Friday, March 2, 2012

mistake or the right thing to do?

http://blog.chron.com/hottopics/2012/02/texas-teacher-tells-brat-student-to-%E2%80%9Cgo-back-to-mexico%E2%80%9D/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Bishop McFadden and “Totalitarian” Public Schooling

Bishop McFadden and "Totalitarian" Public Schooling
by Michael Tennant, March 2, 2012

"In a totalitarian government, they would love our system [of public education]," Bishop James McFadden of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told WHTM-TV. "This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all of them tried to establish -- a monolith, so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things."

McFadden's remarks touched off a firestorm of complaints from the usual suspects.

Barry Morrison, Eastern Pennsylvania/Southern New Jersey regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said McFadden "should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust," arguing that the bishop had "inappropriately [drawn] reckless comparisons" to that horrific event.

Andy Hoover, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, declared McFadden's comments "completely inappropriate."

Harrisburg University professor Dr. Mehdi Noorbaksh, who is also vice president of the local World Affairs Council, told WHTM, "As soon as you throw in those words and you take the debate and the conversation to another level and another context, it is not right."

In a statement responding to his critics, McFadden apologized to "those who may have been offended by [his] remarks." He is not, however, retracting them, pointing out that he "purposely did not mention the holocaust" to avoid giving offense an assertion backed up by the TV station, which stated that "in the 20 minute interview he never mentioned the word holocaust."

"The Church recognizes the holocaust as a terrible atrocity and evil emanated against humanity and especially those who were the victims of these crimes," McFadden wrote. "I would never minimize or trivialize the devastating suffering that took place."

He also elaborated on his analogy:

The reference to dictators and totalitarian governments of the 20th century which I made in an interview on the topic of school choice was to make a dramatic illustration of how these unchecked monolithic governments of the past used schools to curtail the primary responsibility of the parent in the education of their children. Today many parents in our state experience the same lack of freedom in choosing an education that bests suits their child as those parents oppressed by dictators of the past.

[An] absolute monopoly in education, where parents do not have a right or ability to choose the education that best suits their children due to economic circumstances or otherwise, runs counter to a free and open society.

McFadden could not be more correct.

"In 1936," writes the History Place,

all of the Catholic parochial and Protestant denominational schools [in Germany] were abolished. Christian holy days which had usually meant a day off from school were now ignored and classroom prayers were banned. Celebrations of Christmas and Easter were discouraged, replaced by pre-Christian Yule or Solstice celebrations. The Nazis later forced all teachers to renounce any affiliation with professional church organizations.

Moreover, says the article, indoctrinating students with Nazi ideology became the sole purpose of the schools, to the detriment of genuine education:

National Socialist teachers of questionable ability stepped into grammar school and high school classrooms to form young minds, strictly abiding by the Party motto: "The supreme task of the schools is the education of youth for the service of Volk and State in the National Socialist spirit." They taught Nazi propaganda as fact which was then recited back by their students as unshakable points of view with no room for disagreement or discussion.

Fascist dictators weren't alone in recognizing that controlling the schools meant controlling the minds of the youth. "Free education for all children in public schools" is one of the demands of the Communist Manifesto; and Karl Marx's disciples in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and elsewhere have always abolished private schools in favor of state-run indoctrination centers.

It is hardly a coincidence, then, that the public schools of 21st-century America are turning out students thoroughly steeped in environmentalism, socialism, and moral relativism but unable to read their own diplomas. The objective of government schooling is to produce cogs for the state machine, not well-rounded, independent thinkers.

With the facts on McFadden's side, his critics have been forced to attack his remarks' propriety rather than their truthfulness, which also reveals the critics' true agenda: sticking up for government schooling.

The bishop, meanwhile, is seeking to allow parents more options in schooling their children. Believing it is unfair for parents to have to pay twice to send their children to parochial and other private schools once in taxes and again in tuition and faced with declining parochial-school enrollment, McFadden and other church leaders are calling for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enact a school-voucher program whereby parents' tax dollars that are earmarked for education can be directed to whatever school, public or private, parents choose for their children. (A proposal that would have allowed that under certain limited circumstances was rejected by the state legislature in December.)

McFadden's diagnosis of the problem is correct; his proposed solution, however, leaves much to be desired. School vouchers might very well end up co-opting private schools into serving the state, which would be an even worse situation than the one that currently exists. Private colleges -- minus a handful of brave resisters who have chosen to forgo federal dollars -- have been forced to obey Washington's dictates in exchange for accepting federal student aid. Why would anyone expect state governments to hand out money to schools with no strings attached? Instead, private schools would very likely become dependent on such aid and would compromise their integrity by bowing to the state's demands, ultimately becoming the state's handmaidens in training the youth to serve Leviathan.

McFadden and other Christians, of all people, ought to recognize the dangers inherent in mixing the state with the private sector. Separation of church and state -- in the sense that neither controls the other -- has served Americans well over the centuries. Why not separation of school and state as well?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203d.asp

Buchanan Against the Conservatives

Buchanan Against the Conservatives
by Laurence M. Vance

It's not just the liberals who are against Pat Buchanan.

When it comes to the issue of foreign policy, the conservatives are against him as well. Most all of them.

With the exception of Ron Paul, the current and former Republican presidential candidates are against him – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain. And so are previous candidates like John McCain and Sarah Palin

Conservative magazines are against him. Publications like National Review and the Weekly Standard.

Conservative think tanks are against him. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

Conservative talk show hosts are against him. Levin, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh – take your pick.

Republicans in the House are against him, including the leaders: John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy.

Republicans in the Senate are against him, including the leaders: Mitch McConnell and John Kyl.

Other members of Congress are against him – like interventionist, warmonger, and imperial vulture Lindsey Graham.

Conservatives in general are against him. At the recent CPAC presidential straw poll, Ron Paul received only 12 percent of the vote. It is Congressman Paul's views on foreign policy – which are very similar to Buchanan's – that are unconscionable to most of the conservatives in attendance.

