New Ruskin
Lecture Notes: March '05
Catalog of Courses
Intel Operations:
Psy Ops
Lecture Hall
Lecture Notes 2016
Lecture Notes 2015
Lecture Notes 2014
Lecture Notes 2013
Lecture Notes 2012
Lecture Notes: July 2008 - June 2010
Lecture Notes: May 07 - June 08
Lecture Notes: Oct. '05- April '07
Lecture Notes: September '05
Lecture Notes: August '05
Lecture Notes: July '05
Lecture Notes: June '05
Lecture Notes: May '05
Lecture Notes: April '05
Lecture Notes: March '05
Lecture Notes: January & February '05
Lecture Notes: December '04
Lecture Notes: November '04
Lecture Notes: October '04
Lecture Notes: September '04
Lecture Notes: August '04
Lecture Notes: July '04
Lecture Notes: June '04
Lecture Notes: May '04
Lecture Notes: April '04
Imus Protests April 2004
Last Will & Testament
Funeral Procession
Baghdad Claims Office: How I would settle Iraqi Prisoner Claims.
Top 40
Metaphysics 303
Who Killed Duane Garrett: Part II
This is what is Wrong with the Republican Party. Part I & Part II
A Public Letter to Rosie Allen
A Public Appeal to Governor Davis
How Don and Mike Removed the Evil One From MSNBC
Who Killed Duane Garrett? 3 Suspects: Motive Greed & Power
McGurk Tutorial
45 minutes and the Distortions of History
Don Imus Says Good Morning
Judgment Day

COPYRIGHT  2005 by

New Ruskin College Lecture  Hall:

History’s judgment rendered today!




Date:  3-31-05


To:      Robert Frank

Wall Street Journal


From:  Plinio Designori


            New Ruskin College



Re.:     And it will never stop,  I will destroy Robert Frank’s life . . .  it will never stop.  --- Don Imus



Now that you have started to learn the truth about Don Imus perhaps you can benefit from my experience.  


I invite you to visit to learn how Don Imus used his influence to destroy my life.  In a few weeks I will commit suicide in protest of Don Imus and the others who have oppressed me for these last fourteen years.  (Yes, fourteen years.  When he says it will never stop he means that it will never stop.  He will use his influence and power to destroy your life.)  It will not stop.


Please understand that I too want to live.  Even though I have been pushed to the very limits of society, oppressed, driven into poverty, still, in the morning, the sunrise is so beautiful my heart rejoices.  As my time runs out the sun has been racing through the sky. 


Life has resolved itself into a granular or cellular structure.  My alienation is now so complete that I no longer live in a world of isolated individuals, but they themselves have devolved into isolated moments in time.  People appear in a bewildering array of personalities minute by minute, seemingly talking gibberish and no one else seems to notice.


For example it started with me noticing intellectual inconsistencies.  Tax shelters for the rich for example:  The Gallo Brother’s Wine Institute or the Imus ranch.  And of course Imus is so vain he does not see the larger issues.  That anyone should question whether a wasted wizened old man and his young deranged wife should be allowed to shelter millions of dollars in an enterprise that would not exist except for our tax laws,  never once occurs to him.  


Why shouldn’t we allow a degenerate old druggy to decide how our tax dollars are spent?  It is futile to point out that the money thus sheltered means that the rest of the people will now have to pay more.   And who are they?  The ones with the lowest ability to raise their prices;  the highest “propensity to spend.”  But in this idiocy Imus is in no way exceptional. (Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said:   “In exchange for these very generous tax breaks, charitable assets should be going to those in need. More and more, we're seeing that some people view charities and charitable gifts as a chance to help themselves, not others.  What's going on isn't a pretty picture in the harsh light.”  Acknowledging that “our enforcement presence faded in the late 1990s,” (Boy! Did it!  How about completely sold out and corrupted by the very corporate entities the IRS and the Senate were supposed to be overseeing?  Would you say that Mr. Grassley? )  and "weak governance practices.”)


Just recently “conservatives” who previously condemned “junk science” presented the obviously, and self admitted religiously biased, “doctors” culled from  across the country, as representing “main stream scientific consensus” when they in fact knew that the consensus was just the opposite.  It was an intellectual betrayal.     


One minute they say one thing then in the next breath they contradict themselves . . .  And you may be thinking ‘Well, come on, everyone has their limitations, different perspectives, how do you go from this to the complete disintegration of reason . . . the impossibility of communication . . . utter hopelessness?’


It is said that Ted Kaczynski was the subject of a psychological experiment when he was at Harvard.  They wanted to find out what would happen to the subject if you deliberately denied everything.  They found out.  The survivors of the Soviet Prisons said that the worst of it was that they were housed with the lunatics, and diagnosed as being insane.  After a while, they began to wonder . . . 


But this is what I am trying to tell you, this is my warning, this is what happens to you when they start in on you.   First you will think, “coincidence.”  You will receive a letter from your sister, or a friend, someone you trust absolutely.  And then Imus will repeat a phrase from the letter word for word.  Coincidence.  Then Michael Weiner will start reading from a notebook that you have left at home, or on a car seat, or in a motel room.  Then you editor will hand back a story you have written and tell you to rewrite it.  But then driving home, only an hour later, someone else on the radio will talk about having to “rewrite” and how editors do not know how to tell reporters when they are in trouble and about to be fired.


And right now you think:  paranoia.  Yes!  Exactly!  You will never know!  Don’t you see?  Once they start in on you, your wife?  Can you trust your wife?   Then what? A marriage counselor?   Garrison Keillor?  Rush Limbaugh?  Your employer?  Co-workers, for example?  You go to lunch and when you get back to the office your brief case has been moved, opened?  The secretary nods affirmatively to your co-worker’s questioning glance that you catch just out of the corner of your eye.  They went through my briefcase?  Then Imus reads something you emailed your editor.       


Right now you might think that there are limits.  You may work for a prestigious newspaper, or you are well to do,  you think you have friends, or perhaps you simply think that you live in a nation where the ‘rule of law’ is respected.  Is that what you think?


Or  perhaps you are thinking that your colleagues, friends, family, or even just people generally, your fellow citizens, will not allow you to be targeted in this way.   You may think, ‘This is America,  there is justice.’  What you do not yet understand is that they will all join in.   It will become a kind of game for them.   This is what I meant about the granular structure of their personalities.  They can not be trusted.  They will betray you on questions of economics and medicine?  If they will not accept an EEG or a CAT scan then how can you trust them on such trivial questions such as your oppression, the theft of your papers, etc. ,  etc.?      


Right now you think you can trust them.  There is Truth.  Justice?  You trust in good faith.  Take this letter as a warning:  One, it will not stop, Two, no one will help you.


Over the years many people have commented on my situation.  They wanted me to know that they knew about Don Imus and Michael Weiner,  Mrs. Jack Swanson, Ron Owens, Michael Krasney.  Part of the game for them was that I should know that they knew.  Do you see?  They wanted me to know:


“I have heard what you do to some of your listeners.” --- Senator Hatch, on the Imus Show


“What are you going to do . . . hire an attorney?   I’ve got the best attorneys in the country.” ---  Don Imus


“Drop a card on someone.”  ---  Chris Matthews


“Let’s watch our metaphors.” --- Jim Leher


“I hope you are ‘adjusting’ to your new life of ‘white collar crime’.” --- John McLaughlin


“We better stop, I don’t want to get you into trouble.”  --- Phillip Matier, S. F. Chronicle


“No talent . . . you are lint.’  ---  Bill O’Reilly


“. . . so she can park her car in a red no parking zone.”  --- unidentified Bay Area journalist.


“Like the man said, ‘The mass media is a hydra headed monster.’ --- fat balding reporter for the Sacramento Bee, on KQED


“Is Charles  going to be around for a wile?” because “I want to call back and run a few things by Charles.”  --- David Gregory on Imus, 04-13-04


“His mother . . . she died? . . .” --- Scott Bobro, Farmers Insurance


 “taking baths.”  --- Ron Owens


 “witches”  --- Jim Dunbar and Ed Wygant   


“I love it when conservatives go after one another.”--- Bernie Ward


“Colonial Motel suspect . . .”  --- The San Rafael Police, police radio


“Michael Krasney is on line three for you.”  ----  AAA auto insurance


Barbara Simpson explained that she has no sympathy for people “who keep journals and diaries . . . writing everything down.  And then it gets stolen and made public. So?  And so?  So?  What do you expect?”  --- Barbara Simpson


Last month Rush Limbaugh held up Mrs. Jack Swanson’s arm in a victory pose.  (Mrs. Jack Swanson had tried to have Limbaugh fired from the Kansas City radio station they both worked at in the 1980’s. (She objected to his Femi-NAZIs.  She was a liberal then. )) 


Good luck. 




Site Report for:

Date Range: 3/29/2005 to 3/29/2005  


Counselor:  What are they doing here?


Waiting for me to die.  Not yet!  Check back in a few weeks.


Counselor:  Well, . . . maybe they are feeling remorse and are investigating themselves and will make amends for what they did?


. . . (You always need to keep it in your mind that she used to live in Marin County, California.)  Yes, well possibly.


They may think that their Criminal Investigation Unit, headquartered in Atlanta, had developed too close a relationship with Crawford and Company, (world’s largest independent adjustment company), also headquartered in Atlanta,   and that just because they developed more leads from the information illegally supplied by Crawford and Company, than I was able to help them develop,  still,  they should not have asked me to help with their  investigation of Crawford and Company only to then give my name to Crawford and Company, and ruin my career in national and international claims settlements and investigation, and drive me into poverty and bankruptcy, and force me back to the Bay Area where my other enemies, Michael Weiner, Don Imus, Mrs. Jack Swanson, Ron Owens, Michael Kraseney could then use their influence to ----


Counselor:  Yeah, yeah, we have heard all that before. (see the I R S and the Illegals From the North at the Moynihan)  I was just wondering why they are still visiting?


Just waiting for me to die.


Counselor:  Hmum.  You know he wants his name spelled with two n’s?




Counselor:  I thought so. 







Lecture Notes:  03-30-05

The Culture of Life Exposed   


Oh, I get it.  This is just your way to drive me off the edge!  Boy!  You guys!  You really had me going there.  


But you don’t have to do all that.  I am going to kill my self.  Just a few weeks now.


I know some of you had access to my credit card data, (remember Bo Dietl released  Mr. Benedict P. Morelli’s client’s credit history? (well they did the same to me, (didn’t they Garrison?))),  so I suppose you have access to my bank information.  As you can see the money is almost gone. 


Then me too.


Good bye, in case we don’t connect again.


So really there is no need for all this.  I’m going.  I’m almost gone.




Then I think . . . no, they really do not see themselves.  They really do not know how phony they are . . . or, how phony they appear . . . give them the benefit of the doubt.


You see when you take up the moralist’s pose over Schiavo’s bed.  You know, you condemn everyone else as being part of the “culture of death;”  that whole routine of yours.


Right?  You know when you claim a profound respect for the dignity of every human being, innate worth, unconditional love for all man kind, that whole routine you have developed?    Right?   What “quality of life” issue?  You know when you pick up your voice to that shrill pitch of self-righteousness?


You know how you do that.


And then when it is pointed out to you that thousands of patients a day, not all in PVS, but literally thousands of patients and doctors and families a day have to face up to the question of when to stop treating a hopeless case . . .


Oh, well, of course,  you say,  but . . . in this case . . . that husband of hers . . .


You do see that don’t you?   The sleight of hand.  You have just shifted the debate?  You see that don’t you?  Tell me you know what you are doing.  Please?


You could have held your position and I would have come to you.  In Tibet when they start a construction project, before they start digging the foundation, they get down on all fours and pick the worms out of the soil.  They do not want to hurt them.


So for me, unlike the liberals,  I would not smirk at your religiosity.  The liberals will accept the most bizarre religious practices from little brown men, especially little brown men from Asia.  Especially the liberal women, they are hot for the little brown men from Asia.  (Go figure.)


But let some Mormon, or Southern Baptist, or Catholic set up some religious condition and they are all over it with sarc I, II, III and more.  See, White religious people are not allowed to have religious doctrines?


But I am not one of  them liberals.


If you had wanted to set it up that we did not give up on anyone I would help you organize it.  Calculate how many hospital beds, how many nurses, how much money.  It wouldn’t really be that much more.  Right now something like  50% of all US health dollars are spent on the last six months of life. (  )     


So what the  . . .


You see as a conservative I was willing to accept your religious doctrine.  And unlike Justice O’Conner I do not say your religious principles do not have a place in our law.  They do.  Remember me?  I am the one shouting  “Bravo!”  Have I not always encouraged you?  Am I not the one who said that if you do not hold “the good” as good, then there is no good?


But that is just the problem isn’t it?  For when questioned you backed down.


You all say  “. . . . well . . . but in this  . . . case . . . her husband . . . ?”


You know?  Then your voice starts to trail off  . . . .  you know that thing you do with your voice when you are backing down . . .?


What happened to “kill”?  You xxxxxxxx


Counselor:  Stop it.


What are you doing?


Counselor:  I’m not going to let you talk like that. 




So what happened,  you, . . . what happened to “kill”?  “Judicial homicide”?  “State sanctioned murder”?   You said all of that.  (Note Dr. Edel, your patients came to us. )


You cowards.  When challenged you changed the subject.  And all of you.  Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck,  Rush Limbaugh,  Michael Weiner (who persuaded his first wife to have two, not one, but two, abortions),  Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Tucker Carlson,  everyone of you, when challenged, backed down.


