Identify the Eighty-Five

First, identify the Eighty-Five who own more wealth than most of the rest of the entire world population.

Stop and Frack implemented in Detroit

Detroit’s Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr

announces the city’s new ‘Stop and Frack’ law.

Detroit (I.D. News)  Aug 16, 2013

“Detroit’s budget will be balanced in 1 year by adopting this program.”  So says Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr in announcing the city’s new “Stop and Frack” law.  Under this new plan, a special task force of city police officers will patrol the city’s streets, targeting houses that are “acting suspiciously while situated over shale deposits.”    Once identified and read their rights, each house will have the opportunity to accept or reject the installation of a fracking well.  Non-responsive houses will be added to the fracking system within 30 days, with 10% of well revenue being returned to the city, says Orr.

“This is a completely constitutionally legal process,” Orr emphasized, “Any house may decline being converted to a fracking site by merely saying so.  Democracy will live on in Detroit!”

During the field test program that ended July 31, 65 vacant houses were identified and offered the opportunity to refuse the fracking option.  According to Orr, not one house said a word. “This test pretty much proves that vacant houses simply love this idea….not one objected when an officer proposed the offer.”   Reminded that houses cannot speak, Orr hastily rejected the motives of the questioner who was clearly biased in his opinion.  When challenged, the reported had to admit that there was nothing in either the US or Michigan constitutions that identified “houses, trailers or mobile homes” as having special consideration under the law.  “Houses have the same rights to free speech as anyone or anything else, but they also have the right NOT to speak and I will continue to respect their rights in this regard.”, said Orr.

Orr expects to have 2,000 properties converted to fracking wells by year end 2013.  Asked about future pollution from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) as being experienced throughout the rest of Michigan,  Orr replied that our Founding Fathers had anticipated situations like this, citing “posterity” dozens of times in the founding documents.  “This is our gift to Posterity, just as the Founders envisioned.”

Responding to a question about the origin of the new law, Orr explained that the concept came to him while thinking about several terrible laws.  “It’s really a combination of Bloomberg’s Stop and Frisk law and the Michigan Frack Anywhere, Anytime laws.  Take two bad laws, combine them and viola!, you have a new paradigm true to our Constitution and Christian faith.”   “I call it Occam’s Hammer… find the least reasonable solution that will benefit the smallest number of citizens and pound it down their throats.”

When queried about the beneficiaries of the other 90% of fracking well revenues, Orr said that most of it would go to the oil companies that create jobs for our Detroit citizens.  When told that it had been rumored that 51% would be going to state and local Republican re-election campaigns, Orr, clearly agitated, began waving his new “Forward Detroit” banner to cheers, then shouted,  “Well, if we don’t get our guys re-elected, this great law could be tossed off the books, to the detriment of our hard working, suffering citizens.  You folks get that, don’t you?”

By staff reporter I. Diogenes

Occam's Hammer

The scientific and philosophical line of thought commonly employed by U.S. federal, state and local lawmakers during the early 21st century.  Under this principle, advocates seek to determine potential solutions to social and political problems by examining all possible alternatives, choosing the ones that are the least beneficial to the most citizens, then hammering it down their throats.  

 

................ #Occupy Congress: One Oath....................

One oath , one pledge, one promise: 

A Declaration for US elected officials in Federal, State and local governments sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

1.  Whereas,

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers.  (US Senate website,  http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec8   )

2. Whereas,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;  (US Constitution, Article I,  Section 8)

3. Whereas,

Congress can borrow money through the issuance of bonds and other means.  When it borrows money, the United States creates a binding obligation to repay the debt and cannot repudiate it.  (Senate official explanation of  Article I, Section 8 US Constitution entry of  “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”)

4. Whereas,

As a requirement of the office of US Senator and US Representative, you willfully and fully made the following Oath of office:  

“ I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

5. Whereas,

This Oath of Office is a promise of loyalty to the US Constitution.  Under the laws of this same Constitution, it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.

6. Whereas,

Signing any OTHER pledge, promise or oath or verbally making any OTHER such pledge, promise or oath that may in any way compromise or conflict with your Oath of Office and duties to support and defend the US Constitution is prima facie evidence of willful violation of such Oath of Office.