Republican primary voters in general are against him. Most of them are picking warmonger A, imperialist B, or militarist C instead of noninterventionist Ron Paul.

Pat Buchanan has been a conservative fixture in politics and the media for decades. His new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, has much in it that conservatives will agree with. However, it also has some gems in it that are anathema to most conservatives and music to the ears of libertarians. True, the book has some things in it that libertarians will question, but back in 1991, when George H. W. Bush invaded Iraq the first time, Buchanan was a sane and consistent voice for nonintervention while some libertarians were defending Bush's foray into the Middle East.

In the last two chapters of Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan is at his best. The first cause of America's recent decline is the "wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have cost us 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and over $1 trillion." These wars "destroyed our post 9/11 national unity, alienated the Islamic world, and enlarged the pool in which al-Qaeda fishes." These wars "have bled us for a decade and done less to make us safe than to inflame the Islamic world against us."

Buchanan understands exactly why the United States is hated by many in the Muslim world:

We came to Afghanistan as liberators, but are seen now as occupiers, imposing our ideas, values, and satraps. After eight years of war in Iraq and ten in Afghanistan, we are coming home with Iraq going its own way and Afghanistan tipping toward the Taliban. . . . We failed to understand what motivated our attackers. They did not come to kill us because they abhor our Constitution, or wish to impose Sharia on Oklahoma. They were over here because we are over there. They came to kill us in our country because we will not get out of their countries. . . . . Osama bin Laden ordered 9/11 because U.S. troops were stationed on sacred Saudi soil that is home to Mecca. We will never end terrorist attacks on this country, until we remove our soldiers from those countries.

We fight them over there, it is said, so we will not have to fight them over here. Yet not Afghan or Iraqi or Somali or Yemeni or member of Hezbollah or Hamas ever attacked us – over here. September 11 was largely the work of fifteen Saudis sent by a Saudi, Osama. And while we are able to smash armies and depose despots, we have proven incapable of building nations or winning the hearts of peoples whose lands we have occupied. . . . Across the Islamic world, we have broadened and deepened the reservoir of hate in which Al Qaeda fishes.

But not only must "the United States must bring an end to its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq," once these troops come home "the U.S. bases in Central Asia should be closed." The empire must be ended:

This worldwide archipelago of bases may have been justified when we confronted a Communist bloc spanning Eurasia from the Elbe to the East China Sea, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons and driven by imperial ambition and ideological animus against the United States. But the Cold War is history. It is absurd to contend that 1,000 overseas bases are vital to U.S. security. Indeed, it is our pervasive military presence abroad, our support of despotic regimes, and our endless interventions and wars that have made America, once the most admired of nations, among the world's most resented and detested.

Why are scores of thousands of U.S. troops still stationed in Europe when the "evil empire" against which they were to defend Europe collapsed twenty years ago? Why can't Europe defend itself from a Russia whose army is but a fraction of the Red Army of 1990 and whose western border is hundreds of miles east of where it was under Nicholas II?

The United States should declare its intent to withdraw from NATO, transfer leadership of the alliance to the Europeans, and begin to vacate air and naval bases.

The United States should also renegotiate its security treaties with South Korea and Japan and remove U.S. ground troops from both countries. We are not going to fight another land war with China or North Korea. No vital interest could justify such a war, and the American people would not support sending an army to Korea like the 330,000 soldiers we sent in the 1950s.

The empire should have been dismantled after the Cold War:

Liquidation of this empire should have begun at the end of the Cold War. Now it is being forced upon us by a deficit-debt crisis that the cost of that empire helped to produce. We cannot continue to kick the can up the road, for we have come to the end of the road.

As Russia had gone home, some of us urged back then, America should come home, cede NATO and all the U.S. bases in Europe to the Europeans, and become again what UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick called "a normal country in a normal time."

But instead,

George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan, declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "axis of evil," warned the world that we would maintain military supremacy in every vital region of the globe, declared a Bush Doctrine of preventive war and used it to invade and occupy an Iraq that had never threatened or attacked us, and launched a global crusade for democracy that feature demonstrations to dump over governments install pro-American regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Lebanon, as Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA had done in Iran in 1953.

Clinton and Bush II pushed NATO right up to Russia's front porch, bringing six former Warsaw Pact nations – East Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Romania – and three Baltic states that had been part of the Soviet Union into an alliance created to contain Russia. Only European resistance stopped Bush II from putting Ukraine and Georgia on a fast track to NATO membership, which would have meant that should there be a Moscow-Tbilisi clash, American would instantly be eyeball to eyeball with a nation possessing thousands of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama doubled U.S. forces in Afghanistan, began done strikes in Pakistan, and launched a war on Libya.

Buchanan then asks: "And what has all this compulsive interventionism availed us?" And then answers: "We are less secure, less respected, less confident, and less powerful than we were in 1991." And then asks again: "And is the world a better place?" The answer, of course, is a resounding no.

Recognizing the disastrous consequences of the Iraq and Afghan wars, Buchanan sees no point in threatening Iran over its non-existent nuclear weapon's program:

The immediate goal must be to derail the War Party campaign to have America launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities that would trigger acts of terror against U.S. soldiers and civilians from Baghdad to Beirut. An early result of such a war could be the closing of the Persian Gulf, crippling the U.S. and world economies.

If America could deter the Russia of Stalin and the China of Mao, who declared himself willing to lose three hundred million Chinese, why can't we deter an Iran that has no bomb and no missile to deliver it?

In contrast to the sane foreign policy ideas of Buchanan, all we hear in the Republican presidential debates is calls for more war and more bloodshed. Here are Gingrich and Romney at the Fox News Channel–Wall Street Journal debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina:

We're in South Carolina. South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies: Kill them.

And Speaker Gingrich is right. Of course you take out our enemies, wherever they are. These people declared war on us. They've killed Americans. We go anywhere they are, and we kill them.