All this talk about how you stand for “the culture of life” and everyone who disagrees with you stands for the “culture of death”  turns out on just the most cursory of examinations, what little you allow in a phone call,  to be hollow, insubstantial, phony.


For on reflection we discover that “the culture of life” also recognizes that life support can be, even should be, stopped in hopeless cases.


All of this multi-year vulgarity has ,  it turns out,  been hype, overstatement, gross overstatement, phony.


What were at first described as “absolute religious convictions” turn out to be, on sober examination (i.e. without the vulgar emotionalism),  contingent, even limited to just this one case:  the patient Schiavo.


If your statements were limited to this one case how did you get to “the culture of life versus the culture of death”?  I will tell you how.  Because you are egotistical,   self satisfied hypocrites.   


For example, couldn’t your opponents have been – just - wrong about the facts of this one case and yet still not be part of the “culture of death”? 


Indeed, what if you were wrong?  What if the patient Schiavo died years ago? 


But in either case, because now on reflection, you must agree that you are not opposed to the withdrawal of life support from hopeless cases,  it is not an absolute,  then the only other general subjects for us to discuss are the general topics of when and how, etc.


What should the rule be for determining the wishes of the patient?  What is your proposal?  For example, where is your model statute?”


Wait -------  let me guess?   You do not have a model statute do you!  I knew it!  Phony, Phony, phony hypocrites. 


“Anyone who is trying to do good will always be open to the charge of hypocrisy.’ ---- Glenn Beck.


No! Phony hypocrite.  Not anyone.  Just those who carry on for years about how “every life is precious to me,”  “who can say what makes a life worth living,”  “Oh, how can you judge the ‘quality of life’ of another of God’s sacred human beings?  Our Brother?!”


And then . . . (I kid you not) . . . and then this sack of shit, this hypocrite on steroids, this low life piece of garbage, (who, whenever he is challenged immediately resorts to ‘Oh, I’m just a recovering alcoholic,’ or ‘I’m just a former drug addict’, and in this way escapes all responsibility);  this radio detritus,  then every Friday ridicules the “kids wearing the helmets in the back of the short busses,”  and calls convenience stores to ridicule the clerks there. 


(See?  This “recovering alcoholic” is a Yale drop out.  Like a character out of  ‘I am Charlotte Simmons’ he has it made, he was accepted to Yale.  So now it does not matter what he does, drugs, alcohol, playing songs about the kids in the back of the short busses with helmets on their heads, prank calls to convenience stores,  smarmy segues from Jesus to commercials (wink, wink, ‘don’t think I take this Jesus stuff too seriously,’ wink, wink),   --- see? --- he was accepted to Yale.  He is smart.)


And then he goes on the air and makes out like the righteous over the bed of the patient Schiavo.  (He must see what he is?  Or is he like Weiner?  Completely lost?)


Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it.


Carlson asked “Well if you are right and she (the patient Schiavo) is already gone then how can she suffer any ‘indignity’?  I mean if she is already dead what difference does it make?”  (. . . if we keep her body functioning.)


So in the middle of this discussion of life support and its removal, Tucker Carlson suddenly wants to take up the Ancient Roman Law of Estate?  What,  are we going to go back and follow the Etruscan ideas of theology, the role of the father in the governance of society, pater familias,  the development of Roman Law and the right of the Estate to the status of legal entity?  Shall we consider the theological implications especially with respect to Jesus and the idea of the immortal soul?  Shall we see here, (note this Justice O’Conner) that the theological idea of ancestor worship developed into the modern idea of inheritance and estate?




Tucker Carlson was just rambling.    He did not want to discuss any of this.


Laura Ingraham made out,  (ah, poor choice of words), set out that she was really only interested in examining  “how the patient’s intentions should be determined in the absence of documentary evidence.”  Lie!


You have yet to examine this general topic.  Law degree?  University education from Dartmouth?  Years of experience?  Nothing, for all the good it does us.  No model statute, no instructions for the judges, no method of determining the patient’s wishes.  Nothing, but emotionalism, self-righteous indignation, phony posturing about being the sole  defender of “the culture of life”.


And what of Bill Kristol’s “killing”?  So if discontinuing life support for the hopeless patient is “killing” what words shall we use when we discuss agency in termination of life?  Euthanasia?  Is Mr. Kristol capable of distinguishing between the two cases?  Yes and no.  He can but does not want to; he prefers to posture. 


But let us have no talk about trying to advance the public’s understanding. 


And Rush Limbaugh makes no such claim.  He bloviates this way and that and then takes another commercial break.  He has nothing to say either on this particular case or on the general question, but of course he wants to posture too.


But Sean Hannity is the worst, because the dumbest.  He tried to take up “the culture of life” versus “Culture of Death”,  but because he is so inarticulate that when challenged he had to revert to “well I wasn’t there and neither were you, but the nurses say that he tried to kill his wife . . .  but I’m not even going to go there . . . but they say he tried to kill his wife . . .”  A bigger ass could not be imagined.  Well yes there is always Michael Weiner, but he is so contemptible that he does not even count.


Hey, Sean, tell the class the most common origin of eating disorders for American women?  No?  Laura Ingraham?  Would you like to explain to the class the most common cause of eating disorders in American women?  From whom do children learn their obsessive compulsive behaviors ?  Especially the daughters? 


Oh, that’s right we do not talk about that.       


But we do talk about the nurses who say they heard the patient Schiavo say . . . and even just last week the family told us that they heard her say “I want to live .”


Now class  the brain has been well mapped and we know where language, and cognition for language formation occur.  Class?  Would anyone care to point to the portion of the patient Schiavo’s brain scan to indicate in which portion of the brain the language centers are located?


No?  And we do not want to discuss the CAT scan at all do we?  Glenn Beck even claimed that there had been no CAT scan.  (Even the author of “the Culture of Death”, Wesley J. Smith, on KSFO, did not bother to review the CAT scan or the EEG (which was flat) for the patient Schiavo even though he claimed to have spent years of work on this particular case.  So what then?  We are not going to discuss either the general or the specific?  Exactly. Posture. Yes, all day long, in long emotional tirades.  But as for informing the public.  Drop dead.  Ah, the culture of life.  This is what you claim for yourselves.  Utterly without shame.  Hypocrites.   


He claimed to be a medical ethicist?  How can you be an ethicist and yet not talk about the medical findings?  Then I realized.  He is an ethicist, who talks about medicine.  But he does not have to actually know anything about medicine.  His wife, the columnist Debra Saunders, appearing on the David Gold show, said though she had followed the story “for years” she did not bother to acquaint herself with the medical findings or the medical consensus. You can be a San Francisco columnist without actually knowing anything.  For in the post liberal Bay Area, to be a columnist, connections are more important than reporting.)  


We do not want to discuss the findings of the last court appointed guardian examiner, Dr. Wolfson? 


Dr. Jay Wolfson:

I was appointed by the judiciary, according to the requirement of the law for a special guardian to investigate Terri's swallowing capacity. This opened the door to issues relating to her neurological capacity. I was required to review and report on the previous 14 years of legal and medical evidence and activities. After spending hours with Terri, getting to know her parents and siblings and her husband, and reviewing all of the evidence, my conclusion was that the competent medical evidence provided in the the case, following the Florida rules of civil procedure and evidence, and according to the Guardianship law in Florida, which was carefully crafted over fifteen years of bipartisan political and religious efforts --- indicated by clear and convincing evidence that she was in a persistent vegetative state, according to the most credible science and medicine. I also concluded that based on the same Florida laws and rules, the trier of fact appropriately determined that Terri had expressed, while she was competent, the intention never to be kept artificially alive under such circumstances. The evidence supporting this included competent legal evidence demonstrating that she personally expressed those intentions at the funerals of two family members who had been on life support -- so it was contextual. Due to the conflict between the parties, I suggested that additional testing could and should be done but ONLY if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results would be used. We almost came to agreement on this option, but for legal reasons, one of the parties pulled out on the last minute. (  )



We do not want to discuss the consensus of the medical and scientific community?  (We always want to misrepresent this by claiming that there are “differing views” or that medical opinion is “split”  which are, each of them, a misrepresentation?  A lie.  (The overwhelming consensus is that the patient Schiavo is dead, though her heart and lungs continued on for years after her death thanks to life support.))


No it does not matter if we look at the general questions or the questions specific to this one case.  You are phony from beginning to end.


But now tell me the truth, you have just been putting me on right?  You have been trying to drive me crazy.


Make me think that I am living with a bunch of mindless zombies?


Right?  It has been a put on?




[  The Insurance Division of Beau Dietl and Associates is currently seeking ambitious, goal-oriented individuals to work as Surveillance Technicians in the San Jose, California area. These positions will be responsible for conducting surveillance field work related to insurance claims including workers compensation. Responsibilities include field work and providing written and oral communication.

We offer excellent starting salaries based on experience. Investigators must have a valid California Drivers License, a reliable vehicle, proof of auto insurance, cell phone, personal computer and video equipment. The candidate must be able to work with little or no supervision. Must have excellent communication skills. Minimum of one year surveillance experience.


Is he working with GAB-Robins? ]









Lecture Notes:   03-26-05


This just in: 


Press Release from the Outdoor Amusement Industry of America.


The Hannity Carnival: 


Carney Folk on the 8th Day: 


Devoutly continuing in his religious obligations Sean Hannity has set up his carnival in front of the hospice.   Fortunately it is getting harder to hear Sean Hannity as his carnival pipe organ is set up too close to his microphone. 


The Ferris wheel has now been taken off the truck and assembled and will soon be set up and ready to take riders.  While you are waiting  you might want to visit the tattooed lady whose tent is right in front of Sean’s booth.


Michael Weiner has had two dozen field mice delivered for his next performance.  (He eats them live at the end of each show shouting NAZIs NAZIs, always an attraction.)


Rush, the world’s fattest man, is expected to arrive later this evening and set up his tent which he will share with Miss. Laura the child-woman  contortionist.   


Rush when challenged how he could reconcile his opposition to medical care for the poor and his unlimited commitment, newly discovered, to keeping every person alive no matter that their brain has liquefied?  Why the great fat man assured us,  ‘everyone in America is guaranteed medical treatment there is “a law.”’ 


Oh, a law is it?  You see how simple political commentary is?  No need to deal with facts, funding, questions of equity.  All one has to do is define away the problem.  No health funding problem.  Everyone in America has health care, there is “a law.”


Miss. Laura did admit that there was “some brain damage;”  this only after our last post. 


The brain is missing.


Sussman, who previously advocated “objectivity”, ( after I posted ‘Wrong’ an article on objectivity (see Max Weber Institute), at that time he was trying to ingratiate himself to the boss’ wife, Mrs. Jack Swanson), now however, he no longer is concerned with “objective” findings.  He claims that the expert opinion is equally divided “on both sides.”  Sides?   He thinks there are sides.  There is another lie here of course.  There is not an equal division of opinion.


For “religious” reasons Sussman is misrepresenting the facts.   He is too dishonest to simply say that he has a religious prejudice.   His dishonesty drives him to pretend, to fake scientific reasoning.  But he is a liar.  He is not impartially collecting facts.  He is a liar.  As with all egotists he can not accept the limit of truth on his willful desires.  


These liars could simply state their religious views and be honest, but they prefer to tell lies;  they think they gain some kind of advantage.  They imagine they are not seen for the liars that they are.  But note he still will say that he believes in “objectivity.”    


So  in the end he himself provides us with the proof of the absence of objectivity in our lives.  For example he  introduced the fraud Hammesfahr as a “Nobel Prize nominee.”   (He claims his congressman sent a letter to the Nobel committee.)  Sussman knows that this constant association of this quack with the Nobel Prize is a cheap hucksters trick to fool the gullible.  He knows he is a liar.


(How infuriating that I have been driven to my death by such patently obvious liars and scoundrels.  Such is the power of the ABC and PBS networks that even mental midgets like Sussman can destroy a man.  Interestingly enough Sussman has described his father as a Jewish Mafioso from Chicago, involved in operating ghetto liquor stores.  He grew up thinking his father was in the wholesale liquor business not discovering the truth until he was in college.  In adulthood he is still clueless, continuing to live out the values he learned from the gangster his father.   In the end the worms are victorious.)      


Again Hammesfahr’s claim that the Terri Schiavo could speak was not questioned by Sussman.  Sussman went so far as to make up a new claim that the patient was in a “speech therapy program.”   Can Sussman identify the regions of the brain that control speech?  Can he find these regions in the CAT scan of the patient’s brain?  What happened to “objectivity?  Hypocrite?


Sussman also failed to ask Hammesfahr about the report that:   “In February 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine ruled that he violated state law by charging a patient for services that were not provided (Finding of Fact No. 71, PDF p. 40). The board fined Hammesfahr $2,000, placed him on probation for six months, and ordered him to pay approximately $52,000 in administrative costs and to perform 100 hours of community service. While the board also ruled that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients, using a procedure he has claimed could help Terri Schiavo, was "not within the generally accepted standard of care" (Finding of Fact No. 55, PDF p. 33), . . .”  ---- Media Matters ( )


And none of this is even the half of it.  Mrs. Jack Swanson, who boasts of herself “oh, I’m vicious,” pretends concern for Terri Schiavo’s life, which is only another in a long line of lies.  (Such people!  How horrible.)  


