The Center Strikes Back: Recent Comments

Comment on Why Bush Commuted Libby's Sentence

2010-03-09T11:57:59Z

Very informative detail

Comment on David Sirota: The Senate's Lesson about Democracy

2010-03-09T06:11:29Z

If you want to buy a house, you would have to get the loans. Moreover, my sister all the time takes a collateral loan, which supposes to be the most fast.

Comment on Seth Godin: A real world example of "Under New Management"

2010-03-04T06:29:03Z

I will bookmark this page..........

Comment on Expectations from the Health Care Conference

2010-02-27T22:13:48Z

Hello, Jim

Once again I appreciate your comments.

I do not imply the WSJ is a bad influence. They have a point of view and they're entitled to it. We have a Congressman who repeatedly and exclusively uses their point of view as his own. Where is his balance? Where is his acknowledgement the current system is a disaster for millions of Americans and the fiscal health of the country as a whole?

I find the NYT does try to show the viewpoint of both sides. I regret demands on my time limits my time to read other sources, so I rely on those who I've found to be more balanced in the past. I rely on folks like you to contribute an opposing point of view if you think its necessary.

I especially think its interesting to compare the commentary about the two articles. Having read both, I feel the NYT article is the more dispassionate of the two.

Comment on Expectations from the Health Care Conference

2010-02-25T05:40:45Z

Larry,

You write "The WSJ is, of course, the mouthpiece of business. Is that an indication my Congressman is more in tune with business interests who fund his campaigns than he is with the interests of the people who actually vote for him?"

The implied logic is that if a person uses a reference from some publication, somehow that brands that person with that publication's reputation.
I disagree with this construct on two counts. First, it implies that the WSJ and business in general are bad influences. I reject that. Second, if referencing an article from the WSJ somehow ties a person to business, what can be said about bloggers who make frequent references to the New York Times?

For me, reading most NYT articles is like eating birthday cake without frosting. At first, the cake will taste good, but soon, one realizes that something is missing. In many NYT articles, the words sound good, but soon there comes the realization that something is not right. What often is missing is an objective treatment of an opposing view.

In the NYT article referenced here, the missing puzzle piece is how the writer ignores the elements of the opposition. He talks about the political implications of opposing this legislation, but the real reasons for the opposition - government overreach, ramming a bill through, silliness about what the bill will actually cost, what it will do to the medical profession, others - are ignored. I can't tell if the writer is ignorant of these influences or just chooses to ignore them.

To provide balance, here is an article that in one way describes what the other side thinks. There is a reference to the WSJ article in the first sentence.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/02/24/the-presidents-plan-all-you-need-to-know/

Just my opinion.

Comment on Blunt Assessment by Senior Military Officer

2010-02-19T07:57:51Z

Very informative detail

Comment on CNN Cafferty File: How Do You Know You Have Primary Fatigue?

2010-02-18T05:57:54Z

Cheers for the info. It was a good read.

Comment on Pakistan Loses More Ground to the Taliban

2010-02-16T06:31:26Z

No war i love pakistan

Comment on Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #100 Noting an Anniversary

2010-02-11T16:26:03Z

I appreciate your writing, but I refuse to subscribe to the paranoia of the " woe is me, the bankers have conspired against us and have us by the balls and there's nothing we can do about it" type thinking. We put the handcuffs on the bankers in the aftermath of the Depression. We can do it again now.

I recommend the books and other writings of William Greider, such as Secrets of the Temple. I know there are a lot of people who like to cite The Creature from Jekyll Island in discussing the Fed, but when you read the reviews on Amazon, it becomes clear the superior work is Greider's.

Greider also notes in his latest book the real problem is we have both political parties feeding at the same money trough. That makes them beholden to the bankers.

Similarly, I often see the 17th Amendment cited as a loss of checks and balances. In my opinion, the problem is not that we allow the direct election of Senators, per se. Electing Senators by the legislature had its own problems. The problem is we did not also include a recall procedure by the people (added to the system they operate under More on that in the last paragraph.).

In the same way, the 14th Amendment did not directly establish the corporation as a person. The Justices our elected representatives appointed to the Supreme Court allowed that interpretation. We need to elect representatives who will appoint Justices who will reverse that interpretation.

Oveall, I come back to the same point over and over. They system we have enables the behavior we have. If you want to change the behavior, then you have to change the system. The best way to change the system is to institute Instant Runoff Voting IRV). IRV will enable third parties to compete and put the two major parties in a position where they can be defeated. The thing politicians fear most is being defeated. Fear of defeat modifies behavior. As I heard a General Officer say once, "Ipso, facto, wring out the mop-o."

Again, I appreciate your comments.

Comment on Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine #100 Noting an Anniversary

2010-02-07T01:04:23Z

In noting an Anniversary, you commented on blaming ourselves for how we got here (paraphrasing, of course). I think that is an oversimplification because there are outside forces working against "us." It's become more and more obvious that the government is not our friend (see the Trading with the Enemies Act of 1934, the citizenry is declared "the enemy of the government and the banking system"). You may also find, "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer, 1971, entertaining. Even though it describes the 1934 plot by the FED and its allies to overthrow the government and install a Nazi style regime here, it is still pertinent to today's events.

I think that Baron Nathan de Rothschild (Bank of England) said it best (parenthesis added are mine), "I care not what puppet they put on the throne (presidency) of England (America), the man (FED) that controls Britain's (America's) money supply controls the Empire, and I (FED) control the money supply." I do believe that Thomas Jefferson must have read his quote and that is one of the reasons he warned us about allowing private bankers to print our money (control our money supply). For he did say that if we did so, our children's children would wake up homeless in the land their forefathers fought to conquer (paraphrased). And that, I believe, is exactly what is happening now.

One must take into consideration these "outside" forces when looking at today's political/economic landscape. The central banks, by virtue of their control of the money supply, control the economies of the world's countries; so, by manipulation they can create inflation or deflation at will. Most of the central banks, including the Federal Reserve, are owned or controlled by a very few families (most of whose last names start with "R") so worldwide economies are at the mercy of a few.

On a micro level, we have control over how we choose to deal with the manipulations of the few and on a macro level, we are at their mercy. Perhaps our way out is the example of the French revolution where the populace rises up against the so-called privileged and it's "off with their heads!" At the very least, the unconstitutional FED's charter needs to be revoked, the principals prosecuted and the money & assets stolen from the people over generations recovered and redistributed (100% of the Federal Personal Income Tax goes to the Federal Reserve and not one penny goes to the government for the goods and services we expect, Congressional Research Service, 2006; Grace Commission, 1984) to those it was stolen from or who were damaged by the FED's actions.

Other actions that may by worthwhile:
Repeal of the 14th Amendment (gave corporations personhood)
Repeal of 16th Amendment (never legally ratified anyway - only 4 states actually ratified it - see "The Law that Never Was," if you can find it - suppressed by the Courts and DOJ)
Repeal of the 17th Amendment - destroyed the checks and balances by allowing direct election of Senators and thus their corruption by the moneyed (also questionable whether it was actually ratified; logically, what State would be willing to give up its voice in the Federal government?)

With the recent Supreme Court decision, corporations will now be able to control the outcome of elections simply by the amount of money they can spend. God Bless Amerika! Once a great nation, now just another fascist state.