Santorum, of course, is no better, and especially because of his tremendous hostility toward libertarianism. In an interview last October, Santorum made himself perfectly clear: "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

If conservative warmongers and Republican war party members won't listen to libertarians like Ron Paul on the subject of foreign policy, then fine. But they will have to deal with their elder statesman Pat Buchanan. And I think they will have their hands full.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance281.html

Japan invents speech-jamming gun that silences people mid-sentence

But would it work on someone using a teleprompter?

=======================================

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/scitech/science/030212-japan-invents-speech-jamming-gun-that-silences-people-mid-sentence
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7lkj2m7

Japan invents speech-jamming gun that silences people mid-sentence

Updated: Friday, 02 Mar 2012, 10:05 AM EST
Published : Friday, 02 Mar 2012, 8:26 AM EST

TOKYO (Newscore) - Japanese researchers have invented a speech-jamming gadget that painlessly forces people into silence.

Kazutaka Kurihara of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and Koji Tsukada of Ochanomizu University, developed a portable "SpeechJammer" gun that can silence people more than 30 meters away.

The device works by recording its target's speech then firing their words back at them with a 0.2-second delay, which affects the brain's cognitive processes and causes speakers to stutter before silencing them completely.

Describing the device in their research paper, Kurihara and Tsukada wrote, "In general, human speech is jammed by giving back to the speakers their own utterances at a delay of a few hundred milliseconds. This effect can disturb people without any physical discomfort, and disappears immediately by stopping speaking."

They found that the device works better on people who were reading aloud than engaged in "spontaneous speech" and it cannot stop people making meaningless sounds, such as "ahhh," that are uttered over a long time period.

Kurihara and Tsukada suggested the speech-jamming gun could be used to hush noisy speakers in public libraries or to silence people in group discussions who interrupt other people's speeches.

"There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts," the authors said.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fringe Intelligence Journals

From: Roger Vleugels roger.vleugels@planet.nl

Dear intelligence specialist,

I publish two specialist email journals which might be of interest to you.

They are free of charge – Interested? Mail: START FRINGE

Two journals

Fringe Intelligence gathers intelligence news from established media and outlets beyond the mainstream. The journal offers articles covering classical intelligence and counterintelligence, criminal and private espionage and more. The main focus of Fringe Intelligence is on forensic and operational information, and not on bureaucracy, politics and the formal/legal aspects of intelligence. Fringe Intelligence does not concentrate on terrorism.

Special sections highlight NARINT, or Natural Resources Intelligence [dealing with energy, rare earth, water and climate intelligence], and Intelligence 2.0 [IT sector-generated private intelligence]. These sections look beyond jihad, cyber and other previous or present threats.

Fringe Spitting publishes for freedom of information [FOI] specialists, investigative journalists and other researchers, with a special focus on FOI practitioners and requesters, news on caseload, jurisprudence, litigation, tools and trends. Space is also devoted to recently disclosed "old news" on intelligence, revealed via FOI requests.

Taken together, the two biweekly journals contain about 100 articles per month selected from a variety of media sources. Almost all articles are internet downloads. Over 90% are in English. Less than 10% are focused on the Netherlands. The contents stand or fall with the quality of the source.

2,900 subscribers

In terms of circulation, both Fringe journals enjoy a top ranking in their sector, respectively OSINT and FOI, among the worldwide communities of independent email journals and mailing lists.

Sixty percent of the subscribers are intelligence specialists, 25% journalists and 15% FOIA specialists. They live in 108 countries: 35% in NL, 5% in UK, 25% in US and 35% in the rest of the world. Fifteen percent of the subscribers are government employees [half of whom work in intelligence services] and 15% are employed by universities and colleges.

About the editor/publisher: Roger Vleugels

In 1986, I started my own office in The Netherlands and began working as a legal advisor and lecturer specialized in freedom of information and intelligence. In 2001, I added the publishing of the Fringe journals.

I lecture on investigative journalism, FOI and FOIAs at journalism schools, universities and in company. I have taught students in or from Argentina, Aruba, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Iran, Ireland, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey and the UK.

Since 1988, I have as legal advisor / acting lawyer filed for or with my clients more than 4,000 FOIA requests. Most of these clients are journalists in the Netherlands but also special interest groups, NGOs, researchers and private persons.

As an intelligence specialist, I research and lecture on this topic. I also comment in the press, brief members of parliament and advise journalists and lawyers.

Surfing, searching, stringers and sources

Articles are gathered for Fringe by a small group of Dutch and foreign stringers, some of whom work covertly. Without the work of these stringers Fringe would not be possible. Additionally I do some of the gathering on my own, mainly by netsurfing and maintaining a range of subscriptions, feeds and alerts.

Some of the more specialised sources are: Access Info Europe, AIP Bulgaria, Article 19, BeSpacific, Bigwobber, Bits of Freedom, Centre for Law & Democracy, Cryptogram, CFOI, Cryptome, EDRi-gram, EFF, EPIC, FOIANet, FreedomInfo, Geheim, Infowarrior, Intelforum, Intelligence Online, Memory Hole, Mother Jones, National Security Archive, NatoWatch, NISA, Privacy International, RCFP, Secrecy News, StateWatch, Terrorism Monitor and Wired.

Subscription and contribution

Every subscription encloses both journals; and is free of charge. A voluntary contribution however is welcome. To start a subscription, mail: START FRINGE. [To stop, mail: STOP FRINGE.]

Kind regards,

Roger Vleugels

+ Forensic intelligence researcher

+ Lecturer and legal advisor freedom of information

+ Publisher of the Fringe journals

JP Daily Quran and Hadith

THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

Thanks & Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

I gotta have one of these

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/DPS-adds-boat-to-border-arsenal-3375660.php

the next I'm fishing in an urban area I'll be able to clear the
parking lot of thugs

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Gasoline Price Heads toward $4

Gasoline Price Heads toward $4
"Pump prices continued to march toward $4 a gallon Thursday, as signs of a stronger U.S. economy helped push benchmark oil past $108 per barrel." ( Christian Science Monitor)

And the peak driving season is still to come.