For years she used her influence to destroy a man’s life, even boasting, “Oh, I’m vicious,”  and now she claims an unlimited compassion for human life, even when confronted with proof that Terri’s life ended long ago.


She knows that the brain is the seat of human consciousness but she wills herself to ignore the evidence because the egotist can accept no limits on itself.  No limits of morality, nor reason, nor death.  For the egotist death is the ultimate proof of its insubstantiality.  Therefore the association of the egotist with religious doctrines that promise “eternal” life in the hereafter.  An egotistically satisfying, if monotonous, continuation of mememememe.


Jesus’ promise of eternal life requires one to psychologically turn around.  To identify not with the limited ego, or this limited body, the self, but to turn towards humanity and identify with the larger world, outside the self, as the old Jewish saying has it:   Life is with the people.    


Don Imus, who encouraged Mrs. Jack Swanson to harasse and oppress me for years and who carried out his own program of harassment and oppression,  said today:  “I’m not a bad person . . .”   Such horrible liars. 


I have been brought down by a pack of dogs.


“The dog barks, the caravan moves on.” 

--- Anthony Powell, 

A Dance to the Music of Time




Counselor:  Well, . . . maybe you and Laura Ingraham should get together . . .


Please, she is looking for someone who makes more than she does.  You know women always marry up.


Counselor:  . . . and make babies.   But I don’t know . . . do conservatives . . . mate?   The female of the species?  Do they lay eggs on some sunny beach somewhere?


You see!  This is just what I mean.  I don’t think this is helpful ----


Counselor:  Yes, this is good for you.


No, I don’t think so ----


Counselor:  You want to get better don’t you?


Yes, but . . . yes Yvonne. 





Lecture Notes:  03-24-05

Hate Radio Talk Show Host’s Brain


You see they are for the “culture of life” and their opponents are for the “culture of death.”


You might think, ‘No, they are just arguing with strawmen again!’ and you would be correct. 


Several callers trapped Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity into acknowledging that they had been evading the real issue.  Everyone, it was finally revealed, agrees that if the person is dead their body should not be kept “alive”, merely functioning, kept on the air as a Hate Radio Talk Show Host for example.  We should “pull the plug”  rather than have their ignorance and pomposity and arrogance, their fat relentless egos, running on and on interminably.  When forced to discuss the actual issue raised by the instant case both Beck and Hannity did finally agree that they also believe that when a patient is pronounced dead the body should not be kept alive artificially.


For it is not just hatred which is poured out hour after hour, hatred for everyone who disagrees with them, the “judges,” the legislature, the over 60% who do not want the issue politicized; for mainly we are witnessing ignorance of a very willful and deliberate kind. 


Sadly this kind of willful ignorance is often confused with “religion.”


They were told, for example,  that if they believed in Christ they would have eternal life.  So they will themselves to believe in Christ, as an act of their egos.  But their understanding of “eternal life” is merely of the continuation of the small, selfish, ignorant ego that they have known all their lives.  They imagine eternal life as a continuation of their egos on into eternity, a base projection of their puny neurotic lives.


So Laura Ingraham describes herself as “livid” and so “upset” that she can not read her own script.  We educate her at Dartmouth, including a law degree, and this is what we get and emotionally distraught little girl, so afraid of death, that she is incapable of reviewing the law, let alone the philosophy of the various positions, to say nothing of being incapable of displaying any evidence of a religious education.  We were not surprised that Rush Limbaugh should fulminate against the courts and judges who “allowed hearsay evidence” apparently unaware that it was the State Legislature of Florida which specifically  provided that in the absence of any writings oral evidence could be considered.  But we expected more of Ingraham.


Hannity put on a known quack and introduced him as a Nobel Prize “nominee”,  you know, like with the Oscars?  (A congressman “nominated” the quack.  (A Republican no doubt, God help us.))   But we have to tune into Randi Rhodes Show to  find out that the “doctor’s” evidence had been considered by the courts and exposed for the fraud that it was.  No published studies.  No peer review ---- well no peer review of any studies, but the fraud’s claims, his suspicious testimony has been reviewed by the medical and scientific community, and he has been shown to be a liar.


But we have to find out about this doctor imposter, (Dr. Hammesfahr  by name ( )), about the CAT scan, about the rulings from courts that have reviewed this evidence for some 15 years from Randi Rhodes?  How shameful.  Not just a competitor but a liberal!  To find out the facts we have to tune into a liberal?  We used to turn to the conservatives to find out the truth!  What a disgrace.  How shameful.


And why?  Because these small minded hypocrites feel it is their “religious” duty to lie to us.  Beck and Hannity were forced by their callers to admit that they too feel that when a patient is pronounced dead they should be allowed to die.  Ingraham and Limbaugh are so dishonest they would not discuss the real fundamental issue behind this instant case.


Weiner of course is insane.  He was wildly recalling his brother’s murder in a “home” an “institution.”   And again, surprise!, everyone who disagreed with him were all NAZIS.  O’Reilly could not make up his mind, but he was concerned that tax dollars were being spent to keep Terri alive.  (At least he is consistent.  The others say they do not believe in medical care for the poor, however, when confronted with Terri they break down in emotionalism imagining themselves as the last defenders of the “culture of life.”  Once again hypocrites hardly covers their dishonesty.   Which is it?  Do you believe in guaranteed medical care paid for by tax dollars, or not? (  )  Answer the question, or, or, we will pull your plug.  (Turn off the radio.)  They are so dishonest they will not say.  Willful ignorance.  Hundreds of patients a day face these very same issues.  (  )   But the Hate Radio Host, the carnival barkers are so dishonest, they will not address even this obvious and mundane issue.  This is why they are called hucksters. Examine the issues?  It might interfere with their ratings.)    


But the saddest case is Ingraham.  Pitifully claiming to support the “culture of life” against her strawmen opponents:  the “culture of death.”  Really.  Laura, where are your children?  The biological clock is running.  No adoption?  Culture of life?  Where is it?  You have squandered your life.  First and most obviously you are unprepared to layout the moral and ethical issues for your audience.  You are too “livid.”  For example, what about a statute that sets up the presumption that no one would want to be kept plugged in, on the air, after their brain has stopped working?


Lee Rodgers was close to winning the prize for most pathetic.  “Any person of conscience . . .”  He actually said this.  He knows how Mrs. Jack Swanson, Don Imus, Michael Weiner,  Michael Krasney, he knows about all of them, how they have conspired, how they burglarized my rooms, followed me from job to job,  . . . culture of life?  Conscience?  Hypocrites and liars. 


Then in the next breath Rodgers said he hoped he could “pull the plug” on one of the many doctors who disagreed with him and had determined that the patient had died years ago.  But he has no sense of his gross dishonesty.  His ego is such that even when he directly contradicts himself, he still thinks he is right! 


Before I could not understand how they could use their influence to oppress me,  to follow me from place to place, over all these years, and still make claims to honor and honesty.  I thought it was just me.  They were blind to their cruelty to me.  But now with this issue we can see that this is how they are about everything.  They are blind to their dishonesty, even seeing it as “religious” duty!  This is the fat relentless ego on radio.      


CAT Review

By Cerebrocrat (rewrite by Plinio Designori)


That a MRI would give a better structural picture of a Radio Talk Show Host’s brain does not at all mean that the existing CAT allows one, if you are sufficiently familiar with brains and brain images, to see how severely the brain in the pictured CAT scan is damaged.   ( The MRI was not possible because of the electrodes implanted in the brain in a futile attempt to “stimulate” the damaged brain would interfere with the MRI.)


This single image shows a very severely damaged brain. The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low.


The cranial space that would  have been filled by the “gray matter”, neurons,  is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). And the surrounding blue space is cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind after the necrotic brain tissue, which has been scavenged and removed by the body.


The white squiggly things are “white matter”, the connective tracts that have the loose uncoiled look about them,  because, again, the “grey matter” which once compressed them is no longer there, so they are left to  “float” loosely in CSF.


All of this, the gigantic ventricles, expanded white matter, and undifferentiated blue space in that scan all point to the same inescapable conclusion: massive loss of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. You don’t need an MRI to tell you that, it’s clearly visible in this devastatingly clear CAT scan.


It is true that given the poor resolution of this image, it’s possible that some cortical tissue has been spared. But that doesn’t alter our conclusion. Whatever wisps of cortex we might be missing in this image, (located as they are down at the base of the scull),  are not enough to sustain behaviors that could differentiate the Radio Talk Show Host’s Brain from any other vertebrate.


All the neural equipment you need to do ocular following and emotional responses is subcortical.  The whole of that portion of the brain needed  to be a self-aware, to reason, to be what we mean when we say “human being” is cortical, and is here shown to be missing in a typical Radio Talk Show Host’s brain. And since I understand that this image was made some time ago, the present condition of the brain can only be worse.


There is no way any qualified doctor or scientist could look at this image and suggest that significant recovery of brain function is possible. The fact that we could have all this discussion on the subject is a triumph of politics over science, base pandering emotion and appeal to ignorance over reason. Tragic for Terri Schiavo, and really for us all.


From post by Cerebrocrat :  Cerebocrat CV:  I AM a recent behavioral neuroscience PhD, a research fellow in a neurophysiology lab at a major institution, and I took clinical neuroanatomy in the medical school of my graduate institution as part of my coursework; neurology rounds and clinical evaluations of CAT and MRI scans were part of the curriculum. In addition, the jewel in the crown of my graduate program was a research-dedicated MRI, which meant that many of my peers did imaging work and I had to sit through countless (zzzzzzz) departmental colloquia featuring functional brain imaging. So, no argument from me - I am not the most qualified person to evaluate Terri Schiavo’s status from one small CAT picture on the web; that would be someone who evaluates scans professionally (or at least, regularly). But part of the point of my post was that I don’t have to be - I know how brains work (I mean, up to a point, obviously), I know what healthy ones and sick ones look like, and I know what I’m looking at when I look at a brain image. Schiavo’s damage is so severe that it doesn’t take an *expert’s* eye, but merely an *educated* eye, to understand the basics of her status. That’s why I’m so amazed that her prognosis is being discussed as if it were controversial.




"You wanted me to jump off a bridge, I finally did," Bonds said. "You finally brought me and my family down. ... So now go pick a different person."


"My son and I are just going to enjoy our lives. You guys wanted to hurt me bad enough, you finally got me," Bonds said. "I'm mentally drained. I'm tired of my kids crying."

    --- Barry Bonds, 3-22-05


Counselor:  So, it looks like you have a new best friend?


. . .


Counselor:  Maybe you two should get together . . . ?


. . .


Lecture Notes:   03-21-05


George Eliot on Billy Clinton:


“Oh, I know the type.  They start out  delivering fine speeches on the rights of man, and end up by murdering some wench.”  ---- George Eliot, Middlemarch


Gypsies for Free enterprise!


British Conservatives show why they are a permanent minority party. 


Faced with the most restrictive zoning practices in the free world the people of Britain seek to build their own homes on their own land even though they must do so  without zoning approval from the government.  The buyers,  called ‘travelers’ by the British, purchase “greenbelt” land and then install a factory built home such as this one  which is manufactured in Britain.

Gypsise for Free Enterprise
Photo is Link


But note that the British Conservatives do not even question the government interference in the housing sector of the economy.  They do not point out that greenbelt development is the natural consequence of the government’s restrictive zoning practices.  Rather than siding with the people the British Conservatives side with the restrictive zoning.


This is why they are called Tories.  But this comes as no surprise.  For centuries the Tories profited from Royal monopolies and had no use for free enterprise;  and still appear to have no use for free enterprise, or free markets, or for freedom at all.


See how the modern state’s oppression of the people harkens back to the age of royal oppression.  Formerly dukes and duchesses lived off the people, who were not allowed to own the land, and now the modern state bureaucrats replace the old landed aristocracy and administer their former lands as “greenbelts”.  The more things change the more they stay the same.  


The alternatives ought not be limited to unauthorized building on the greenbelt or going homeless.  Why must we be limited to these  false alternatives?  Why can’t the Conservatives stand for greenbelts and housing too?


But rather than side with the people against the restrictive, oppressive government, side with free enterprise over and against state control, the Conservatives openly rail against “gypsies” rather than against the government restrictions on development.  For example why does the government not allow development within cities and towns?


Government restrictions on the housing market even within existing cities and towns is the cause of the unauthorized development.  In London building height limits prevent development because personages such as for example, the Prince of Wales, do not like tall buildings.  This is the same Prince of Wales who recently released a guide to “alternative health care,”  you know, palm readers, aura readers, aroma therapists.


And again see how Britain’s ancient traditions tie into the new increasingly authoritarian state, with court astrologers advising the government on the Feng Shui of tall apartment buildings, and who should be granted a Royal Patent to build a bungalow.


To repeat the point:  government edicts are not responsive to changing market conditions.  Every day the market economy asks all the consumers:  “Now comrade tell me,  what do you really think?”  But should the height restriction in the West End be the same today that it was last year?  Have the town councils of Surrey and Kent taken into account the needs for housing in all of England?   All of Britain?  Have they thought about the people of Liverpool and Glasgow? 


And day by day the politicians and their bureaucrats go about their routines  unaware of the changing demands of the consumers because they are insolated from the market.  They claim they are constantly reviewing their zoning restrictions but are they?   How would we know?  


The free market reexamines itself not every ten years, not every other year, not quarterly, not weekly, but every minute.  And the reexamination is not conducted by a former solicitor who meets occasionally with the likes of the Prince of Wales for "advice", but by every consumer and producer.