7. Whereas,

It is self-evident that no man or woman can serve two masters, and whereas good judgment, integrity and reason are the fundamental and minimum standards expected of any elected official, We the People do hereby declare that any and all US Congressmen and Senators who have signed other pledges, promises and oaths that may cause them to not perform their sworn duties to protect and preserve the US Constitution, to be in violation of their sacred Oath of Office of the United States Congress.

( Matthew 6:24 --  "No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.)

8.  Whereas,

Such violations must be remedied by either (A) Immediate resignation or (B) Verbal and written denunciation of any and all even potentially conflicting pledges, promises and oaths as defined above, and a formal re-taking of your Oath of Office.

9. Whereas,

While there may be other pledges that violate or conflict with your oath of office, the initial focus is on the 236 US Congressional Representatives and 41 US Senators who have willfully signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

In addition, there are also 1,263 elected state officials who have also willfully signed this pledge in violation of their own particular Oath of Office.  This includes 13 governors, 5 Lieutenant Governors, 4 Attorneys General, and 3 Secretaries of State and various State representatives.

(Source: http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge)

Elected officials cannot serve two masters… you must choose one pledge to honor and only one, lest you dishonor one while honoring the other.

10.Whereas,

Common wisdom dictates that our elected officials must be able to differentiate between goals and absolutes, and that if they are to have one absolute to abide by in all decisions, that absolute must only be their Oath of Office. 

Therefore,

We the People do hereby call upon all of our elected officials to utilize their God-given good judgment, integrity, reason and loyalty to their constitutions and to re-affirm their oath of office to their constituents; and to renounce any and all other pledges, promises and oaths that, while taken in good faith, do in fact amount to self-evident violation of their Primary Duty to the Federal and/or State Constitutions they are sworn to uphold and protect.

Signed below by United States Citizens for Preserving Our Democracy:


1.  I.M. Diogenes

Letter on truth in media

Sept. 17, 2009

To:  Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Committee

Dear Members,

From your webpage:

“Indeed, the code specifically calls on journalists to "clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct," to "encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media" and to expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media."

In the spirit of those goals, I am writing to express concerns to your Journalist Ethics Committee.    I am one of the citizens who rely on truth in journalism, and in fact view it as the single most important component of a healthy Democracy.  I’ve lived my life trusting that this fundamental element existed, admittedly taking it for granted while people like you worked  behind the scenes to ensure that it did.  It truly is the glue that holds everything together, that has allowed our country to eventually right wrongs, to make informed decisions, to progress and to power that beacon of light across the globe that gives hope to so many. 

That light has slowly been fading for over a decade now.

The result is that I no longer believe in truth in our American media.  Quite frankly, typing that for the first time is not only sobering, but somewhat unsettling.

This isn’t about the politics of Liberalism or Conservatism, or whether Friedman lost and Keynes won in the end…..  it’s about the tactics being used, the rules of the game being played.  And the responsibility of the referees.  We may have Whigs in 20 years, or a new economic guru but we must ALWAYS have the rules enforced or Democracy will become just another game that was rigged.

I will not stoop to hyperbole to make a point, nor will I paint with too broad a brush; I fully realize that most are honest, ethical and diligent reporters of fact. But I know what I see and hear, and frankly it is acrid to my other senses.  

Whether the cause is the media consolidation, FCC laxity, personal greed or undue lobby influence, I do not claim to know.  But I do know this, the proverbial Center has been moved.  The moral center, the ethical center – that place from which we qualify ourselves to be independent, non-partisan and objective. 

It took a COMEDIAN named Jon Stewart to shame CNN into dropping the Crossfire program, yet that format lives on as a standard on the top rated ‘news’ shows…  justified by the intellectually disingenuous argument that showing two sides of a story is the only responsibility of the media, the dispassionate, objective referees.  Truth has become a casualty when the event is framed innocently as “opposing opinions”.  False premise-- there is True, and there is False.

But is it possible that standard is being applied to the political discourse only?  And if so, why?   When you report on a brutal rape or murder, do you feel compelled to show the two sides to that story?  To give equal time to the rapist, his difficult life circumstances and lack of medical care for his ‘problem’?   Yet our media today permits half-truths and even outright lies to appear under the guise of “just an opinion”, not subject to scrutiny when it comes to any issue even remotely related to political activity.  It IS treated differently, and to the detriment of your own ethical imperatives.