The High Cost of Misunderstanding Gasoline Economics
Why Do Prices Rise after Disasters?
Arthur E. Foulkes
April 2006 • Volume: 56 • Issue: 3 •

National emergencies, wars, natural disastersall these things tend to bring about expanded government power.¹ Hurricane Katrina was no exception. In addition to promising to spend billions of dollars of other people's money allegedly to "rebuild" New Orleans and other stricken areas, politicians have been equally generous with other people's gasoline supplies. In many states, anyone attempting to sell gasoline at prices deemed socially "unconscionable" risks heavy fines.²Government officials all across the country joined the expanding chorus. President Bush led the way early in the disaster's aftermath calling for "zero tolerance" for looters, scammers, and price gougers" at the gasoline pump."³ Other politicians echoed his message.

None of this is surprising. Even before Katrina knocked out half the Gulf of Mexico's oil production (sending gas prices soaring to over $3 per gallon Labor Day weekend), politicians and "consumer advocates" were calling for investigations into gasoline prices, which had been rising for about two years, reaching $2.64 per gallon by last August 30.⁴ Indeed, this has become commonplace; since 1973 the government has investigated the oil industry about once every two years.⁵ A 2002 Senate investigation into the oil industry purported to have discovered oil companies "manipulating the market." However, the report, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, was in the words of economist William Anderson "an exercise in economic illiteracy."⁶There is no mystery about recent rising gas prices. Strong economic growth in China, along with improved growth in the United States, has been pushing on the demand side of the gasoline market for some time. Meanwhile, political unrest in Venezuela and Iraq along with strict environmental restrictions and regulations in the United States have helped keep the supply side anemic and uncertain. The result is unsurprisingstrong new demand with insufficient new supply (coupled with uncertainty) means higher prices at the pump.

Environmental regulations are often blamed for the fact that no new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976; however, the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren point to other reasons. They write that "meager" profits in the refining business over the past 30 years, cheaper imports, and the fact that it is less expensive to add capacity to an existing refinery than to build a brand new one have all kept the number of refineries from rising. They note further that while there are fewer refineries than 30 years ago, "[d]ramatic improvements in the operational efficiency of oil refineries" have actually permitted domestic gasoline production to increase "by 20 percent since the last oil refinery was built."⁷Hurricane Katrina merely made the prevailing situation worse. Oil prices peaked at over $70 per barrel shortly after the storm, while average U.S. gasoline prices peaked at $3.07 in early September, "just a nickel shy of the inflation-adjusted record of $3.12 averaged over March 1981."⁸ Prices fell significantly after that, before creeping up again as the winter came on. The public was nervous and angry; politicians were quick to respond.

No one likes paying more for gasoline (except maybe folks who have always resented America's relatively cheap gasoline, its SUVs, and other signs of bourgeois opulence), but government-imposed price restrictions would only make matters worse. By interfering in the market's pricing mechanism, price controls simply hinder the ability of entrepreneurs and investors to provide the goods and services consumers desire most.

Much of the support for price controls stems from a lack of understanding of where prices come from. Many politicians and other critics of markets believe that market prices (or at least "fair" market prices) can be calculated using production costs. For example, they believe it is evidence of gouging if a gas station raises its pump price on news of higher oil priceseven if the gas sitting in the station's fuel tanks was purchased days or weeks earlier at a lower price. This thinking is mistaken on at least two counts.

First, "production costs" (themselves actually impossible to calculate since they are, in reality, subjective opportunity costs) don't determine a good's current market price. While it is true an entrepreneur will use his estimated accounting costs of production when deciding whether to produce a good or service, the actual market price of the finished good is a result of consumer desire to obtain the particular good as well as the ability and willingness of sellers to provide it. In other words, price is a function of supply and demand.

Second (and along the same lines), prices for final goods do not have to wait for immediate input prices to rise before they can change. The fact that retail gas prices skyrocketed on the news of Katrina's devastation to the Gulf's oil productionlong before new, more expensive gasoline from the Gulf reached those stationsis no proof of any wrongdoing. On the contrary, it is a blessing that the price system can work so quickly.

News of increased demand for housing in a community (say, a new factory is coming to town with 10,000 employees) would immediately drive up the price of housing there. Housing prices might double or triple in a month, regardless of how much people paid for their houses. In a free market these higher prices would rapidly signal producers to redirect scarce resourceslumber, labor, cement mixers, and soonfrom places where they are less urgently sought to where housing prices are rising. Likewise, if a plant closing in a community meant there would soon be a housing glut, home prices would immediately fall, discouraging the investment (and waste) of scarce resources. Because these prices change quickly, regardless of production costs, resources are redirected to more urgently desired areas more quickly than would otherwise be the case. Thus rapidly changing gasoline prices are a blessing because they send a clear signal early in a supply disruption, before things become much worse.

Emergent Phenomena

Politicians and others are undoubtedly frustrated by the teachings of economics because they more often than not tell political leaders what they cannot or should not do, not what they can do to change reality. In a recent essay Freeman columnist Russell Roberts wrote of the human desire to control what he calls "emergent phenomena," which he defines as things that are the result of human action but not subject to human design or control. Such phenomena include language and market prices. Efforts to control emergent phenomena, Roberts writes, confuse engineering problems (which are subject to human design) with economic problems (which are not). "[T]he engineering way of thinking doesn't work with emergent phenomena. Trying to change emergent results is inherently more complex than building a bridge or expanding your kitchen or even putting a man on the moon. Understanding the challenge involved is to begin to answer the old question that asks why we can put a man on the moon but we can't eliminate poverty."⁹Despite talk of inelastic markets for retail gasoline, higher fuel prices over the past two years have started to have their anticipated effect on both supply and demand. The world's largest oil producers have recently and significantly increased their spending on oil exploration in response to higher prices, while consumers have started to move away from SUVs and large trucks to more fuel-efficient autos.¹⁰Left unregulated and unsubsidized, markets would lead human beings to cooperate and prosper in ways unimaginable by interventionist-minded government officials and politicians. And prices play a central role, acting as signals that help direct diverse and disconnected people into activities that serve other people's most urgently felt wants and needs. Entrepreneurs also play a critical role by directing scarce resources toward ends most valued by consumers. If an endeavor proves mistaken, an entrepreneur fails and tries something else. All the while, consumers are likewise seeking out the most "profitable" (in a psychic sense) goods and services they can find. Thus a free market is in a never ending flux, constantly shifting resources from less-valued to more highly valued uses. This is not a process that can be improved on by political means.

