because they got themselves into "quite" a mess. They knew they were doing their best to hide the identities of the "Johns" because many of them were either part of or had connections to the GOP in Washington D.C.
Appointments have a way of working-out like this.

The WTOP article also contains a glaring mistake of its own.
"Most of the former escorts subpoenaed to bolster the prosecution's claim that Palfrey ran a prostitution service managed to keep their identities secret before her federal racketeering and money laundering trial. " (ibid) This is factually incorrect, it wasn't "most," but a few of the girls did manage to stay hidden. Discovery documents contain a list of well over one hundred former escorts of Pamela Martin & Associates which was in-the-possession of the prosecution; they knew who almost all of them were. They settled on around fifteen of them to testify against Palfrey under immunity, meaning that they were busted at some point and forced to turn on her.

If USA Taylor wants to clear his and the rest of the prosecution's names, they should make the vast majority of documents related to the investigation and the prosecution available to the press, researchers, and historians.
Transparency is key. With Ms. Palfrey now dead, there's no specific reason to keep these materials classified any longer...unless it was part of a larger investigation, which there have been indications of in the past. There is one thing that USA Jeffrey A. Taylor was honest about in the interview--Palfrey was offered several very good plea deals and she turned them all down.

In the fall of 2007, she conveyed to me that she almost took one of them, but by that point the prosecution wasn't offering much. For every reason, they should have seen very clearly that as an indicator of instability, she was not acting rationally in her own best interests.
As a matter of fact, they most certainly did notice having reasonable proximity with her during negotiations. In addition, when she fired a couple members of her counsel at various points in the legal proceedings the papers were sealed by the Court. This is because they also knew she was unstable, maybe even suicidal. This could implicate the Court, the prosecution, and perhaps at least one of Palfrey's former counsels in the matter. One of them tried to do something about it, but for more on that one, you'll just have to wait...

"Prosecutors 'quite anguished over D.C. Madam's suicide," WTOP, 12.04.2008:
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1537593&nid=25


Monday, December 01, 2008

George W. Bush's lame duck rendition of "We Are the Champions"


I've paid my dues - [REDACTED]

Time after time -


I've tried forming a correct sentence


But committed no grammatical crime [REDACTED]


And bad mistakes ["The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."]


I've made untold thousands ["I'm sorry about the economic crisis."]


I've had my share of Iraqi sand kicked in my face, but not nearly enough since Americans have no self-respect or balls.
Why wouldn't you stop me? Please? Someone? Please?

But I've come through, with the help of a complicit Congress, press and business community

(And we mean to go on and on and on and on)

We are the [REDACTED]--my friends-

At least until the collapse and general strikes bring us to the end -


We are the champions -


You aren't the champions


No time for losers, not even the GOP


'Cause we are the champions - of the world - even if we aren't anymore.


I've taken my bows, and I'll drag you all straight to hell

And my curtain calls - they never rang my bell, or dingled my tingle.


You--my rich donors [NAMES REDACTED]--brought me fame and fortune and everything that goes with it,
I thank you all - and now, so long suckers...

But it's been no bed of roses, 'cause roses gotts them thorns, I hear tell.

And it don't give me the same kicks as that "demon booze" -


I considered this administration a challenge against all the human race -


And I ain't gonna [REDACTED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSES] -

(And we mean to go on and on and on and on, a boot in a human face for a thousand years...)

Neocons are the champions - my friends - until the real crash

And we'll keep on lying - till the end -
even under oath

We are the champions -


You aren't the champions


No time for losers


'Cause we are the champions until someone with balls comes for us with the tar and the feathers we were born to be swathed in.

Please don't hurt me.

[Keep waiting for justice, we want you to.]



AP: Bush administration eased lending regulations under lobbying "pressure"


Washington D.C.--No kidding? Really? I wasn't aware of this, and neither were all the firms that pushed for it...then crashed, went bankrupt, and are either asking for a hand-out from the government or no longer exist anymore (the latter being the best).

It seems that no matter what this administration does, nobody has any will or desire to hold them accountable. That's because it isn't all about them.
The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

"We're going to be feeling the effects of the regulators' failure to address these mortgages for the next several years," said Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition, who warned regulators to tighten lending rules before it was too late. ("AP IMPACT: Under pressure, US eased lending rules," AP, 12.01.2008)

Yes, it's a good thing we have AP and the rest of the soon-to-be former scions of this order to tell us this. Notably, it was Allen Greenspan who advocated much of this deregulation--you remember him, the man everyone listened raptly to just a year ago, genuflecting to every utterance he made. They love you when you're making them rich, but they'll think less of you when yours and their ideas don't work anymore.

These are the rewards of getting your way almost every time. The temporal universe has a way of correcting any organism (or institution) when it's running amok, and we're seeing this writ large now in the developed world. Like emotions, stupidity and delusion are highly-contagious in human society.

When people are riding high and making so much money, they falsely presume what they're doing is correct because it benefits them. Academic join-in on this game, playing along and keeping the horrible truths from us as much as they humanly can. We didn't need them to tell us what they're telling us today: "The NBER says its group of academic economists who determine business cycles met and decided that the U.S. recession began in December 2007." ("Panel says US has been in recession since December 2007," AP, 12.01.2008)

Who could have told them that a pre-1929 approach to the American economy would result in a collapse? Besides the few ten-year-olds I know as neighbors, nearly anyone with a clue. But most Americans don't know their history, and the general attitude is that it's irrelevant, unimportant, and--most importantly--a lot of work and boring to explore. Additionally, there is the contention that it's "worthless knowledge." How worthless is it today, and how much would it have saved the public had we all been more informed and vigilant? More than $1 trillion USD.

Is understanding the last Depression so "worthless" today? It took us almost eighty years to forget what led to the last collapse. How long will it take next time? Probably not very long, since we're bound to keep doing the same things that led to this problem, which works for me.

At that point, history isn't going to let us repeat the same mistakes any longer and this order will be permanently dead. Market rule will be over for good. There are forces stronger than the human race, and we should be glad for it. In sum, whether we learn from it this time is irrelevant: the world trumps the powerful and the groundswell is coming, the general strikes are coming, and modest reforms aren't going to cut it.

In that sense, we have little to worry about with President-elect Barack Obama (at least he's qualified and actually won the election legally), because he's not going to have any choice but to create change with substance in America. That doesn't mean we won't be pushing him--we will--but events have a way of pushing everyone out of the narcotized inaction we've all been in for far too long. Now things affect those who always said, "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care." The fun is over, even for the comfortable these days.

Now things affect those who always said, "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care." The fun is over, even for the comfortable these days. Of course the Bush II administration went well beyond deregulation. They told the business and financial sectors that they could do whatever they wanted to, that nobody was watching.

Today is just a corroboration of what we all knew. Regardless of how many exposes, breaking stories, and general revelations of misconduct, nobody's going to seriously go after the members of the lame duck Bush II administration when they're just as guilty, the problems are systemic. Watch--with glee--as the whores run for cover, even when there ultimately won't be anywhere to run.

We're a strange species, but at least we're beginning to confront power again. Welcome to the end of Reaganism.

"Panel says US has been in recession since December 2007," AP, 12.01.2008: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20081201/49336f50_3ca6_15526200812011563214544

"AP IMPACT: Under pressure, US eased lending rules," AP, 12.01.2008: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20081201/49336f50_3ca6_1552620081201459265956