Sure, the many fine watchdog groups will catch most of it and report on it. 

Tomorrow.

In a different place than those news consumers will ever see.  And so the lie lives, and spreads, and the cumulative effect of these lies is growing towards a tipping point in this society.  David Gergen himself agrees that what we are now seeing is different than in times past, and that it is in effect crippling the ability of the government to do what we elected them to do—govern.

I’m an American first, an Independent second with respect for *all* sides of legitimate political debate.  Key word there is Legitimate.   What we see daily now is illegitimate debate, disinformation, and outright lies solely designed to create fear and chaos.  It’s no secret that many worry that the result of this fear mongering could well be some very serious national tragedy.  We see video clips of US congressmen/women making outright false statements to constituents, yet unless it’s on MSNBC, no one dare call it a lie even when there is factual proof that it is.  Hate speech is not just politics… it is hate speech.  Calculated misstatements are not just politics… they are lies designed to manipulate, control and call to some action. Lies were the seeds of destruction of many a proud and honorable society.

Has that Center moved so much, as our journalists become so sensitized to being labeled “Liberal Media”, that they are simply afraid to report the Truth that they see in front of them?   I am not naïve enough to think that your Ethics panel isn’t well aware of the general point I make here, so my question isn’t Are you aware? but rather, What will you do about it?

I know it’s not a legal matter, and that your code requires the delicate balance cited earlier, and also your position on not “enforcing rules”.  I got all that, and concur.

But your words also inform us that “recognizing the importance of each core value” is a key factor in deciding where or how to draw that line in determining what you report and how loudly you report it. 

Can it not be said that the core value of truth is the very foundation upon which journalism is based?  And when that core value is allowed to corrode, that your entire structure is compromised?  Will history ask the question, Where were the referees?, as they do now about the Iraq war and the meltdown of the financial system? 

My appeal to your board of ethics is to reconsider your role in maintaining that foundation, and in fact expressing your own 1^st amendment free speech

Consider your actions, perhaps prepare,  publish and promote a monthly report on Truth in Media.  Put it EVERYWHERE, with fanfare because right now this democracy needs to know what is real and what is imaginary;  where facts end and manipulation and demagoguery begin.  Do a report card on each network and each major newspaper and columnist….  Don’t trust, verify. Then give our citizens your OPINION.

America is counting on you to exercise YOUR free speech by informing us what is Truth, what is not and what falls between.

Thank you for your service to our country; it may never have been more important than it is today.

Sincerely,

I. Diogenes

Capitalism_Cataclysm, the Anniversary edition

September 14, 2009


“One flew east, one flew west, one flew over the cuckoo’s nest . . . goose swoops down and plucks you out”    The role of R.P. McMurphy, from Chief's imagination ,  ”...Cuckoo’s Nest”, the book.



Where’s our McMurphy when we need him? 

Who’s going to swoop down and save us from this economic, political and social asylum we find ourselves still mired in, one year after the reveal of Capitalism_Cataclysm, ver 2.2?   According to a variety of ‘experts’ inside the asylum, not only don’t they know who McMurphy *is*, most don’t believe he even exists.    Uh-oh.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that no one really knows what to do as the old standard economic and financial models seem incapable of producing The Solution.  In the mean time, the banks are back to business as usual according to the recent NY Times article, apparently covering their eyes and ears as they sprint past the graveyard , now rife with zombie banks and ghosts of Lehmans Past.  The moral?  “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  
Hegel be damned.

Looking from outside the asylum, we can no longer distinguish between the inmates and the staff.   Nurse Ratched’s banks keeps doing the same things, somehow expecting different results.  She continues to blame and punish the sub-primer inmates for creating their own problems, pushing them deeper into despair while further eroding her own credibility and trust.  And her own odds of survival.   Even the Acutes know crazy when they see it….

So how do we cure her?  Lobotomy?  No, too extreme; could no longer function; chaos.
Paxil?  Doubtful…  Many side effects and inter-action concerns...cure as bad as the disease.

What then, you ask? 

All she needs is one Dose.  With a proven 98% cure rate, one shot removes blind arrogance and the false sense of entitlement that invariably lead to self-destruction in this form of psychosis.

I. Diogenes

Next:   A Dose of Reality