Government officials may wish to magically or legally make gasoline more plentiful or less expensive, but they cannot change the forces of supply and demand. Indeed, their tampering only makes matters worse. The gas lines, shortages, and occasional violence that accompanied gasoline price caps in the 1970s should serve as an effective reminder. Politicians should he lessons of history and sound economics. To be sure, end all privileges for the oil companies, but leave gasoline prices alone.

1. See Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan(Oxford University Press: NewYork, Oxford, 1987).
2. In the words of University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, "States tend to make their anti-gouging laws purposely vgue, forbidding 'unconscionable profiteering' during a state of emergency or the like." " Pump It Up," Slate, September 7, 2005, www.slate.com/id/2125814/.
3. Nedra Pickler, "Bush: Rebuilding Must Address Inequality," Associated Press, September 16, 2005, www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/16/134806.shtml.
4. "What Not to Do About Rising Energy Prices," Research Reports, American Institute for Economic Research, September 12, 2005.
5. Rob Bradley, "Gasoline Prices: Still Good News," Cato Institute Daily Dispatch, April 13, 2002, www.cato.org/dailys/04-13- 02.html.
6. William Anderson, "Congress and Oil Prices: The Outrage Mises.org Daily Article, May 6, 2002, www.mises.org/story/951.
7. "High Pump-Price Fairy Tales," National review.com, June 3, 2005, www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/taylor_van_doren200506030857.asp .
8. Figures provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov./oog/info/twip/twip.asp.
9. Russell Roberts, "The Reality of Markets," Library of Economics and Liberty, September 5, 2005, www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets.html.
10. Carola Hoyos and Javier Bias in London, "Search for Oil Stepped up as Price Rises," Financial Times, September 12, 2005; Amy Lee and Brett Canton, "Gas Costs Stall Used Truck Sales," Detroit News, July 11, 2005.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-high-cost-of-misunderstanding-gasoline-economics/

Re: Rutgers Tyler Clementi suicide webcam trial: Secret witness M.B. enters courtroom

an invasion of privacy for sure, but not an accomplice in the death

On Mar 2, 8:56 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rutgers webcam trial: Secret witness M.B. enters courtroom
>
> NEW BRUNSWICK — The man who was with Tyler Clementi in his dorm room
> when Clementi's roommate viewed them via webcam has just entered the
> courtroom to testify in New Brunswick this morning.
>
> Identified only as M.B., he is wearing a blue striped button-up shirt
> and black pants. He is clean-shaven and has short black hair. He
> smiled for a moment while talking to his attorney, Richard Pompelio,
> but he appears noticeably nervous.
>
> During the time that M.B. was intimate with Tyler Clementi, he noticed
> there was a webcam pointed at Clementi's bed, M.B. testified today.
>
> "Being in a compromising position and seeing a camera lens just kind
> of stuck out," M.B. testified, adding that if someone was sitting at
> the desk where the webcam was, it would be pointed in a different
> direction.
>
> "I just noticed it because I happened to glance over," he said. "There
> was a camera lens glancing directly at me."
>
> M.B. and Tyler Clementi met on a social networking site at the end of
> August 2010, and they met in person for the first time on Thursday,
> Sept. 16.
>
> They spoke mostly in instant chats and text messages, he said.
>
> There is a heavy media presence in the standing-room courtroom. The
> Clementi family is sitting in the front row behind the prosecution
> table, next to Pompelio. M.B. entered shortly after 9 a.m. and sat
> next to Pompelio.
>
> Today is the first time M.B., who has been identified only by his
> initials because he does not want his identity known, is speaking
> publicly. The judge just ordered that he is not to be photographed and
> his testimony not be recorded. He is considered a victim in the case.
>
> Clementi and M.B. were seen kissing in Clementi's dorm room on Sept.
> 19, 2010, when Clementi's roommate turned on his webcam from a
> friend's laptop.
>
> Now the roommate, Dharun Ravi, is on trial in Middlesex County and
> faces charges of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation and hindering
> apprehension.
>
> Prosecutors allege that Ravi intentionally set up the webcam to
> humiliate his gay roommate, but his lawyer contends that Ravi is not
> prejudiced.
>
> Ravi's lawyer, Steve Altman, has also emphasized that M.B. appeared
> disheveled and out of place in a college dormitory. Students have
> testified that he looked "shady" and "shabby."
>
> Altman says Ravi turned on the webcam only because he wanted to check
> on his expensive computer equipment and didn't trust his roommate's
> guest.
>
> Clementi committed suicide a few days after the alleged spying,
> sparking a national dialogue on cyber-bullying and harassment of gay
> teenagers. Ravi is not charged in connection with Clementi's death.
>
> Today is the sixth day of testimony in the trial, which is expected to
> last three to four weeks.
>
> More:http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/rutgers_webcam_trial_secret_...
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Rutgers Tyler Clementi suicide webcam trial: Secret witness M.B. enters courtroom

Rutgers webcam trial: Secret witness M.B. enters courtroom

NEW BRUNSWICK — The man who was with Tyler Clementi in his dorm room
when Clementi's roommate viewed them via webcam has just entered the
courtroom to testify in New Brunswick this morning.

Identified only as M.B., he is wearing a blue striped button-up shirt
and black pants. He is clean-shaven and has short black hair. He
smiled for a moment while talking to his attorney, Richard Pompelio,
but he appears noticeably nervous.

During the time that M.B. was intimate with Tyler Clementi, he noticed
there was a webcam pointed at Clementi's bed, M.B. testified today.

"Being in a compromising position and seeing a camera lens just kind
of stuck out," M.B. testified, adding that if someone was sitting at
the desk where the webcam was, it would be pointed in a different
direction.

"I just noticed it because I happened to glance over," he said. "There
was a camera lens glancing directly at me."

M.B. and Tyler Clementi met on a social networking site at the end of
August 2010, and they met in person for the first time on Thursday,
Sept. 16.

They spoke mostly in instant chats and text messages, he said.

There is a heavy media presence in the standing-room courtroom. The
Clementi family is sitting in the front row behind the prosecution
table, next to Pompelio. M.B. entered shortly after 9 a.m. and sat
next to Pompelio.

Today is the first time M.B., who has been identified only by his
initials because he does not want his identity known, is speaking
publicly. The judge just ordered that he is not to be photographed and
his testimony not be recorded. He is considered a victim in the case.

Clementi and M.B. were seen kissing in Clementi's dorm room on Sept.
19, 2010, when Clementi's roommate turned on his webcam from a
friend's laptop.

Now the roommate, Dharun Ravi, is on trial in Middlesex County and
faces charges of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation and hindering
apprehension.

Prosecutors allege that Ravi intentionally set up the webcam to
humiliate his gay roommate, but his lawyer contends that Ravi is not
prejudiced.

Ravi's lawyer, Steve Altman, has also emphasized that M.B. appeared
disheveled and out of place in a college dormitory. Students have
testified that he looked "shady" and "shabby."

Altman says Ravi turned on the webcam only because he wanted to check
on his expensive computer equipment and didn't trust his roommate's
guest.

Clementi committed suicide a few days after the alleged spying,
sparking a national dialogue on cyber-bullying and harassment of gay
teenagers. Ravi is not charged in connection with Clementi's death.

Today is the sixth day of testimony in the trial, which is expected to
last three to four weeks.

More:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/rutgers_webcam_trial_secret_wi.html

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

by Scotty Starnes

What else would one expect from left-wing loons who believe in population control through the murder of children? Obama has surrounded himself with these types of individuals. See John Holdren or listen to Obama talk about being "punished with a baby."

(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

"The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception," Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is "down not up."

Watch the video>>>

Scotty Starnes | March 2, 2012 at 9:08 AM | Tags: abortions, contraception mandate, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Population control | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-6KP

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/sebelius-decrease-in-human-beings-will-cover-cost-of-contraception-mandate/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Re: Christian Soldiers Banned from the koran in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan

the water you drink has been pissed in by muzzies, niggers, jews and
host of others for millenia

don't get dehydrated

On Mar 2, 8:18 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would yu want to drink from the same fountain as a muslim?
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:16 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Separate water fountains also?
>
> > On Mar 2, 6:55 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But they need them.
>
> > > February 29, 2012**** Christian Soldiers Banned from The Quran in the
> > U.S.
> > > Army in Afghanistan ****
>
> > > The collapse of American will. More sharia provisions in the military.
> > > Non-Muslims are not allowed to handle the quran unless they are
> > considering
> > > converting to Islam or are being targeted for conversion.****
>
> > > "Unless your military dog tags identify you as of the Muslim faith, you
> > > cannot obtain a copy of the Quran from the military chaplain." So
> > American
> > > soldiers who wish to study the quran to understand the enemy threat
> > > doctrine are disarmed and subjected to enemy propaganda instead.****
>
> > > Abject surrender to a comprehensive legal system that mandates our
> > > subjugation and annihilation.****
>
> > > Christian Soldiers Banned from The Quran in the U.S. Army in
> > > Afghanistan<
> >http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/02/christian-soldiers-banned-from-..
> > .>Posted
> > > By Blackfive • [February 28, 2012] (hat tip Brandy)
> > > ****
>
> > > Received more than a few emails regarding new guidance in light of the
> > > accidental Quran burnings in Afghanistan.****
>
> > > Now, unless your military dog tags identify you as of the Muslim faith,
> > you
> > > cannot obtain a copy of the Quran from the military chaplain. The
> > exception
> > > is if your commander stops fighting the war long enough to write up a
> > memo
> > > requesting one for you including the reason why you want a Quran. ****
>
> > > And, if you are a Muslim and obtain a Quran, it will be accounted for
> > like
> > > any other sensitive item.****
>
> > > [image: Description: Description: Military ban on quran for
> > > christians]<
> >http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0167632cb8ce9...>
> > > ****
>
> > > Can you order one up from Barnes & Noble? Sure. You just can't get one
> > from
> > > the chaplain.****
>
> > > Wow. ****
>
> > > Does the chaplain refuse to give the bible to soldiers with Muslim on
> > their
> > > dog tags?****
>
> > > This is just sad...****
>
> > > No, it is not sad. It is surrender to Islam.****
>
> > > Posted by Pamela Geller <http://profile.typepad.com/atlasshrugs2000> on
> > > Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 02:22 PM in US MILITARY GREATNESS and
> > Real
> > > American Heroes<
> >http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/us_military_greatness/>
> > > | Permalink<
> >http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/christian-sol...>
> > > ****
>
> > > Reblog (0)<
> >http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/christian-sol...>
> > > | | Digg This<
> >http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%2...>
> > > | Save to del.icio.us <http://del.icio.us/post> | | | ****
> > > TrackBack****
>
> > > TrackBack URL for this entry:
> >http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0167632cc...
> > > ****
>
> > > ** **
>
> > > image001.jpg
> > > 42KViewDownload
>
> > > 2PlyKoran.gif
> > > 30KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: This Video Is Worth A Watch

Stansberry was successfully sued for fraud in 2003 by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for a "scheme to defraud public
investors by disseminating false information in several Internet
newsletters"
In 2007, he and his investment firm, then called "Pirate Investor,"
now known as "Stansberry & Associates," were ordered by a U.S.
District Court to pay $1.5 million in restitution and civil penalties,
the court stating "Stansberry's conduct undoubtedly involved
deliberate fraud, making statements that he knew to be false.

