Financial topics

[aedens]

http://news.yahoo.com/china-shut-factor ... 30753.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertaint ... ent_states

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the- ... elligence/

That puts the kittys in the stream.

[aedens]

http://www.examiner.com/article/atlanta ... er-5-times

My kind of girl

[aedens]

http://www.examiner.com/article/school- ... nd-torture

Sad indeed

[aedens]

http://fox2now.com/2014/04/25/teens-put ... igh-drunk/

[aedens]

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/1 ... paign=8315
Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.

IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?

GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.

IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

[aedens]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-2 ... uth-charts

People where complaining it was to long of an article. No wonder we are in the shape we are in.
The information cults own the election already.
Hatfields and Mccoys is now Arkancides and Mcbains.
America never had a chance.

[John]

> Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

> http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/1 ... paign=8315

> Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical
> one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal
> counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant
> to various congressional committees, as well as to the State
> Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes
> favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department,
> State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a
> conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart,
> hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are
> responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful
> oversight to rein them in.

> How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done
> about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’
> Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been
> condensed and edited.

> IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?

> GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in
> the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of
> the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after
> him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English
> Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that
> there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified
> institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people
> erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that
> there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he
> referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set
> governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the
> prime minister, and the British cabinet.

> IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double
> government?

> GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would
> embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism
> policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that
> president continue those same policies in case after case after
> case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal
> knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the
> military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our
> government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill
> and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is
> substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

> IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security
> keys to unelected officials?

> GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of
> Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the
> national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly
> concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong
> judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to
> experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend
> to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national
> security policy.

Judging from the article you've posted, Glennon is another left-wing
intellectual who voted for Obama to get far-left policies implemented,
and is now bitterly disappointed that he didn't get his way.

Even so, he supports the Generational Dynamics core principle of
Generational Dynamics that even in a dictatorship, major policies and
events are determined by masses of people, entire generations of
people, and not by politicians. Thus, Hitler was not the cause of WW
II. What politicians say or do is irrelevant, except insofar as their
actions reflect the attitudes of the people that they represent, and
so politicians can neither cause nor prevent the great events of
history.

In fact, I've said dozens of times since Obama took office that,
ignoring rhetoric, Obama's policies would turn out to be
effectively the same as if Bush had a third term, and Glennon
supports that.

Where I disagree with Glennon is that he's just making another error
of the same kind. He essentially agrees that politicians are
irrelevant, but then he says that policies are set by "experts" and
"bureaucrats." In fact, these people are just as irrelevant as the
politicians are. The core Generational Dynamics principle of
Generational Dynamics is that major policies and events are determined
by masses of people, entire generations of people -- not by
politicians, experts, or bureaucrats.

He says that Congress listents to experts, and experts "tend to
exaggerate threats," but he completely misses what's going on. There
are many experts on all sides of an issue. It's not that experts
exaggerate threats. It's that Congress is choosing to listen to
experts that reflect the popular point of view. If Congress listened
to experts selected by Glennon, and only by Glennon, then those
experts wouldn't "exaggerate threats" in Glennon's view, but that's
not how the world works.

We're seeing that today with the Ebola situation. Every "expert" I've
heard is trying to tamp down anxiety and panic, and is opposed to
restricting flights from Liberia or locking up everyone coming back
from Liberia for 21 days. And yet, those are exactly the policies
that have been implemented in the last two days. The politicians are
ignoring the experts, and reflecting the anxiety and panic of the
general public, even though those policies will probably cause more
problems and more deaths from Ebola.

[aedens]

I tend to agree with the dynamic John. We cover many topics some will not dare to venture in. I hope our troops are safe trying to provide shelter to the stricken.

I stick to be view noted " Just percentages of change as the beast changes it coat for winter. "

As we noted the effective technology base is supporting on the shift as we discussed the twenty percent supplying the eighty plus percent who have no clue how we even got here in the first place. For those who missed the avarice driven political kill switches of acount "corsined" you should follow the conclusion of the next logical step since I would posit some are. I have a fact of notes that when has already been in motion for many years and your late my Dr. Pangloss friend as was his character in Voltaire's Candide of 1759 on obtimism to effective change.


Matthew 19:17

[aedens]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-le ... ailsignout

Vampire economy.

The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

For example, he said, some grocery store owners in Fraser, Mich., had an insurance policy that covered only up to $10,000 cash.
When they neared the limit, they would make a deposit.

Tell me another story of recovery....

Guy walks in from City. Demands 25,000 for unpaid taxes. Call IRS, they cannot do that from your papers we have.
Story short. My lawyer says move business, why let parasites eat and fight the next level also. Closed was in the window
and changed tech gears.
Hillary to create Jobs. Not going to happen Son.

Thesis, short market sooner than later.

From 2013 notes here: check back in four years (2017) and eight years (2021) and see how many of your fellow debt-serfs and tax donkeys have quietly
abandoned the bloated cost-structure, debt and derangement of the Neofeudal Debtocracy's twisted consumerist dream.

Herbert Read, The Politics of an Unpolitical (London: Routledge, 1943), pp. 26-27. For a critique of these egalitarian tendencies cf.
Karl Jaspers, Die geistige Situation der Zeit (Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1932 [Sammlung Göschen, Vol. 1000]), p. 36.

Orestes Brownson went even further when he wrote: Democratic or democratically inclined governments are,
for the most part, cruel and hard-hearted. Like corporations, they have no souls and are incapable of tenderness.

Deadly errors arise from obsolete assumptions.
Bureaucracy destroys initiative.
Amos is still correct.

One said you are bitter? Nope, not at all since it was written they will meet the maker same as all.

[aedens]

H, I am raising cash. As we noted before I guessed 85 so 80 wti should not be a surprise.
Early is wrong but it applies. http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... ver#p17599

Patience is not found in a whirlwind.