And unlike the former solicitor and his bureaucrats, these consumers and producers are spending their own money.  They may be mistaken in their views but at least we do not have to be concerned whether they are lying to us.  But what do we know about these government men?


Do they really think all the land in Britain ought to be greenbelt?  If not which acres should be available and which should not?  Who decides?  Have they, whoever they are, taken into account the height limit on apartment buildings in London? 


What is the relationship between allowing another 60 feet on building heights and an acre of greenbelt in Surrey and the availability of housing in Liverpool?  Difficult to say?  But this is exactly what markets do;  they collect, bring into the discussion, all of these concerns and seemingly unrelated factors, and a great many more besides, and thereby make economic calculation possible.


When a government man, Labour or Conservative,  says he has considered all these things how do we know if he has?   How much weight was given to the people of Liverpool, or Glasgow, and how much weight was given to the “concerns” of the Prince of Wales?  This is the problem with government solutions, they are neither as comprehensive in their scope nor as constant in their reexamination as markets. 


Yet do  we hear the Conservatives make any of these points, just one of these points?  No, they are all "gypsies" and “fair play.”  Fair play?  For whom?  Because a bare majority has gotten control of the state, the planning board of Surrey or Kent, that makes it fair?   Do the people of Surrey and Kent care about the people of Liverpool and Glasgow?


Are they all part of the same country?  I know when Surrey and Kent needed to be defended they were all 'common bonds', 'one nation',  King and Country.  But now, after  the men of Liverpool and Glasgow have done the dying, now that they are dead and buried, do the people of Surrey and Kent still concern themselves with their fellow countrymen?  Do they care if they have homes?  Really?  How can we tell except that the housing is built?


The height limit on buildings in London?  Is that fair?  Why because powerful people do not want their view changed?  Their views are worth more than housing for the people?  The Prince of Wales, is he fair?   You think so do you?  Maybe you should have your aura reexamined.

Reported by the BBC today: (Rewrite by Plinio Designori)

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said lighter UK planning restrictions attracted travellers from Ireland.  Conservative leader Michael Howard is unveiling plans to make trespass by travellers a criminal offence.


Lord Falconer responded saying: "It is not caused by an unexpected increase in the number of gypsies or travellers. It is caused by the fact that people are developing unauthorisedly in breach of planning law." "What we are talking about here is people who buy land," he said. "How can you trespass on your own land?"


Mr Howard says in his advertisements: "If you want to build a new home you have to get planning permission first.  But if you are a traveller you can bend planning law - building where you like thanks to the Human Rights Act."


On Sunday planning minister Keith Hill said the Tories were "tapping into the biggest vein of bigotry - prejudice against Gypsies and travellers". But Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition coordinator Andrew Ryder said Mr Howard was trying to "surf on the prejudice and hysteria stoked up" by the media and "score some cheap political points in the run-up to the election".


Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer also attacked plans to make trespass by travellers a criminal offence as "madcap".Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the Conservatives were pandering to a mistaken view that the Human Rights Act undermines British culture.


ps   Please tell the Prime Minister our programme:

Point 1:  The trees are alive;

Point 2:  There is no crime;

Point 3:  Universal love.

        --- Septimus Smith



(see paper no. 1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko  The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability  next link )  )


Does America face an affordable housing crisis and, if so, why? This paper argues that in much of America the price of housing is quite close to the marginal, physical costs of new construction. The price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs only in a limited number of areas, such as California and some eastern cities. In those areas, we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.




Lecture Notes:  03-18-05     Betrayal IV




Bernie Ward?  What is it?


Oh, the death of his father.  I should not have ridiculed the sobbing comfort he took from the thought of the happy hunting ground high up in the cloud regions, where the fat relentless ego can go on and on for all eternity?


I should not have questioned the ego’s fondest belief and hope;  the abstracted ego, isolated from the world, longing for never ending existence?


Why?  Are Bernie Ward’s tears for his father worth more than my tears for my father?  Recall that my father died at the end of November 1999, six years ago.  Think that has my father’s body lay on this earth awaiting burial my room at the Colonial Motel was broken into and my notebook was stolen.  (see Stolen Notebook at the Moynihan)


My father dead.  And Michael Weiner on the radio, laughing, and reading from it.  And the following week Mrs. Jack Swanson and Brian Wilson joined in.  And the rest, Jim Dunbar, Ted Weygand, Ted Baxter, they all had their jokes about me, and my notebook, . . . . and my dead father?  


Did his corpse figure in anyone’s thoughts?


And my tears?  Did you concern yourselves with them . . . ?


But Bernie Ward’s tears;  Bernie Ward’s grief;  Bernie Ward’s dead father  . . .


I wrote Yvonne a note.  I had stopped seeing her after Duane Garrett’s death but I occasionally wrote.  I accused Michael Weiner of the burglary, as he seemed to have exclusive access to the material in the stolen notebook the first week after the burglary, with which to torment me in my grief.


And Bernie Ward seemed to have had something to say to me and my grief, as my dead father lay on this earth awaiting his burial.


Words of comfort?  Love and brotherliness? Sympathy? No, no, and no. 


“I love it when conservatives go after each other!” were our theologian’s satisfied words.


Conservatives?   Weiner?   He is a conservative?


To show you just how clueless Bernie Ward is, I later wrote another note to Yvonne, and Bernie had something to say about that one too.  No one at KGO or KSFO came forward in response to my note to her about the burglary.  (see Dear Yvonne, The Love Letters at the Moynihan) 


They all made references to the notes to Yvonne so I am sure she shared the notes with them, as I intended.   But surprise, surprise no one came forward and said, ‘Right, now about that burglary I happen to know that . . .’


I pointed this out to Yvonne incredulously.  Why not?  For example, I wrote, ‘I could not understand why Bernie Ward would protect Michael Weiner?  Michael Weiner accused Bernie Ward of molesting children and said that this is why Bernie Ward was no longer a Catholic Priest.’ 


The following Sunday on his God Talk radio show Bernie Ward made an apparent reference to this latest letter to Yvonne at the end of his first hour he said “When we come back we will take up the ‘M’ word . . .”


He thought this was a tease. He thought I would tune in to the second hour to see what he was going to say.  This was 2000.  Before the Farmers, CENCAL, and the GAB incidents, but after the burglary, after the IRS, after all the references, the following me from place to place, many flat tires, and of course the KQED show. 

At that time, five years ago, I still thought that someone might still come forward, about the burglary, a felony, about that at least.  So I had a keen interest in Bernie Ward.  I was alone against all these powerful people who were harassing me, oppressing me.


And yet, as desperate as I was, I turned off the radio.  Tune into another hour of the idiotic show?  Is he nuts?  Even as desperate and lonely as I was I wasn’t going to spend another minute listening to him! 


But he, Bernie Ward thought that was really funny, “. . . we will take up the ‘M’ word . . .”  Can you believe it?


His God Talk show consists of forcing his callers into the little logic boxes he learned from the Jesuits or who ever.  Just like on is week night show he sees his job as one of moving the callers through.  There is no time for reason, analytic examination. 


You either believe or you do not.  There is no persuasion no argumentation.


For example recently one young caller from San Francisco State called and making reference to the fact that the Democrats control both houses of the legislature, the Bay Area governments, the congressional delegation, the media, the universities, the whole apparatus of the state, why then, the young caller guilelessly  asked,  “Why don’t we enact a living wage?”


Well why indeed?  But Bernie Ward did not have an answer.  He hustled the caller off the show, ‘we have a lot of issues to cover . . .’


Bernie Ward lives in the bluest counties of the big blue State of California, but for some reason the liberal agenda never seems to get enacted.  Always jam tomorrow never jam today.


But what could he say?  There is no reason involved.  He could not compare California’s economic environment with surrounding states and consider what affect this added burden would place on California’s business’ competitiveness.  Taking that into account Bernie Ward might have steered the young caller to consider the other side of the coin, the other side of the economic transaction.


For example even if we could not risk increasing the minimum wage laws we might create the desired effect by lowering the cost of living.  For example take housing as an example Bernie Ward might have reasoned with the young student.  Are there ways we could lower the cost of housing in the Bay Area?


Did the caller know that the President of San Francisco State had for the last 16 years held a large student dormitory off of the housing market because he was trying to get the Federal government to give the university more money?  Did he or the caller know this?


Bernie Ward did not ask this question.  Did not discuss how the Democrats with their strangle hold over every level of government over these same sixteen years have steadily down zoned the city of San Francisco and the Bay Area.  How, for example, the building codes also have been used to limit the supply of housing:  the minimum size of a housing unit has steadily been increased, while the permissible height of buildings has been lowered.


Bernie Ward could have invited the student to do a “radio” survey of the apartment buildings around San Francisco and date them.  Could have “showed” him how apartment buildings were built in the 1940s, and 1950s, even a few built in the 1960s, but that then the moratoriums started to strangle the city.  Could have contrasted this with Paris, or Hong Kong, where apartment buildings are still being built to this day.


The student could have been encouraged to consider if the character of a people can not be seen in their cityscape?  Are the cities built for people, with children, families?  Or are the cities built for business, tourism, to increase the city revenues and lower the city’s service costs, so the city can put more political cronies on the city payroll?


A city for people or for the politicos who control the city?  Whose city is it?


And to show you what a fool Bernie Ward is, he does not know why his ratings are always so low.  Does not know why his party is losing popularity.  Does not know why George Bush won reelection.  Does not know . . .


So, to answer your question, no.  No, I do not think Bernie Ward’s tears for his dead father are worth more than my tears for my dead father.  Tears I shed as Michael Weiner read from my stolen notebook.  And the staff of ABC KGO and KSFO laughed and laughed . . .


“. . . The advancement of cultural values, however, seems to become a senseless hustle in the service of worthless, moreover self-contradictory, and mutually antagonistic ends. . . . . Culture becomes ever more senseless as a locus of imperfection, of injustice, of suffering, of sin, of futility. . . . . And under the very conditions of 'culture,' senseless death has seemed only to put the decisive stamp upon the senselessness of life itself.”




Lecture Notes:  03-17-05   Betrayal III


A car was found on the Oakland Bay Bridge with a flat tire.  Abandoned.  Later the owner was found floating in the bay. 


It was theorized that that had been it, the flat tire, that literally pushed him over the edge.


The people on the radio could hardly restrain themselves.  It seemed so amusing to them;  that over the edge.


Lieutenant:  “Sire,  he wants to know if you are going to make him walk behind your chariot tomorrow when we return to the capital?”


Emperor:  “Let him decide.”


We all have our limits.  (But when you have been targeted for a few weeks you start to get sensitive.  Then after a few months you become ill tempered.  And after a few years distraught.  Over a decade withdrawn, isolated, ready to jump.)


I imagined there must have been others on the bridge who saw the stranded motorist climb the rail.  Did they report what they saw?  Or did they just drive on?  And the flat tire . . . was it his first?   Or had they done to him what they have done to me?  What they did to Duane Garrett?   Had he been followed for months, years, someone sabotaging his tires?  Interfering with his employment?  Conniving with his marriage counselor to betray him?  Perhaps even repeating things he had said in private, when no one else was around?


“One man wants to remember the Holocaust because his parents and brothers and sisters were killed.  Another man wants to remember the Holocaust because his aunt and uncle and cousins were killed.  And another man wants to remember because of all those who were killed.  And another person wants the Holocaust remembered so she can park her car in a red no parking zone.”  (The leftwing journalist who repeated this line, on the radio, never came forward to give evidence.)


Now when I read about someone shooting a bunch of people before killing himself, I wonder:  What did they do?  Or I read about someone jumping from the bridge, I think, did Ron Owens or Michael Weiner have anything to do with this too?  Is that why the people on the radio were so amused by “over the edge”?  Did they know something?


At first over the first few years I had thought that someone, some how, justice would be done.  Or not.  Life goes on.  Doesn’t it?  Time will pass.  If I only just stop writing those letters, in time they will forget.  But even as slow as I am, after twelve years you start to see how it is going to be.  It must just be me.  Perhaps I should have done things differently.  The exception that proves the rule? 


But now I see that there is nothing exceptional about it.  When I said earlier that I expected nothing some of you did not believe me.  Bernie Ward keeps talking like he thinks I expect something from him.  I do not.  Gene Burns has felt compelled to repeat I do not know how many times,  “Sometimes the answer is ‘no.’”  One time, immediatley after a posting here, he actually began a show with that, --- started talking:  Sometimes the answer is no.   


Don’t you guys understand?  I gave up on you along time ago.  The Last Letter was fourteen years ago.  I don’t expect anything. 


This alienation is the norm.  Don’t most people know it already or are they still as I have been:   deluded?  Living in a dream world?  America.   Justice.  Freedom. 


And those who do see it?  What of them?  Can they see the pitiful nakedness of humanity?  And stay sane? 


This is why I do not understand the leftwing hostility to markets.  For most people, most of the time, this is their only connection.  Without markets we would have no connection with one another.  But then maybe they are deluded.  Do they really think that there is anything else holding most of humanity together?  Without markets we would be like the old Soviet Union or China under Mao. 


It may not be much but it is all we got.  And quite a bit of information is conveyed in the price:  The cost of raw materials, labor, shipping, interest rates, taxes, the ability of entrepreneurs to satisfy consumer’s needs, on and on . . .


There is first their stomachs.  Then their children’s stomachs.  Then maybe they think about a spouse.  From this core they reach out into society.  The material goods ‘which are indispensable for all worldly culture’ as Weber put it.  The whole of the interaction with the world, society, is this dollar for that, that for this, and so on.  The narrow horizon of survival.  Yet without this, this market, there would be no way for any interaction.  You would let them starve to death, go without homes.  Perhaps only those of us who have been truly alienated, destroyed, can see you for what you are, beasts, isolated in the herd.


After several Lecture Notes on zoning codes and state interference with the housing market in Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Gene Burns felt compelled to explain that his “libertarianism” was not a “doctrine”.  He for one recognized the need for zoning and building regulations to limit the supply of housing. 


Yet without the market to inform you, to intermediate between the various people, buyers, sellers, yes, and all the others, the owners of land who had not thought about it, the builders who were otherwise engaged, the capitalists who might have invested in Shanghai as the Outer Sunset.


Without the market how would you know?  What other possible way is there to allocate resources, to intermediate between all these people?  Mr. Blair likes to talk about the “third way.”  But this is a mere empty phrase.  There is no third way.  So far there has been the market which has been studied intensively for two hundred or so years.  There has been the communist proposal to organize economic activity, but which did not allow for economic calculation, and failed as a result.  There has not been a third proposal.


In Britain also government interference with the market has driven up the cost of housing in Southern England, where people want to live, have to live, because close to government, where all the important decisions are made.  But this hardly constitutes a third way. Without the market to intermediate between them the British also each year become more and more estranged from one another, alienated.


The San Francisco Chronicle explained to its subscribers in a recent editorial that for some reason unknown to the editorialist market forces have simply stopped working in San Francisco.  Everywhere else in the known universe markets work but not here not in housing.  There is demand.  Last year house prices rose 25%.  In one year!  25% on a base several times the national average.


Inexplicable said the editorialist.  There is plenty of capital.  Just look at the interest rates.  The city has zoned areas for building the editorialist assured us.  Land, capital, labor, materials, and demand, demand, demand.  Fortunes to be made.  25%  in one year!   (And that is not 25% on the invested amount, that is 25% on the selling price.  It might be 50% on the cost to build the home.  On a cash basis, return on actual dollars invested the return might be more than 1000% in one year!  The Mafia does not get that kind of action!!)   But for some unknown reason . . . no housing.


Bernie Ward also has no explanation.  “I’m just a simple boy from the Sunset,” he says.  Of course the British Prime Minister is clueless too.  In Southern England, San Francisco, Boston, New York, markets have just stopped working.  Remarkable.


After his father died Bernie Ward appeared on his late night radio show, sobbing.  “It does make me feel better,” he moaned, “It does make me feel better. . . (sob) . . . to think of my father in heaven with my other  (sob)  family members, altogether . . . .”


Bernie Ward on his Sunday morning show, God Talk, regularly ridicules Americans who have “not continued their religious education after Sunday School;”  Whereas he, Bernie Ward, had graduated from a Seminary School he likes to boast. 


And what is his religious education?  He believes in the “happy hunting ground”?  So when Mr. Ward goes to heaven and embraces his father, what?  They will want to embrace for an hour?  A day?  A year?  A million years?  A billion years?  Eternity?  You are glad to see him but . . .  and how old will the gentlemen be?  Will Bernie be older than his father?  That would be weird. 


Did they ruminate over these issues in the seminary?  Workout all the details did they?  And what is this but another example of alienation?  Religion as another form of alienation. 


It is true that Jesus taught that if you believe in him you can find eternal life.  But do you suppose He meant you, as an isolated ego, and alienated individual?  If you believe in what?   A happy hunting ground where all the family egos get together in and eternal bear hug?  The ego in perpetuity? 


Jesus taught everlasting life not by identifying with your limited ego.  You find everlasting life in the body of Christ.  This is his body this is his blood.  Identify with life.  Believe in the life of the world to come.  Life is with the people.


But Bernie Ward has completely missed the point.  He has gone in the opposite direction.  He identifies with his limited ego.   And those figures immediately around him.  Ancestor worship.  The eventual reunion of these isolated egos, this family group, in the happy hunting ground.  This is primitivism. It is also alienation.   


And for him politics also is like his religion.  He believes in things more out of desperation than due to reasoned argument.  He really believes you can have progressive taxation and make the rich pay more, or ‘their fair share’ as he would put it, without wage and price control.  You can explain to him that without wage and price control the rich will simply collect their “fair share” from the consumers, but it will make no difference to him.  He is not really listening.  For him it is not a subject for reason but belief.


Recently he was on the phone with the operator of a Contra Costa County soup kitchen, (the Lord’s work), and the budget shortfall of $500,000 was mentioned.  ‘How could that be?’ asked Bernie Ward.  Where, oh where is our common humanity?  He did not stop to reflect that Contra Costa County is a blue county.  That it is in a state that has been for years run by Democrats:  both houses of the state legislature, the governor’s office until a movie star recently moved in, also they control the judiciary. 


That this party, his party, has controlled the nine counties of the Bay Area for generations, for "hundreds of years" as Ralph Nader pointed out during his election campaign, does not signify to Bernie. 


Whose party is in control?  His! Whose budget shortfall is it?  His! Being Post Liberal means never having to take responsibility.  Then the soup kitchen operator mentioned that the County’s total  budget shortfall was $50 million.  Mr. Ward had nothing to say about this bit of news. 


His party has controlled the San Francisco Bay Area for generations.  Has down zoned and down zoned decade after decade, blocked development of every kind, including housing, managed the schools to ever lower standards, encouraged workers to abuse the workers compensation system, including a series of retiring police chiefs who have made huge claims just before retiring, (who will watch the watchers?), torn down freeways, the ones they did not allow to simply fall down in shambles due to lack of repair, allowed its bridges to deteriorate even faster than its roads, were even then planning on building the world’s largest single tower self anchored bridge, (Why the world’s largest?  Because no one else would dare such a project, especially in a high earthquake zone such as the Bay Area with its two (2) major faults), and about all of this, and the taxes, and the regulations upon regulations, about all of this the fat Bernie Ward has absolutely nothing to say. 


He knows that there is not going to be a happy hunting ground in heaven for his fat relentless ego.  He knows this.  He knows his party has controlled the housing, highways and schools, the taxes, the state, municipal, yes, and the county governments, he knows about the abuse of the workers comp system, the featherbedding at every level of government, he knows that if his party ever got its hands on the medical system they would soon set into that like maggots into dead meat, he knows and yet reason can not be applied to any of this.  His belief is religious, i.e. utterly alienated.  


He tolerates all of this, the same way he maintains his belief in the happy hunting ground with his father’s ego traipsing around in a cloud landscape:   He simply wills himself to believe, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.


But what is this but alienation?  Alienation from community, from God?  Alienation from reason itself.


And you might say ‘but this isn’t fair, Bernie Ward doesn’t know anything about economics.’  This is not fair?  OK, Bob Brinker was on the radio condemning any reduction in benefits for the top 20%  of Social Security recipients.  A group whose non Social Security income is double (2 times) the national median income.  Twice the income of a family that must buy housing at today’s prices, must send their children to schools, (and miserable schools they are),  who must buy everything at today’s prices unlike the top 20% of Social Security recipients.


Bob Brinker hissed in his scalding way that “they will have turned all your Social Security contributions into an income tax.”   Then he grumbled, “they never saw a tax they did not like.”   (“Contributions”?  Has Bob Brinker lost his mind?  Contributions?)


Brinker knows perfectly well that nothing has been contributed.  All those taxes were spent on other Social Security recipients, a long time ago, decades ago.  Contributions?  What a liar.    And those taxes were paid when there were still ten, eight, five tax payers for each recipient.   Now we are down to 3.


Limbaugh was on the radio explaining that “Social Security is not a welfare program.”  And then he repeated that observation a few more times.  Then he explained that “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.”  So what was his point?  Not welfare?  What is he saying?  How does Ponzi scheme aid our understanding?


It is true that if a private entrepreneur were to put forward a “benefit plan”,  a “retirement plan”, a “savings plan”, in which “contributions”, would be “deposited”, in a “lock box”, and these “individual accounts”, would be held “in trust accounts”, for the “beneficiaries”, etc, such as the Social Security System, he would be arrested for fraud.


But why the “not a welfare program”?  Of course it is a welfare program!  What point is Mr. Limbaugh trying to make?  He has no point.  He is not moving his audience to explore some new area, to expand the general understanding.  He is not trying to explain anything.  “not a welfare program” are just some words he has strung together.  He is making no distinctions.


But then neither is Mr. Brinker.  He knows that the Social Security funds were not invested but spent.  Spent to keep the old out of poverty.  A maintenance income for most of them.  But not all.


Some Social Security “beneficiaries” bank their checks.  If they did not get the check they would only be able to take one or two cruises a year instead of the five or six they now enjoy.  Their homes, paid for before the real estate bubble, (a bubble their own restrictive growth policies helped create), would not be manicured twice a week by the illegal Mexican gardeners, (illegals who are in the country because of the lacks border enforcement that their policies have created).  Their children have grown up in a better country, and gone to better schools, before the education inflation drove colleges out of the reach of the middle class, schools the 3 workers who must now carry them will never be able to attend, in part because the technology that might have made continuing education available was not thought important by these now retired community leaders.


And Mr. Brinker knows that not only are there are no “trust funds” and that their “contributions” have all been spent, he knows the other side of the coin.  He knows that these payroll deductions are coming from young workers, (only three for each retiree),  who have come under intense competition from Chinese workers and others from around the world.  Knows the down word pressure on their wages like at no other time in history.  Knows too that the of repeated admonition that these young workers need to get a college education in order to improve their condition is illusory.  Illusory because due to the bell curve distribution of cognitive ability only the top 16% to 25% of young workers even have a chance.  Illusory too because the cartel operation of the colleges themselves, stifles competition and manipulates prices forcing them ever higher faster than general inflation,  saddling young people with huge cartel created debt, which is not dischargeable for any reason, not due to unemployment, injury, or even death.        


Mr. Brinker knows all this.  Knows the unfairness of making young workers in the bottom 50% of income, (family incomes under $43,000 a year), pay for  retirees with non Social Security incomes of over $75,000.  Knows that these retirees have accumulated their homes, their accounts, their ease,  over many years under far more favorable conditions than those being experienced by those who must now carry them, the 3 workers, who must struggle under these much more difficult circumstances, circumstances which themselves result from the failed policies conceived and carried out by these very same rich retirees.


Mr. Brinker knows these things more clearly than Rush Limbaugh, or Bernie Ward, and yet still these facts fail to register with him.  He sees the unfairness, but he does not comprehend.


And this incomprehension?  Is it  not another example of alienation?


And see that if Social Security were truly a market creation we would not have to write about it, or discuss it, or consider how it works.  The market would intermediate for us, between us.  We would not have to weigh the relative conditions of being a husband and wife with two children with less than $35,000 a year compared to a retiree with over $75,000 a year in non Social Security income.  What is just?


Considering the conditions for a man of 30 with an IQ of 103 and a wife and two children?  Is it just that he pay 12.5% of his income to a man of 68 whose IQ even now is still 128, two degrees on his study wall, in his $1.5 million home, with no debts, a pension under the old plan before the ‘give backs’ of the 1990s, etc, etc.  And all of this in a county from which economic activity has been systematically excluded since the 1970s, down zoned and down zoned and employers driven away, while the immigration laws have been dropped to supply the cheap labor that services the selfish old bastard.  Illegals because they can not vote and disturb the hegemony of the Post Liberal elite.  What is just?


All these relationships could have been worked out privately with voluntary choices.  It is only because of the mandates, the taxes, the restrictive zoning, the state's distortion of the market by powerful elites, that we must find some way of considering all of these many issues.


 But how can we?  We have no common language anymore.  No common ethic.  We are each of us alienated one from the other. We have been betrayed. 


You decide. 




Lecture Notes:  3-16-05   Betrayal  II


“The 'culture' of the individual certainly does not consist of the quantity of 'cultural values' which he amasses; it consists of an articulated selection of culture values. But there is no guarantee that this selection has reached an end that would be meaningful to him precisely at the 'accidental' time of his death. He might even turn his back to life with an air of distinction: 'I have enough--life has offered (or denied) all that made living worthwhile for me.' This proud attitude to the religion of salvation must appear as a disdainful blasphemy of the God-ordained ways of life and destinies. No redemption religion positively approves of 'death by one's own hand,' that is, a death which has been hallowed only by philosophies. . . .


. . . The advancement of cultural values, however, seems to become a senseless hustle in the service of worthless, moreover self-contradictory, and mutually antagonistic ends. . . .


. . . Culture becomes ever more senseless as a locus of imperfection, of injustice, of suffering, of sin, of futility. . .


. . . The barriers of education and of esthetic cultivation are the most intimate and the most insuperable of all status differences. . . .


. . . Wherever the external order of the social community has turned into the culture community of the state it obviously could be maintained only by brutal force, which was concerned with justice only nominally and occasionally and in any case only so far as reasons of state have permitted. This force has inevitably bred new deeds of violence against external and internal enemies; in addition, it has bred dishonest pretexts for such deeds. Hence it has signified an overt, or what must appear worse, a pharisaically veiled, absence of love. The routinized economic cosmos, and thus the rationally highest form of the provision of material goods which is indispensable for all worldly culture, has been a structure to which the absence of love is attached from the very root. All forms of activity in the structured world has appeared to be entangled in the same guilt. Veiled and sublimated brutality, idiosyncrasy hostile to brotherliness, as well as illusionist shifts of a just sense of proportion have inevitably accompanied sexual love. The more powerfully the forces of sexual love are deployed the less they are noticed by the participants, and the more veiled they are in a Pharisaic way. . .


. . . And under the very conditions of 'culture,' senseless death has seemed only to put the decisive stamp upon the senselessness of life itself.”


--- Max Weber,

The Rejection and the Meaning of the World,

9, Worldview and Cultural Value


*          *          *

"I frankly found the statement that the President made somewhat offensive."

 --- Sen. Barack Obama


To see the extent of the betrayal I ask you to question Senator Obama’s statement.  Ask:  ‘Did he really find it offensive?  Frankly?  Even somewhat? (Oh, that is somewhat weak.)  Or, is he only just saying that it was offensive?   Is he a liar?  Is this not an example of the veiled pharisaical way the truth is manipulated in what would otherwise be an obvious bare fisted grab for power?  A gross and obvious lie.  (Are you surprised to learn that he also supports “ethanol”?  Imagine that,  just another cheap political opportunist.)


When you hear Senator Kennedy express concern for the poor do you suppose he actually cares?  He no more cares for the poor than he really believes Mr. Bush perpetrated a “fraud” ginned up “in Texas.”  That Senator Kennedy knew his charge was a lie can be seen in the fact that he will not now repeat the charge of “fraud.”  But he is so dishonorable that he will not now withdraw the charge and apologize to Mr. Bush.


All of this is a betrayal.  But the betrayal I wish you to focus on is the betrayal of reason itself.  The acceptance of Kennedy’s pretensions of care for the poor is a betrayal.  The acceptance of him in society after his false claim, (again a claim he knew was false when he made it as evidenced that he will not now repeat it, nor apologize), is also a betrayal.  But that Mr. Bush (41) still gave a prize to Kennedy after he made the charge against his son, shows the depth of the betrayal of reason.  Even his own father would not stand up to Kennedy. This is the real betrayal. 


Senator Obama did not find Mr. Bush’s reference to the absence of survivor benefits in Social Security offensive.  He is just saying he found it offensive.  (The race card.)  And this too is a betrayal of us and our civil discourse.  Yet again the real betrayal is the willingness of society to accept Mr. Obama’s playing of the race card.


When Michael Weiner goes before the national radio audience and makes a series of anti-Semitic statements he does so with the full confidence that his friends at the ADL will not complain, no one will complain because he is himself a Jew, (having had the foresight to be born of a Jewish mother.  (Smart move.))   This mere fact, that his mother was Jewish, insulates him from his gross conduct.  His “Jewishness” like Obama’s “blackness” allows him to escape examination.  Your credulity is the larger betrayal. 


Dozens of women, many with PhDs, have complained that Dr. Summers’ statements about the number of women scientists may be limited by genetic ability, have humiliated them, and that these statements are just plain wrong.  One faculty researcher even described how she became physically ill upon hearing Dr. Summers’s words.

Yet in all the coverage of this Harvard scandal where has anyone seen it mentioned that to this day, this minute, the math scores for women undergraduates are lower than for their male peers? That there is a 35 point spread, on average, in math test scores? Can you recall one mention that women are admitted with lower math scores over more qualified men, and that this continues not withstanding the fact that males now account for only 44% of the undergraduates? (Time:)

In other words females continue to receive the benefits of a quota, preferential treatment, not withstanding the fact that they are no longer underrepresented but are now the majority. {{Male SAT takers, for instance, posted an average verbal score of 512 and an average math score of 537. Girls lagged behind, scoring 503 on both math and verbal.}} (Detroit News:)

Yet, of course, even these bald facts were not even the subject of Dr. Summers’ remarks.  He was not speaking of these trivial facts, about SAT scores, or college admission preferences,  not even talking about how the engines of resentment, and how female resentments continue to power their preference machinery long after the original conditions have past into the history books. 


Dr. Summers was talking not about the great mass, but about the elite.  Not those who are only one standard deviation above the mean, mode, median, (in a bell distribution they are all the same point),  i.e., not the top 16%,  not even those who are only two standard deviations above the bell average, but those in the category of three and even, unimaginably, four! standard deviations above the average.  Far, far, out on the very edge of the distribution of cognitive ability. Murray and Herrnstein say in the Bell Curve that so few people fall in this narrow range that they canno longer be described with statistics.  There are so few that it is in any case as easy to review their individual case histories.   An unimaginably small group of people, geniuses.

{{At this extreme limit of the range it appears from a number of scholarly studies that there may be a higher number of males than females. The observed differences are typically small, inconsistent in direction across different batteries, and, in above average samples, usually favor males. . . . The largest and most consistent sex difference is found on a spatial visualization factor that has its major factor loadings on tests requiring the mental rotation or manipulation of figures in an imaginary three-dimensional space. The difference is in favor of males, and within each sex is related to testosterone level. But the best available evidence fails to show a sex difference in g.}} (Jensen)

Here you can see the betrayal most clearly.  Why does the mere mention of this possible difference in this tiny elite group of scientist PhDs;  figure as the center of our discussions?  There are multiple betrayals taking place here.  Males are obviously being discriminated against in college admissions.  This is a betrayal.  Dr. Summers, along with  anyone else who believes in the open discussion of serious topics, have been betrayed.  The coverage of this issue has been limited to the “feelings” of “inclusiveness” among a tiny group of elite women.  They won the genetic lottery and now they demand our sympathy too.  Sympathy for hurt feelings.  That these elite women have no sense of their egotistical self centered over reaching is another example of the real betrayal.


But the betrayal I want you to see is the pharisaically veiled absence of reason, of brotherly love, of any bonds that might unite us.  I ask you to look not at merely how Dr. Summers has been marginalized and targeted.  But here we see the betrayal of reason itself.    


“If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us.”  ---  Justice Anthony Scalia


For it is not just in society, down here at life’s edge, or on Hate Radio, or even among the elites of Harvard, but also in our courts that we have been betrayed, there is no longer any unifying system of thought that can be applied, not even  in law.  For hundreds of years a system of reasoning has been developed for the examination of legal documents, the collection of evidence, the interpretation of the law. 


Yet now we are time and again assured by lawyers in black robes that as a matter of conscience they can no longer hold with previous decisions or even legal reasoning and feel compelled to strike out on their own.  Really?  Or are they merely claiming that it is a matter of conscience?  Again you are asked to consider if you are being lied to.  If so this is a betrayal.


But the larger betrayal is the betrayal of reason itself.  Justice Scalia has been abandoned by the simple minded conservatives.  As a lawyer Mr. Scalia is not arguing that he does not interpret the law.  He is not appealing to a simple minded objectivism:  As if judges are no more than computers into which some set of facts can be downloaded and a judgment displayed on the screen.


His argument is more complicated than this.  To fully understand it you would need to study the law, learn how lawyers read documents, what logical inferences are required, or permitted, or prohibited.  His argument is not that others are engaged in subjective interpretations while he is on the side of the objective law. 


But it is just this intellectual subtlety which has been betrayed and is lost.  And as we lose this ability to make these distinctions we are utterly betrayed in every quarter at every level of society.


And all around you it can be seen.


It can be seen in the $8 trillion national debt which grows out of, is the sign and evidence of your lost reason.  Careless of the future, of your children who will be left with your debts you continue to pile on the debt with out conscience.


Your careless failure to control knowledge of weapons of mass destruction is another example.


The Senate itself, constructed by accident, gives the greater importance to the small populations in the remote rural areas, over the great metropolises where the people actually live.  And here the failure of the Senators is particularly striking for they could themselves reconstitute themselves.  The Senators could stop referring to their “constituency” as if it were a single state and start referring to the nation, the whole nation, as “the” constituency.


That this very idea, that the Senators themselves might renew our democracy, is laughable is another example of how completely we have been betrayed.


And here Senator Hatch appearing on the Imus radio show and saying, “I have heard what you do to some of your listeners,” is perfectly representative of the absence of brotherly love, sublimated brutality, the pharisaically veiled  betrayal.  Like Mr. Bush (41) giving a prize to the man who accused his son of a politically motivated fraud to drive the nation to war, Mr. Hatch did not care.







Lecture Notes:  03-15-05   Betrayal


"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th-century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles," he wrote at the time in a Jesuit magazine, "there is one unmistakble lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos."  ---- and then on the floor of the Senate he added:  “And it is very richly deserved.” ----  Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Senator John Kerry appeared on the floor of the Senate several years later, this was around 1991, and attempted to quote Senator Moynihan, however he substituted “never acquiring any stable relationship to adult authority”.  Always the politician. 


Yet Senator Moynihan did not say “adult authority” he said “male authority.”


And unlike me, Senator Moynihan was a real scholar.  If he said male you can bet he meant male.  If he had meant adult he would have said adult.  (With me you can never be too sure why I choose one word over another.  (Don’t read too much into it.  Just try for the gist of the idea.))


So why did Moynihan say male --- not adult authority?


In Men and Marriage, George Gilder asks why the feminists who are so pleased to cite Margaret Meade and others for evidence of the existence of matriarchy and draw out from these observations whole visionary theories of a future society; why do they never ask themselves this one simple question:  Why are the only existent examples of matriarchy limited to a few small hunter gatherer tribes in rain forests on remote South Pacific islands, or various equatorial rainforests?


Where are all the other examples of matriarchy?


One word answer:  destroyed.


I have been watching the news babes reporting the recent judge murders and the killing of a pastor because of a dispute about the sermon.  How uncomprehending.


Each new crime is reported as if it were a sole exception.  There are the usual cries for swift punishment, and yet there seems to be a willful refusal to consider if there is any larger explanation, a pattern, a theory that can unite the various apparently random events and organize them into an intelligible whole.

A clue can be found in the unpublished paper by two professors, (Stanford and the University of Chicago), on the relationship between crime in various States and the availability of abortions 15 to 18 years earlier. [Link: Crime and Abortion]

The suggestion is that distressed families produce larger numbers of criminals.  The fewer children, males, born into these families results in lower crime rates.  The paper is unpublished for the same reason that Gilder’s question why the scarcity of matriarchies  is never examined, has not been answered.  To answer this question would be politically incorrect.  It is the same reason that Senator John Kerry knew that it was more politically correct to substitute “adult authority” for Moynihan’s male authority.  The same reason the Bell Curve is still disputed.


As one National Review author noted at the time the Bell Curve was first published,  it is all perfectly true, but one should not say so.  Not only can one never trust that author again, one can not trust National Review.  Now when they say something or other is not true is it because they think it so, or because one “should not say so?”


This is the problem with political correctness.  It is a lie.  And how do we know when the lying has stopped? 


*          *          *


What the news babes fail to comprehend, possibly because no one has ever suggested the possibility to them, because politically incorrect, is that all these apparently random examples of violence, largely male violence, are all of them related to the failure of our society to socialize males into the social system, structure, the community.  This criminal has this history, and that criminal has another history, this one had a dispute over a divorce, another over a sermon, and this one went wee, wee, wee all the way home.  But do you not notice a common element?


If this sounds familiar, if you are thinking that this sounds like the liberal’s ‘society is to blame not the criminal,’ you are partly correct.  It is similar but not the same.  What conservatives know that liberals do not know, according to the Moynihan Theorem, is that conservatives know that culture is more important than politics.


Conservatives also want to control crime however, we want to control crime through our culture, using the whole society, not just throw some new spending into a  program dreamed up by the former editors of the Harvard Crimson.  For example, one can not say enough good things about President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative.  Culture is more important than politics.  And using culture, engaging the entire person at a deep level, not merely as a sociological abstraction, but heart and soul, is far more powerful than anything a bureaucrat in the municipal building downtown could ever do, or  would ever want to do.


It is easy to favor spending more on parole officers, or Head Start Programs, or Night Basketball “counselors and mentors,”  partly because for most of you the actual cost, taxes are borne by others, those with lesser ability to raise their prices and pass their taxes on to others.  But mainly these “liberal” solutions’ true costs, the true costs being the inevitable failure of this limited, big government program, approach, this true cost, the cost paid in actual lives behind bars or in chalk outlines on the pavement, is borne by the people, who are not former editors of the Harvard Crimson, who have zero ability to pass on their taxes by raising their prices, the people whose society is in steep and accelerating decline.  


It is harder to set up censor boards for CDs and movies, or even, and this is much harder, to use “social opprobrium” to control the merchants who produce the violence and smut oozing out of the mass media sewers.  School rules which might require students to dress appropriately, sit attentively,  work assiduously, etc. are not possible because liberal politicians find it too difficult to uphold a standard.  It is much easier to raise the parcel tax.  Raise the tax for what?


Mr. Gates recently described the American High School as “obsolete.”  Will liberals use the increased money, (by law California must spend 50% of the State’s budget on the schools), on technology for example?   Use technology so the students can work independently if they must be “excused” from the class on account of their misconduct?  Of course not, the teacher’s unions have opposed any use of technology that might compete with their strangle hold over the school budget.  (California recently withdrew from the Western Governor’s University, which it helped found, (under a Republican), because of the political influence of the Community College faculty, which feared a loss of students and therefore funding.)


Of course the real reason liberal politicians can not agree to a high standard in our schools, can not agree to use our schools to socialize the young men in our society, is because they know that these higher standards, whether academic standards,  or higher standards of personal conduct would result in large numbers of students, mainly poor and black, to be expelled.  A disparate impact.  That dreaded phrase.


And so once again on examination it turns out that liberal politicians and their policies are not chosen because they are thought to be the best approach but rather because they are found to be the easier, safest, most politically correct approach.


The easiest way to create schools of a high standard in academics and student conduct, (socialization), is with vouchers.  In a voucher scheme the parents themselves could select the school that best contributes to the creation, (instilling), of the values they seek for their children.  There is no reason why a large high school could not be subdivided into four or five different schools all sharing the same campus, the parents free to specify their preference. 


In this approach if parents really prefer schools where their children are not disciplined, where academics are not stressed, where drug use and crime are common, then, by all means they can continue to send their children to the traditional high school.  Rather than impose our standards we can simply allow the parents to decide for themselves.   Who could object to this?


And because this is the clearest example;   the failure of vouchers, market choice, in education we can see hear why I call this :  Betrayal.


For their comes a point when you must stop and reflect on your assumptions.  If vouchers are a good idea, if empowering parents to socialize their children by selecting schools that are in accord with their values is a good idea, if free market choice is the best way to create excellence and allocate resources, if all of this is true, and yet still vouchers in education, choice in education, has not been implemented we must ask:  Why not?


Here and in example after example, we can see that a dark hand has intervened in public policy,  a malevolent force has time and again blocked the good and assisted the bad.  Of this evil malignant force, betrayal seems the least we can say.    


For example over the last twenty years we have watched as one apartment block after another has been abandoned and dynamited.  These public housing buildings, built at the cost of billions of dollars, were destroyed because the liberal politicians did not want to have to impose a standard of conduct on the residents.  These large “projects” are being replace with “low rise” small scale structures of “dispersed” housing.  Why dispersed?


Because it is the hope that the new neighbors, who are themselves not residents of public housing will assist society in socializing the young male residents of the new “projects.”  The idea is that the surrounding culture will have a greater impact than could be brought to bear inside the now destroyed large, high rise, structures.


But what is this but a frank admission that the liberal politicians, and their bureaucrats, having gotten all they asked for during the Johnson Great Society, and during Nixon and Ford, and Carter, having condemned and acquired the land, cleared the land, designed and built these huge structures of their own choice, from one end of the country to the other, having filled these structures with the residents of their choice, finally admitted that they could not in fact administer their ambitious housing program, could not direct the residents to a better upwardly mobile life, could not engage with the people to establish "any set of rational expectations about the future.”


Consider for example that in Singapore, or Shanghai, or Paris, or Berlin, all around the world there are similar large structures, that have not been spectacularly dynamited, but which continue to house millions of residents.  Why is it that Americans can not live in high rise buildings, or anyway in publicly owned high rise buildings?  (If they are owned by the “public” they are not owned by anyone.)


Is it not again, as we have seen in example after example, because the liberal politicians were unwilling to impose a standard of conduct on the residents of public housing projects?  Is it not again that the liberal politicians took the easy way out of their own policies?  In Singapore for example, third world immigrants from Malaysia also had difficulty living in the high rise apartment buildings. 


But in Singapore rather than dynamite the buildings the officials altered the behavior of the residents.  There, in Singapore,  also young boys liked urinating in the elevators just like the boys in America’s public housing high rise buildings, but in Singapore they installed moisture detectors on the floors of the elevator cars and automatically locked the elevator door.  Boys learned not to urinate in the elevators.  They were socialized.  Male authority.  Problem solved.


But in America billions of dollars have been wasted, high rise buildings have been replaced with low rise buildings because American liberal politicians and their bureaucrats did not really want to engage with the people, not heart and soul, not at all.


Do you think the Oakland California Police do not know where the drug dealers live and conduct business?  Do you not think that they could, for example, install mobile police stations, containers with steel plates welded to the walls for protection, with air conditioners, and bullet proof windows, with flood lights and with cameras inside to watch suspects?  Park one of these behemoths in front of a suspect’s home and people would start to pay attention.


Do you not think the Oakland Police could easily take down the license plates of the University of California at Berkeley students who drive into Oakland to visit these very same drug dealer homes?  So why not?


The liberal politician who is Mayor of Oakland finds it easier to ignore the drug dealers, to disengage from the people.  Once again the policy is chosen because it is easier not because it is the best policy.  Ironically this liberal politician will now run for Attorney General of California. 


Nor should it be supposed that the failure of public policy is limited to the domestic policy questions only.  For years Air Force Generals and Navy Admirals have frankly admitted that pilotless air craft were superior for a great many missions and cheaper too.  Yet they offered by way of explanation for their failure to develop this technology the fact that they had themselves been pilots and did not look forward to the replacement of the modern knight of the air by a machine.  These admissions can be made because there is no constituency for pilotless air craft, no civic action groups, no rallies, vigils, demands for action.


President Bush stated after the Second Gulf War that he did not feel he had the right to “impose” the new government of Iraq.   “Impose”?  He marched three armored divisions into a foreign country, over threw its government, imprisoned the former head of state, all at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, but did not feel he had the right to “impose” a government?


The issue here is not self determination of peoples.   The new government could have included a provision for a constitutional committee, elections, independent judiciary, free speech and assembly, but who were we, who after all only liberated the country, who were we to “impose”?


But were did Mr. Bush pick up such an idea?  Could not impose?  From Yale, Harvard .  . . . and Stanford?  Doesn’t this sound like something the Provost of Stanford would say?  ‘We can not impose our form of government on another people.’  Yes.  That sounds like just the sort of thing one hears on college campuses, controlled as they are by, the bastions of, the liberals.


And is it not very much like Yale, and Harvard, and Stanford, for the Administration to deny America the right to control our borders?  Note that they do not want to raise the official numbers, they do not want to go on the record and say, ‘yes, not 170,000 Mexicans a year, we think it should be 1,000,000 Mexicans a year.’  They control the House, the Senate, the White House, yet they can not bring themselves to exercise this authority to set a legal immigration policy.  For, no matter what level they set as the official, legal, number for immigration, then they would have to guard the borders and “impose” a rule and this they do not feel is their right. 


They will not exercise male authority.  If we can not control our national borders, the students in our schools, the residents of our public housing projects, even the prisoners in our prisons, how could we impose a democratic government on Iraq?


At a very profound level we have been betrayed.






Lecture Notes:  03-07-05   Suicide Club


Just when you think ABC NEWS can fall no lower, that it has reached its nadir, then, unbelievably,  it  falls even deeper into hypocrisy. 


Of the 32,000 plus suicides each year in Japan a few hundred are associated with the internet suicide clubs.  Yet these few suicides are the subject of the evening news report.




The concerned “journalist” informs us that in Japan suicide has traditionally been regarded as an “honorable” way out of “failure.”




See?  The concerned and generous American “journalist” is displaying the broad reach of his transcultural insight.  Yeah.  Failure.  You understand that right? 


At ABC News “failure” is not problematic. No need to investigate or report on the meaning of “failure.”   What does cause someone, young, in good health, to kill themselves?


No, what ABC News wants to investigate is the use of the internet in a tiny less than 1% of the suicides in Japan.


Why hypocrisy?


As regular College Visitors no doubt know, we say the hypocrisy of ABC News, because Jack Swanson, the manager of ABC radio station KGO, has a staff that has harassed, and hectored, and oppressed me for these fourteen (14) years.


Mrs. Jack Swanson used her influence to have me followed for a number of years reporting on her morning radio program where I had last been seen.  Used her influence also with the millionaire owners of CENCAL insurance to harasse me there and then laid off.


Mr. Jack Swanson gave Michael Weiner, (aka Savage), his break in radio upon the suicide of Duane Garrett who jumped to his death from the Golden Gate Bridge.


Michael Weiner also had me followed and followed me himself on occasions.  He burglarized my room at the Colonial Motel and shared the stolen notebook with his fellow employees of KGO.  And used his influence with Scott Bobro to harasse me at Farmers Insurance.  Or was Scott a friend of Ron Owens who used his contacts to harasse me at a local health club and at another job?


Former KGO employees Rose Guilbault and Michael Krasney also joined in the over a decade of harassment and oppression.


And ABC News knows about all of this, has helped cover it up, has calculated that it is cheaper to drive me to my death, in a futile protest in front of KQED, with my brains splattered across their walls, than admit any of this.


This corporation, ABC News, strikes a concerned pose over Japanese suicides, even as it works to cover up its own involvement, the involvement of its own manager, Jack Swanson, and his “talent,” in several suicides.  Is this not hypocritical?


Bernie Ward has explained his religious faith in the “life after death,” his simple minded faith, because without it, without this belief “that my relationships with the people I love would continue . . . if they just ended . . . if all this is just temporary . . . I could not go on.”


Got that?   “Could not go on.”  He believes because otherwise he “could not go on.”


And isn’t this very much like Mr. Ward’s politics?  For there also doesn’t he believe all sorts of things because he “needs to,”  feels compelled to?  As matters of “faith” not reason?  You can reason with him all you want, discuss economics, world affairs, human nature, go on, talk all you like. 


But you can never reach him.  He has set himself in a certain way because he “needs to believe.”  He is not free, is not at liberty, to reason, to think, to reconsider.


Is he really here?  Is he not a kind of ghost already? 


And is he not very much like his colleagues at ABC NEWS? 


Are there any human beings left on the planet?


Failure?  Is not Bernie Ward a failure of a human being?  He has lost his reason.


And Jack Swanson?  Would you say he is a failure?  He has money, a “management job” with a big corporation, and yet can you not see the emptiness?  For example, he thinks it is amusing that his wife when she travels back to Missouri changes her accent completely.  He arranged for her to phone in her morning radio program so we could hear his crazy obsessive compulsive wife.  Her colleague Lee Rodgers asked her if she thought it odd that she should so completely change?  “Well,”  she said, still in that thick accent, “you try to fit in . . . you know . . .” (like marrying the station manager?)


And when Michael Weiner stole the notebook his ABC NEWS colleagues tried to “fit in” with that, a felony also,  even though Weiner is a certifiable lunatic.  He finds life more interesting as he oscillates from manic to depressive.  But what is his periodic loss of reason?  Is this not a “failure?”


And his colleagues?  And what of the ones who went along with the felony, and went along with Ron Owens and Mrs. Jack Swanson, and have helped ABC NEWS cover up  all of this?  What are they but more “failures?”


“I’m not going to put a gun to my head for anyone.”  ----  Don Imus


And what of ABC NEWS itself? 


Their employees have used their positions of power to destroy another human being.  But what of the company itself?  What credibility can that “news” organization have left?


What is ABC NEWS but a failure?


And notice conservatives how ABC’s “liberalism” is only a patina, a color of virtue.  See also how for a time Michael Weiner used “compassionate conservatism” for cover and how Mrs. Jack Swanson also has found a radio market niche claiming to be a “conservative” in between performing sex acts to get her husband’s absentee ballot,  or calling Senator McCain a “media whore,” and on and on . . .


These are, all of them, people without morals or scruples.  They solemnly report on the Japanese suicide club while they wink expectantly to one another, ‘not too much longer,  . . . not too much longer . . .’


I stopped seeing Yvonne after Garrett’s death.  I thought if only he had talked to someone.  That perhaps he did not talk to anyone about his problems because he saw how Yvonne had betrayed me. 


Now I can see that the betrayal was far larger than Yvonne violating my trust, he worked there at ABC.  He must have seen all of this more clearly than I.  He knew about Yvonne’s betrayal, yes, and perhaps he laughed with his colleagues there at ABC NEWS.  But also he looked into their vacant eyes set in soulless faces, listened to their inane chatter, their hollow laughs.  He knew them better than I.     


No wonder he jumped.   As the reporter said,  it was an honorable way out of failure --- the failure that is ABC, KGO, San Francisco. 





Lecture Notes:  03-04-05   Landmines of Injustice?


I have been waiting for Don Imus’ jokes about Federal Judges finding their families in a pool of blood.  So far nothing.  McGurk must still be working on the jokes.


Bill O’Reilly said he for one was not going to answer his critics, saying they are  . . . they are . . . (dust?) --- no,  “lint.”  See?  Lint not dust.  His answer to Lecture Notes 02-15-05,  where I realized that the reason no one saw the connection between Jordan, (formerly of CNN), and Gardner and me is because Gardner and I are not human beings.  In your eyes we are dust.


Mrs. Jack Swanson has not had any jokes about dead family members of Federal Judges either.  But she has explained how she showed her breasts to a passing sightseeing boat as it past by.  You see she can not be embarrassed:  a whore and proud of it.  Jack Swanson must be so proud;  what an eye for talent.

Don Imus has found a new fixation for his obsessive compulsion disorder thanks to his wife. Deidre, who previously has been on the radio show describing her problems with nannies, today was his guest to discuss vaccines. [Link: The weight of currently available scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism. The CDC is committed to maintaining the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history.]

Deidre is not a graduate of any medical school. No degrees in chemistry or biology. Her pretensions to mastery of this subject rest solely on her being Mrs. Don Imus. Other than the previous on air discussions with her husband, about her problems with the nannies, her last on air success was her legendary put down of a female clerk in the motor vehicle department. She said, You thought that outfit looked good this morning when you picked it out did you? (Sarc I or is that SarcII?)[Link: Health Central]

Don Imus chortled over that line for weeks, (obsessive), You thought that outfit looked good . . .? Oh, what a clever wife he has. Funny! [Link: CDC IOM Reort]

Of course the line must be delivered with that nasally New York honk of Deidre's. Such a smart fresh. . .bitch. She knows how to put down a clerk in the department of motor vehicles. So smart. [Link: Another publication has strengthened the assertion that there is no link between autism and the administration of MMR vaccines. W.H.O.]

Now, to day, she uses her husbands radio program to misinform the public about autism. Many gullible parents dealing with the problem of an autistic child will now have their troubles compounded with the Imus disinformation program.[Health Central]

Deidre and Don Imus have previously played on the fears of parents about Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and have repeatedly claimed that the parents of children suffering from cancer have caused their childrens cancers because of the household cleansers they use. Its in the air, Deidre explains. Now Don and Deidre Imus have a new racket. Never mind that the CDC, National Institutes of Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, every study which has examined the claim that mercury in childhood vaccines causes autism, have rejected the claim. (AAP)

Even on the very day Mrs. Don Imus was given her husbands microphone to spread these malicious lies a Japanese study again showed no link between autism and vaccines. (Don Imus repeatedly denied that there have been any studies using vaccines without the preservative that he and his deranged wife have fixated upon. (Mark down another lie for Don Imus.)) [Times]

Today Mrs. Don Imus informed us that the mercury in fish was not only causing autism but now she has added Alzheimers. Mrs. Don repeatedly refer to Dr. Wakefield as if his 1980s claims were current and not contrary to the best scientific research over the last 25 years. (Health Central)

Don and Mrs. Don, a pair of neurotics with a radio microphone, take advantage of the fears of misinformed parents, broadcasting an unsupported scare campaign of the most vicious lies, and there is no one to stand up to them. Mass media elites. (see Fascism in Daily Life at the Moynihan) (UK)

But who can be surprised?  Who now can claim not to know that Don and Mrs. Don Imus have no respect for the truth?


This is the deranged couple who threw their 23rd  nanny out in the desert at four in the morning after waking her up and shouting at her at midnight, and again at one and two, and then went on the radio and called her a “terrorist”  because she had A POCKET KNIFE! 


And no one cares.  Not about the nanny.  Not about the truth.  Not about the science.


And not even about the Federal Judge’s husband and mother found shot to death, in a pool of blood,  in the basement of their home.


I do not understand how you go on with your lives?


On what basis do you object to the murder of the Judge’s family?  Because it is wrong?


If you deny truth how can you demand justice?


Don Imus used his influence in 2003, ( that was eleven years after I had stopped writing letters to the Senate), to harasse and oppress me.  And many of you knew about it even then.


Many of you know about it now.  In 2001 and 2002 when Mrs. Jack Swanson used her influence with the millionaire owners of   CENCAL many of you knew about that too.


And since then many more have come to know about what was done to me. 


“I have heard what you do to some of your listeners.’ --- Senator Hatch on the Don Imus radio show


And you know about the lies Mrs. Don Imus is telling about vaccines and autism.  Know and do nothing.


If God is the Good, Truth, then to lie is to deny God.  And if you deny God how can you ever demand justice?


Do you think truth is divisible?  But if a man were to take a hammer and bring it down on little Wyatt’s skull as he walks across the sidewalk from his school to his limousine,  and killed him, and left him there, on the sidewalk, in a pool of blood, . . .  on what basis, . . . by what god would you demand justice?    


Deidre?  Do you not think Bill O’Reilly would cluck “words have consequences,”  to your grief?   Do you suppose that those who supported you in your lies would support you in your grief?  All the spectators who have watched the spectacle of my life being destroyed by Michael Weiner, Don Imus, Mrs. Jack Swanson, all the rest, they will gape at your grief too.   At ABC’s station KGO they laughed at the theft of my notebook, and at Michael Weiner’s reading from that notebook.  Do you not think they will laugh at your suffering too?  Can’t you see that?


I do not understand how you go on with your lives?


If you deny truth how can you demand justice?


Landmines of the Heart?  This is the new excuse?  We did not know what we did was wrong because we did not see your heart would be injured?   As if the heart were secret, hidden, the way a landmine is hidden?  But this is just backward isn’t it?  The heart you injured was not hidden, it was in plain sight.  What was hidden?  Your lies!  You hid your lies.


When I first learned of the betrayal I immediately told Yvonne.  I was not secret.


But the betrayal, that was hidden wasn’t it?  And even now, all these years later we still have the lies?   And why are you still lying?  Because you know it was wrong.


The knowledge of the wrong came to you, and in your shame you hid it with a lie.  Covered it over the way a landmine is covered over.  You denied the truth, God.


So how now do any of you claim justice?  


On 9-11, how do you demand justice, if you deny God?


And when the bio-attack comes . . . how will you demand justice then?


You who have lied, and lied sometimes for no reason, how will you ever demand justice?


I would be well within my rights to rejoice at your suffering, but your lies are themselves a sign and evidence of your suffering.


Don Imus and Mrs. Don Imus can not help themselves.  They must spew this misinformation and scare the thoughtless parents about autism, or about how they gave their children cancer because they used cleansers with bleach in them, because this is their degeneracy.  They are not contriving to be liars to harm others, it is that they are liars, or rather, neurotics who are so lost they can not find there way back to the truth, God.  (Oh, and do not think for a moment that Don Imus or that deranged wife of his will take responsibility for all the children their misinformation campaign  will harm.  Don Imus is irresponsible.  A rich irresponsible degenerate, with a deranged wife.  (Not a pretty picture.))


Let us have no more of Landmines of the Heart.  The Heart is not hidden.  But your lies are hidden.


You know you have done wrong and you seek to hide it, from man and God.


You can never demand justice again.







Lecture Notes:  03-03-05


Oil Floor Proposal:  Oil price fixed at not lower than:  (for example 90% of highest quarterly price:  $53  x 90% = $47.70).  If OPEC opens the spigot in order to ruin our Synthetic Oil Industry the Federal Government will hold the price and use the windfall to draw down the National Debt.  So if OPEC drops the price back to $35 to break the Synthetic Oil price of $47.70 the Federal Government will collect the difference of $12.70 to reduce the $8 trillion National Debt.  

By simply opening up its spigots for a few years, Saudi Arabia could, in short order, force a complete write-off of the huge capital investments in Athabasca and Orinoco. Investing billions in tar-sand refineries is risky not because getting oil out of Alberta is especially difficult or expensive, but because getting oil out of Arabia is so easy and cheap --- WSJ

Synthetic Oil Profitable at $35 a Barrel : Market Response Prevented by Unpredictable Policies of Middle East Governments and Lack of Commitment from Washington. Today, with oil prices in excess of $40 per barrel, the Canadian oilsands industry is profitable beyond most investors' expectations. It provides energy, security, and quality jobs. --- Mechhanical Engineering Magazine

Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new retrieval methods. (By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.)--- Wired

Trailer? Or just the rich mans taunt?
Rich Republicans do not care about free markets

Rush Limbaugh Dismisses Factory Building Methods as "trailers," But the Washington Times Had the Storey

The Republicans Will Not Recognize an Issue Unless A Lobbyist Pays Them -- Free Markets? Not for Our People --- Not Here


Judge Finds Spouse, Mom Dead at Ill. Home


Mar 1, 10:39 AM (ET)

DON BABWIN (rewrite by Plinio Designori) ---- (Drudge)


Chicago -- (AP) --Two shot execution style, found in Judge’s basement.


U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow, 61, found the bodies of her husband, attorney, Michael Lefkow, 65, and her mother, Donna Humphrey, 89, who was visiting from Denver, about 6 p.m. Monday when she returned home from work, police spokesman Pat Camden said.


U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow,  was once the target of a failed murder plot by a white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was convicted in April 2004 for soliciting the murder of  the Judge,  found the two bodies in a pool of blood in the basement of their home , a source said.


The source close to the investigation  who told The Associated Press Tuesday, on condition of anonymity,  that the victims were each shot in the head and .22 caliber shells were found near by.   The .22 is the favored weapon for execution style murders.


Hale is awaiting sentencing on one count of murder solicitation and three counts of obstruction of justice.  Authorities gave no indication that the deaths were related to the judge's involvement in the case of white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was convicted in April 2004 of soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill her.


Lefkow received police protection after Hale was arrested in 2003. Prosecutors alleged that he was angry because Lefkow ruled that he could no longer use the name World Church of the Creator for his group since another organization had a copyright on that name.


Hale, 33, became notorious in 1999 when a follower, Benjamin Smith, went on a deadly shooting rampage in Illinois and Indiana. Targeting minorities, Smith killed two people, including former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong, and wounded nine others before killing himself as police closed in.


Etc. etc.   


Lecture Notes:  03-01-05     


Random Murder?  Targeted Murder?  So what?


Wasn’t that Bill O’Reilly who just the other day told us that words have consequences?  If you write a letter to the Senate you have to expect that you will be targeted for the next fourteen years.  See?   Words,  they have consequences.  (This is as deep as O’Reilly gets.)


So by O’Reilly’s reasoning that Federal Judge brought this on herself.  Right?  You take a job like that,  hey,  you go’ta expect people are going to get angry withs yous.  You have got to expect consequences right?  See? Consequences.


That Judge, she,  can not expect us to get involved.  Right?  


This is our Post Liberal elite, IMUS, O’REILLY, WEINER, HANNITY, LIMBAUGH,  they expect everyone else, the Judge and her family, our soldiers in Iraq, all us schlubs;  we are to sacrifice for them, always and forever.   Why the Judge took the job, or the troops volunteered for service, or why I wrote those letters fourteen years ago to the Senate, our Post Liberal elite does not have a clue.      


This is how political cultures crumble.  First the insurance adjuster, resident of Alameda County (the wrong side of  The Bay), a Republican, a conservative Republican is targeted.  Let’s get the marriage counselor to betray him.  What fun!


Then another says, ‘You know I didn’t like what he said about Weimar Germany.  You know “Weimar Conservatives”  (I actually heard one of them use this term) they caused Hitler and the Holocaust.  Let’s get him!’  Right Michael Weiner, Ron Owens?


And so it goes.  As the process continues, Federal Judges find their families in a pool of blood.  O’Reilly simply will not recognize that he has any duty to preserve a democratic culture, a sphere for public discourse.  That is all just “theory” to him.   And so also for the likes of  Imus  and Weiner, Hannity and Limbaugh. 


It does not take long for society to degenerate into Iraq.  Bombings.  Assassinations.   Democratic culture?  


Moynihan once said on the floor of the Senate that “a society can decline into barbarism in a generation.”  If I had been there I should have jumped to my feet and shouted, “No, Sir!,  No, Sir!  You are wrong,  in an instant Sir, a society can descend into barbarism in an instant!!”


So here you are Imus.  Now go tell Deidre about the Federal Judge in Chicago. 


And tell her, this:  Tell her that you and yours, Weiner, Mrs. Jack Swanson, and your pimps and creeps, Bobro, Frank Blaha, Bo Dietl and all the nameless faceless malicious shits have all,  --- all of you have helped destroy America.


And all of you please stop reveling in your triumph over me, and everyone else.  (Hannity, for example, laughing about the hose in the mail slot of Laura Ingraham’s enemy.  “The funniest story I ever heard,” he said.  Funniest?  You see Sean when you present yourself as a religious moral man, a “good man,”  you have further to fall.  Imus is already in the gutter.  Can he be shown to be an even bigger degenerate and creep?)


You take pride in your “viciousness” but you just sound like fools.  Hannity in particular, but McGurk, Limbaugh, all of you, like drooling low grade morons whose diapers  need changing. 


That you do not recognize how sick you are is part of your sickness.   You just appear hideous to the world.  For example, joking about suicides trying to show you have hardened your hearts.  Even if it were possible, the attempt to show yourselves this way, proves how insecure you are. 


And again, Brian Sussman, like Hannity, also presents himself as a “religious man”  shows himself for the hypocrite that he is.  (Trying to get into the good graces of the boss’ wife he delivered himself of a long “philosophical dissertation” on the importance of “objectivity” thereby proving his hopeless shallowness.  He claims to be a “Christian” but appears to not have understood the first thing about Jesus.  (see Wrong Part V at the Max Weber Institute))    Ok, look, you convinced me, your hearts are hardened.  So stop with the foolish posturing.  You sound pathetic and you are confusing your other listeners. 


(Or for example how many times is Imus going to call someone a terrorist?  What is he trying to prove?  ‘See I call everyone a terrorist, it don’t mean nothin’.’  O’Reilly also for a time was trying to show he was a fun loving fellow who regularly talks dirty on the air, ‘See it don’t mean nothin’.’   Or, Mrs. Jack Swanson trying to show she was not upset by the Intel Operations page or the CENCAL Letters bragged to a guest on her radio show, (her husband is the station manager),  how she had gotten her husband’s absentee ballot by performing sex acts for him.   There was an embarrassed pause as the guest absorbed this revelation . . . “. . . ok . . .” came the weak reply.  ‘It don’t mean nothin’.’   


 Fools.  Now let us hear you joke about the slaughter of the Judge’s family.  Show us how tough you are, Hate Radio, tell a joke about the murder of the Judge’s family.   


I don’t care if my death will change you or not.   It does not matter if you change.  That is the measure of how little you matter.


You destroyed my life.  Big deal.  I was an insurance adjuster.  A Republican from Alameda County.  All alone.  How hard was it for you to drive me to my death?


That it took you fourteen years (14) is proof of your witlessness.