On Mar 1, 5:22 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many might consider this video to be a long winded marketing ploy; but I
> think at least a hand full of members will think this video is
> worthwhile. You might even want to check out the author/creator, Porter
> Standsberry:
>
> http://pro.stansberryresearch.com/1202CHINAPSI/LOILN232/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

How England Helped Start the Great War

Revisions
How England Helped Start the Great War
by Paul Gottfried
March 01, 2012

A vastly underexplored topic is the British government's role in greasing the skids for World War I. Until recently it was hard to find scholars who would dispute the culturally comfortable judgment that "authoritarian Germany" unleashed the Great War out of militaristic arrogance. Supposedly the British only got involved after the Germans recklessly violated Belgian neutrality on their way to conquering "democratic" France.

But British Foreign Secretary Lord Edward Grey had done everything in his power to isolate the Germans and their Austro-Hungarian allies, who were justified in their concern about being surrounded by enemies. The Triple Entente, largely constructed by Grey's government and which drew the French and Russians into a far-reaching alliance, encircled Germany and Austria with warlike foes. In July 1914 German leaders felt forced to back their Austrian allies in a war against the Serbs, who were then a Russian client state. It was clear by then that this conflict would require the Germans to fight both Russia and France.

The German military fatalistically accepted the possibility of England entering the struggle against them. This might have happened even if the Germans had not violated Belgian soil in order to knock out the French before sending their armies eastward to deal with a massive Russian invasion. The English were anything but neutral. In the summer of 1914 their government was about to sign a military alliance with Russia calling for a joint operation against German Pomerania in case of a general war. The British had also given assurances to French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé that they would back the French and the Russians (who had been allied since 1891) if war broke out with Germany.
"The British were more hostile to the Germans than vice versa."

Grey spurned attempts by German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg to woo his government away from their commitments to Germany's enemies.

German concessions in 1912 included:

• The acceptance of British dominance in constructing railroads and accessing oil reserves in what is now Iraq
• Investments in central African ventures that would clearly benefit the English more than the Germans
• Meekly following England's lead in two Balkan Wars where Austria's enemy Serbia nearly doubled its territory.

The Russians and French were also vastly expanding their conscription to outnumber the German and Austrian forces, but neither German concessions nor the saber-rattling of England's continental allies caused the British government to change direction. Lord Grey, who remained foreign secretary until 1916, never swerved from his view that Germany was England's most dangerous enemy.

A book that makes this clear is Konrad Canis's study of German foreign policy from 1902 until 1914. A massive volume of more than seven hundred pages, Canis's Der Weg in den Abgrund (The Road Into the Abyss) is a groundbreaking revisionist account of the entanglements leading up to the war.

Canis makes several points one is not likely to encounter in ordinary historical scholarship:

1. The German Second Empire's foreign policy was largely passive. This was true not only of Bismarck after German unification in 1871 but almost equally true of German foreign policy from 1902 onward.

2. The British were more hostile to the Germans than vice versa. They viewed Germany as an upstart economic competitor which had established itself as the continent's dominant military power. Both German public opinion and German leaders were strongly Anglophilic; the Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg considered English friendship to be something worth striving for even at the cost of German interests.

3. The German government and most of the German press made a sharp distinction between hoping to see their country become a world power and aspiring for dominance over all other countries. Canis's sources suggest that influential Germans were hoping to become a power "on the scale of England," a country they respected and had no interest in fighting.

In 1914 Russia posed more of a threat to England than either Germany or Austria did. England was struggling with Russia for dominance in Central Asia. Instead of reassessing its geopolitical priorities, Lord Grey offered Russia a third front against the Germans by promising to make British ships available for a landing in northern Germany. This was how the British government tried to settle its conflicts with Russia, as both of them were expanding into the same region. In these British commitments, it is unclear whether a distinction was still being drawn between offensive and defensive wars.

And then there's the US. When the German ambassador approached Teddy Roosevelt to join the Germans in upholding open trade in China's Yangtze River Valley and other regions then being closed off by the British and French, TR refused. He said he could not sign such a document before first consulting the British. This may be further proof for those who believe the US was a vassal state of England's before the First World War.

The autocratic Russian government, which entered the war from the east, was not quite as "democratic" in 1914, but by the time Woodrow Wilson pulled us into the European cauldron, Russia had undergone the first of two revolutions, this one a democratic revolutionary change in March 1917. Thus the US could ally itself with Russia's morally acceptable provisional government when it took up arms against putative German warmongers.

George Kennan's The Fateful Alliance and Sean McMeekin's The Russian Origin of the First World War both document the role the aggressively expansionist Russian government played in bringing about the Great War. But such revelations are no longer surprising.

What is more of a discovery is England's role in creating this catastrophe. This oversight may be attributed to certain obvious causes: the mistaken view that England only entered the war because of the violation of Belgian neutrality (this confounds a pretext with a cause); the Anglophilic disposition of American political and academic elites; and more recently, the tendentious notion that "democracies never fight each other." Unfortunately for this generalization, the governments of Germany and England (and certainly their societies) in 1914 looked much more like each other than either would resemble the present American or Canadian regime.

Canis does not defend Germany's ultimately disatrous decision in 1914. The Germans should have restrained the Austrians even after Serb agents killed Austria's Archduke Ferdinand. The ensuing war wrecked the Old Europe. The war industries that Grey, Churchill, and others of their kidney were lavishly funding were not what the populace wanted. The war hawks were diverting revenues from social reforms. Although I am hardly in favor of the welfare state, creating one in England in 1910 may have been less ruinous than Grey's foreign policy.

http://takimag.com/article/how_england_helped_start_the_great_war_paul_gottfried#ixzz1ny7IAEnF

the world police

"Both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the
United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear
weapon, we mean what we say," he continued.

Netanyahu and Obama are scheduled to meet during the Prime Minister's
visit to Washington this week for the annual American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference.

When it comes to supporting Israel, Obama seemed to argue that his
actions - and not his sometimes-frosty relationship with Netanyahu -
proved his commitment to the Jewish State and its security.

"Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its
security, I have kept," he told The Atlantic. "Why is it that despite
me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that
they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions
about that?"

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=260196
---
let him keep and fund his own commitment to israel on his own time ...
the USA needs a president that will put America first now

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Oil Sanctions and the Pretence of Knowledge

Two things have gone wrong. First, sanctions are interacting with other supply disruptions (in South Sudan, Yemen, Syria) to reduce supplies and exhaust the cushion of spare capacity Saudi Arabia holds. [Oops!]

Second, the thicket of sanctions on Iran imposed by the European Union and United States is now so complex it is becoming hard to conduct trade that is supposed to be permitted. [Oops!!]

The Goal Is Freedom
Oil Sanctions and the Pretence of Knowledge
The experts aren't.
Sheldon Richman
Posted March 02, 2012

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men/ Gang aft a-gley. -- Robert Burns

"U.S. and EU sanctions on Iran's crude oil exports and its central bank were not supposed to affect either the volume of oil available or its price, provided markets reacted 'rationally,' Reuters analyst John Kemp reported this week.

Who didn't suppose this? A biased party: the "sanctions advocates at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington" in a report called "Oil Market Impact of Sanctions Against the Central Bank of Iran."

This was not mere academic theorizing on their part. Decisions hinged on what the sanctions advocates at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies "supposed." Writes Kemp, "The idea that sanctions could reduce Iran's oil revenues without boosting prices for oil-consuming countries was crucial to persuading policymakers in the United States and Europe to impose far-reaching restrictions on Iran's oil sector."

Well, how did that work out? If you have a car, or merely walk past a gas station on a regular basis, you know the answer.

"Backfired"

"But the policy has backfired," Kemp writes. "Oil prices have surged, harming consuming countries and offsetting the impact of lower exports on Iran's revenues."

How could things have gone so wrong? Kemp tells us that "U.S. and EU sanctions were written very carefully to include plenty of flexibility to ensure they would not risk a spike in prices" (emphasis added). No doubt the best minds in the bureaucracies were on the case.

U.S. sanctions, set out in Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal 2012 (HR 1540), apply only if the president determines "the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers . . . to reduce significantly in volume their purchases from Iran".

Sanctions do not apply if the president determines an importer has "significantly reduced" its volume of crude purchases from Iran, and the president can waive them altogether if it is in the national interest.

The law mandates experts at the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in conjunction with the departments of Treasury and State and the head of the intelligence community, to review the availability of alternative supplies every 60 days. [Emphasis added.]

Smart Folks

So how could it miss? The President, a smart guy advised by a slew of other smart folks, is empowered to determine all this stuff. And then experts review other important stuff.

Can't miss, right?

Except it did. Kemp:

Second, the thicket of sanctions on Iran imposed by the European Union and United States is now so complex it is becoming hard to conduct trade that is supposed to be permitted. [Oops!!]

Now people will proffer myriad sophisticated theories for why sanctions on a major oil producer affected supply and price despite the experts' best efforts -- expect to see the terms futures markets, hedge funds, and money managers thrown about -- but the real explanation is fairly simple:

The "experts" don't know what they're doing. They may think they do. They surely want us to think that. But they've got a problem: The matter they are grappling with does not permit the kind of knowledge they would need to design a plan calibrated to produce the results they seek. They're up to their eyebrows in data, but what they need more than data they haven't got, and there's no way to get it.

The Problem Is People

Rube Goldberg had it easy. He had only to arrange a series of inanimate objects and an occasional parrot to create his problem-solving devices. The experts who try to calibrate sanctions to harm only Iran, but not oil consumers, have to deal with people. Such experts, Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, seem

to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it.

F. A. Hayek had something similar in mind in his 1974 Nobel lecture, "The Pretence of Knowledge": "[I]n the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process . . . will hardly ever be fully known or measurable."

Belief to the contrary is what Hayek called "the scientistic prejudice," or "the superstition that only measurable magnitudes can be important." This is no innocuous error, Hayek said. On the contrary, based on this "pretence of knowledge," "far-reaching claims are made on behalf of a more scientific direction of all human activities and the desirability of replacing spontaneous processes by 'conscious human control.'" That is, the fallacy engenders a preference for force over freedom, the slave principle over the self-ownership principle.

Expectations

Another Austrian economist, Hayek's student Ludwig Lachmann, elaborated on a critical factor that is beyond the reach of what Smith called "the man of system": people's expectations. To act, Lachmann explained, is to pursue a purpose embedded in a plan for the future. An individual's plans are intimately related to her expectations. But expectations are not data available to bureaucrats. They are subjective, indeterminate, and often unarticulated. A sanctions regime calibrated to effect a precise outcome must fail because the designer cannot anticipate what expectations individuals – entrepreneurs and consumers will form as they confront various situations.

Two individuals in the "same" situation may form widely divergent expectations. Any "experience, before being transformed into expectations, has, so to speak, to pass through a 'filter' in the human mind, and the undefinable character of this process makes the outcome of it unpredictable," Lachmann wrote in "The Role of Expectations in Economics as a Social Science." No wonder the bureaucrats fail.

Hayek ended his lecture with a moral lesson:

The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/oil-sanctions-and-the-pretence-of-knowledge/

Obama, Con Artist, The Movie

http://www.conartist.raisingred.com/

Obama the con artist. Watch the movie.