Predictably Irrational is what the markets are and well worth the listen. Dan Ariely is a behavioral economist, cool stuff. Maybe we can occupy a fair society someday. At least Eric Schneiderman is going after some banksters.

Micheal Hudson wrote about Europe's Deadly Transition From Social Democracy to Oligarchy. Yikes! Hell, in Michigan they just dissolve local government. Rachael and Ed cover the stories.

7 honorable persons

The debacle with the US Postal Service really pisses me off, but this new bullshit with indefinite detentions is way over the top. The Daily Show (with actor Ralph Fiennes) covered the story in its usual fine fashion. At least this vote wasn't a secret vote like the let's bankrupt the postal service bill. Thanks to this bit of government transparency we find that there were only seven congress members who voted for the constitution and against the bill.

Jubilee and a movement to Occupy Planet Earth

No, not the cherries. Debt forgiveness called Jubilee from the bible. We need lots of debt forgiveness now and you can read more about it, Debt Slavery - Why it Destroyed Rome, Why it Will Destroy Us Unless It's Stopped. I'd like to read Aristotle's thoughts on the subject too.

Occupy Planet Earth is an excellent article with great links so read it.

Democracy and Debt by Michael Hudson is another should read.

Arithmetic is so important so watch an old man explain 7 and exponentials.

An alternative to capitalism? Read it and make up your own mind

This time I have to lift one of Ah2's posts because it is so good,

"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/08/07/fox_news_still_trying_to_portray_obama_as_a_muslim.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bbgsYV9DXk&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhWaiULqkp4

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201111100020

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/gop-group-head-calls-obam_n_137282.html

Anyway. Pick your lie. He was born in Kenya. He's a socialist. All of it is lies. None of it true. None of it news.

The clip I can't find is of Limbaugh (I think) talking on his show about how Obama is a Muslim because his father was a Muslim and in the Islamic faith, relgion is passed through the father and what not. He literally goes on about it for almost 10 minutes.

Additionally, Fox News uses a rhetorical question technique in virtually all of their broadcasts. They do this for two reasons: 1) deniability. They can simply say, like you are here, "Well I never said that." 2) There is actually a psychological strength to questions. They have shown this in psychological studies of the effects of media. For some reason, when someone asks a question, people are less likely to challenge the premise of the question and direct their attention toward answering it, even if the premise of the question makes no sense. You did it in this thread, in fact. I spend half of my time in these forums challenging the premise of the question conservatives write on here. It is a skill you have picked up from the bullshit you watch.

So, this is a lesson to all the liberals who are still reading this post and found themselves actually trying to answer rigels question on his terms = whenever a conservative asks you a question, assume the premise on which the question is based is completely false. This may not always be true but it will get you out of the habit of debating conservatives on their terms - one of the things the Democratic Party has NOT figured out yet.

Let me go back up to that deniability thing, too, because I think it is really important to understand how this works. When Fox News (or anybody for that matter) asks a question to which they have already indicated the answer in the context in which the question was asked or in the form of the question itself, then it is NOT a question. These are rhetorical turns that are sometimes called command conversions and claim conversions.

The example of what Fox does in this case: "Obama's Father was Muslim. He was raised a Muslim. He went to a Muslim school. Is Obama a Muslim?" They are asking a question but it is clear from the context that the point of the question is to lead the listener to provide the answer the speaker is already indicated or looking for. This is not really a question, it is a test for compliance. People who work in law enforcement and psychology use this rhetorical device all the time. Fox "News" simply applies it to media.

Another way to do this is without context: "Are the policies of the democrats killing jobs, ruining the economy, and wrecking your life?" NOT A QUESTION. It is a rhetorical device. If they were really asking a question, this would be, "What are the effects of democratic policies on the economy? Hmm.... Let us investigate and support every claim we make with well established and supported facts." But they don't sat that. They say the first one and then throw a bunch of bullshit at you like it is real information.

This, again, is not news.

The only reason you don't want me to respond to this post rigel1 is because I see through your bullshit and because I raise the one question you really don't want to have to try to answer. Because it's the one that actually matters and it is the one that requires you to think about ETHICS and DEMOCRACY rather than a profit margin.

Maybe there is something to those stories of FEMA detention camps being built for US citizens. The Raw Story is that the Israeli model underlies the militarization of US police forces.
It make me wish that we could restore the constitution prior to The Patriot Act when we thought that privacy was a right and habeus corpus was a good thing.

On to economics. Poly says it so well that I'll just quote him,

Say's Law, simplified is this:

production cost (materials, energy, etc.) - wages - money supply = aggregate. The sum of an economy. The money supply without inflation or deflation will equal all costs of production. Everything that is produced can be bought. Profit extractions that are so high they aren't re-spent back into the economy upset the equation. Then everything that is produced can't be bought. Production slows or ceases.

We make up for the profit extractions with credit. Infusions into the money supply Credit reaches a ceiling where further credit can't be re-paid. Infusions into the money supply to make up for profit exractions slow or cease. Production then slows or ceases.

Say's Law doesn't address the structural requirement for continual expansion. It doesn't address that while all production can be bought, if Say's Law was adhered to, it sometimes isn't.

It doesn't address what happens when people feel they have everything they need and stop spending...as in Japan..Production then slows or ceases.

In a monastery, when we produce all we need, we stop work and stop production,. We enjoy the leisure time, and simply distribute the surplus until production is once again required.

You don't do it that way.. When production stops, and work stops because there is no need for additional goods to be produced, your distribution of required goods stops. The surplus isn't simply distributed until production is once again required.. What should be enjoyable leisure time becomes a personal economic horror known as unemployment..

Different economic system. Ours doesn't have your structural flaws.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease""