Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.


Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

Politics briefly quash science in Washington furore

HIV fanatics panic at Duesberg and Farber awards, smash spotlight on HIV challengers

Duesberg testimony blocked, ceremony held in private, for fear of activist disruption

Whistleblower week leader Rev. Fauntroy of No FEAR supported Duesberg, but feared PR consequences

actupimage.jpgA storm of hostile protest from gay activists spoiled the Semmelweis Society International Clean Hands awards to Duesberg and Farber this week, in yet another resounding but temporary success on the part of paradigm defenders in blocking free speech on the topic of whether AIDS science makes scientific sense, or any sense at all.

Alerted by an item on the New York Post’s Page Six heralding the Semmelweis award to Celia Farber. gay activists wedded to their self-destructive certainty that Anthony Fauci of NIAID is leading them to a promised land of rescue from an HIV which he personally guarantees is lethal, went into high gear.

As well reported in the Housing Works piece out today (DENIED:AIDS denialists disinvited from Congressional hearing—but get indirect endorsement from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee ), New York’s Treatment Action Group’s Richard Jefferys posted the news on an email list and a flurry of phone calls and visits resulted, which caught the besieged sponsors of the whistleblower awards off balance since they had not fully researched the extent to which Duesberg and Farber are subject to political counterattack, from Anthony Fauci of NIAID all the way down to gay HIV positive activist members of D.C. Fights Back (“HIV is a disease and with your help DCFB can beat it.”).

Alliance for Patient Safety president and Semmelweis board member Gil N. Mileikowsky, who recommended Duesberg and Farber for the Clean Hands honor, said the decision to yank Duesberg and Farber from the week’s events was 11th hour public-relations damage control that in no way reflects on the dubiousness of their whistleblower status. “Unfortunately some members of the Semmelweis Society were concerned [Duesberg’s] story would overshadow the story of other physicians [being honored] because the media would be writing about him and not the bills in Congress,” Mileikowsky said. “It’s like when Reverend Wright distracted from Obama’s campaign.”

Mileikowsky also said that Charles Phillips, one of the 19 Clean Hands awardees, was accompanied by a gay man and was worried he would be offended by the AIDS denialists’ claims. “Apparently many homosexuals don’t like Duesberg’s research,” Mileikowsky said. “This was interesting and new to me.”

As a result Duesberg and Farber did not attend the Tuesday award ceremony of the Semmelweis Society, nor did they give testimony as expected in the No FEAR Tribunals which occurred on Tuesday morning in Congress and Wednesday afternoon in the Senate. Rev. Fauntroy of the No FEAR Institute gave an impassioned speech in favor of Mbeki and Duesberg in the session held among the co-sponsors, but decided that the courageous duo were too radioactive on the national level to place too close to the other awardees, whose injustices were more limited in scope and hostile counterattack and attached to House bills he is trying to advance to protect whistleblowers.

Instead, the principled duo were given their awards in a closed ceremony held especially for them on Wednesday evening, from which gay activists were excluded with the sole exception of Michael Geiger, a staunch supporter of Duesberg from San Diego.

Thus was the dissemination of unconventional wisdom, and the enlightenment of the press and public curtailed, by Richard Jefferys (whose oddly misspelled name is presumably the one that should have been attached to the misleading notice on AIDSTruth.org whose jeering claims we deconstructed in our previous post and comments) and the many gays who against all their own interests support the current highly questioned paradigm HIV=AIDS with a violent hostility toward any review, as if the fervency of their fond belief was going to save them from being mistreated with unusually poisonous medication whose effects include buffalo humps, many other obscenities, and eventually lethal damage to liver and kidneys.

aidsdrugshump.jpegWhy gay men, including even the very well informed Jefferys, should want to fight getting a second or even a third opinion in a diagnosis which guarantees sickness from medication alone and for the weaker ones eventual death from the prescribed ARVs is one of the mysteries of the psychology of health and illness, on which many future Ph.D. theses will be written.

Of course, the fact that Richard Jefferys’ New York organization Treatment Action Group is funded to a very generous level by drug companies would not have any influence on his long held position that all questioning undermining the current drug regimen should be banned before being heard, and this blog would never be party to any such suggestion.

We are not aware of the source of funding for D.C. Fights Back which is publicly posted as drawn only through PayPal but any such suggestion in regard to the motivations of their members would of course be entirely uncalled for also.

Activist alarm emphazises vulnerability

Meanwhile the activists’ irrational sabotage of the proceedings no doubt has them chuckling over their success. Not only did they prevent a very distinguished scientist and a very principled journalist from receiving the full public honor and attention they deserved, but they scotched the book signings which could have backed up the good impression which both would have made by speaking in person.

Both Duesberg and Farber are famous for changing minds when they appear before audiences otherwise misinformed by NIAID and activist propaganda, which is always conveyed so uncritically by the New York Times and other media and science reporters generally. The latest exception, of course, is Jeanne Lanzer and her excellent piece in Discovery this month, June 2008 (see post below), which will show any intelligent reader that Duesberg’s critique is unrefuted and its rebuttal is purely political.

Of course, any such reader will also know at once that the alarm and agitation of the activists, and their desire to censor criticism of HIV theory before it is voiced, reflect only political emotions and not any scientifically informed views, except perhaps the very real sense that it is very vulnerable to rejection if examined without bias.

Anyone who was certain that HIV is shown by science to cause AIDS would presumably have no incentive to take up arms against critics in science or out of it. The repression of questioning, led by Anthony Fauci and endorsed by every scientist, bureaucrat, official and expert profiting from the paradigm is a very bright neon sign indicating how unjustified, uncertain, unproven and unlikely the conventional belief is.

The problem is that the HIV=AIDS paradigm is inconsistent, contradictory and unrealistic in almost every respect, and rejected by the best scientist in the field, and if it was not automatically endorsed by every scientifically ignorant official, celebrity and activist it would be questioned by every layman let alone every scientist and replaced in short order by scientific sense and common sense.

noose.jpegYet this is the noose into which Jefferys, Lawson and all other gay paradigm fanatics want their fellow sufferers to rush and put their heads into, because Anthony Fauci tells them it is not a noose but a lifebelt, even while the most respected scientist in the field – which Duesberg was and is, before being smeared for contradicting Fauci – says it is a noose.

A PR success after all

That activists tried to run the most important whistleblowers in the country out of town during Whistleblower Week in Washington and largely succeeded might seem a blow to all dissenters in AIDS science in the short run, but in fact it calls attention to their censored existence and indicates a strong concern that they might prevail if listened to, which translates to the likelihood they are right and have something persuasive to say.

Thus if anything Richard Jefferys might well have achieved a pr success for the very people he opposes with such alarm.

As the first piece of evidence for this, we suggest reading the Housing Works article (DENIED:AIDS denialists disinvited from Congressional hearing—but get indirect endorsement from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee ) carefully. It is a litany of the successes achieved by dissent in AIDS so far, including the fact that a survey has found 45% of gays do not believe that HIV causes AIDS.

rep-sheila-jackson-lee.jpgAnd as the headline remarks, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), chair of Whisteblowers Week, failed to distance herself from the award given to HIV/AIDS most principled and public spirited commentators.

The upshot seems to be that despite the best efforts of the spoilers, Washington Whistleblower Week did after all allow Duesberg and Farber to seed minds in Washington with knowledge that will flower some time after the forthcoming Presidential election.

Note: Michael Geiger’s account

The gay HIV critic and firebrand letter writer Michael Geiger of the HEAL board in San Diego was interviewed after the event by Zengers Magazine, and gave a very good account of what transpired.

81 Responses to “Politics briefly quash science in Washington furore”

  1. Michael Says:

    Actually, the reasons it had not been posted sooner, are simple.

    Every one of the people involved with Team Rethinker and Team Dissident, including yourself, are very busy people, and they are NOT the type to sit around and quack about their awards or honors, or rest on their laurels. They are busy doing what they do, not sitting around waiting for KUDOS and backslaps. Both Farber and Dr. Duesberg had to nearly be pried into getting the scans made, so they could be gotten up on the site, and fortunately, as soon as they were received, the RA crack computer genius, Frank, put them up immediately onto the RA site.

    For nearly this same reason, as I too, have been exceedingly busy, I have not sent you some emails regarding infighting of a couple of now former Semmelweis individuals.

  2. MacDonald Says:

    Yes, but dear TS, all that taken into consideration, ain’t it SWEEEEET!!?

    There was a time when it would he been the leaders of Semmelweiss who would have had to resign and not the dissenting judges. It is all part of the Revolution baby.

    It is especially a victory for Celia, who has been the target of one of the usual hate-campaigns.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Let’s not have drivel in Comments, folks. Frank Lusardi is no computer genius, as far as we are concerned, since the defects of this site he abandoned precipitously and without explanation a year or two ago (except for mumbling something about undefined “abuse”) are still with us, impenetrable to anyone else since no one can decipher what he did to the original. Offering to help us, converting this blog with useful additions when it was unplugged forcibly by some miscreant from another server and then abandoning us without reason or explanation so the remaining flaws will be with us always, or until our upcoming expansion, is no sign of genius in the ethical sphere, that’s for sure. Sadly this prima donnish kind of combative nerdism is not unknown in other individuals in the disorderly volunteer movement to correct the HIV/AIDS paradigm, which in our reporting experience features several tiny egos more inclined to combat than to sacrifice of self to the cause of truth, in which Duesberg and Farber set such a good example.

    The fact remains that these distinguished players were not treated well in Washington and deserve a handsome apology, and you can make up your own mind whether this statement, written by others, serves as that or not. Perhaps it does. Certainly the rout of the members of Semmelweis Society who were responsible for the damage is a victory of sorts. But until Duesberg gets the Nobel he has long deserved and Celia Farber the Pulitzer one has to empathize with their apparently sensible attitude that prizes themselves don’t prove much, it is proper recognition and respect in terms of being listened to which they need and deserve, and that as we understand it (in our state of partial enlightenment on the subject, since a certain busy party did not forward the email he promised) is exactly what they did not receive at the time. Now however they will receive it it seems from the organizers of the Society and hopefully the damage will be repaired and eventually a positive and continuing gain result, since the award can be quoted whenever their names are mentioned.

  4. MacDonald Says:

    Amen! And ain’t that sweeet!! oh partially enlightened egoless genius of the ethical sphere?

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Not as sweeet as the new Firefox 3 browser, MacDonald. Upgrade now in anticipation of the vast expansion of this site looming over NIAID like a tsunami from Krakatoa.

    You are familiar with the motto of this site, are you, MacD? “To be good is noble, but to show others how to be good is nobler and no trouble” – Mark Twain.

    Whenever we contemplate the difficulties of the tiny ragtag band of truthseekers in this politico-economic not very scientific sphere in overcoming the forces of the Inca-like Fauci sitting atop his pyramid of gold and emeralds and the backs of his thousands of faithful paradigm worshippers we think of the success of Francisco Pizarro, who after many vicissitudes and two failed expeditions made a decisive march with only 160 men and captured Atahualpa in the bosom of his 80,000 man army.

    Pizarro was of course a criminal of the first order and hardly a man of his word, and the Incan civilization he took over was sadly debased by the introduction of Spanish and Christianity, but here we are thinking merely of the imbalance of power and men, and how a handful of insanely brave fighters can rout a truly massive enemy force if they make the right moves at the very top.

  6. MacDonald Says:

    I am always amazed at these comparisons to European invaders.

    It is Fauci who is Pizarro, stupid! And there is no top to make the right moves at.

  7. MacDonald Says:

    Fauci is Pizarro, stupid!

  8. Carter Says:

    I think it’s appropriate at this juncture to share this with you folks:


    This is a report and podcast of Celia Farber’s interview about receiving the Semmelweis Clean Hands Award and further talks about what happened at Harpers.

  9. Douglas Says:

    Great job, Celia and excellent comments, Michael. This is a must hear Ipod. I posted it on my forum for easy access.

    (Click on my name and go to “News”)

  10. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. TS,

    Your slimy friend John Stossel says on the Factor that Futures speculators don’t drive oil prices up but down; that these people who manipulate the market artificially (don’t really buy and sell money-over-counter in exchange for goods and don’t consume what they don’t really buy) are unconditionally good for the economy, liquidity-wise etc.

    I think the oil cos, the foreign policy makers and the speculators (ovelapping categories) are taking advantage of each other – actually I’ll go ahead and say conspiring – to 1. drive prices up for profit 2. force the Govt. to give them the coveted ANWR and off-shore drilling rigts, and that it’s amazing the Dems don’t use this argument.

    What say the Oxford Economist host?

  11. Truthseeker Says:

    Now, now MacD, he is no slimy fellow but a sensitive and curious explorer of the other side of the coin, someone you should appreciate, not insult. Do you always impute bad character to those you differ with? That is not in the great democratic tradition for which America proudly stands. But then you are not an American, like many of us Brits here eg Christopher Hitchens.

    So John Stossel is correcting your hoi polloi/mass media opinion that speculators drive up prices? Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that for every buyer there is a seller, and vice versa, so even those who buy predicting (not forcing, unless they have some kind of corner on the market) the price will rise are bet against by the seller, who will win if the price goes down, and lose if the price goes up, at least compared to what he might have made if he had hung on.

    If sellers hang on as the price rises, they are looking for a price rise too, wouldn’t you agree, that is the reason they don’t sell. So are you going to blame those who hang on for pushing the price up, too? The only people who push the price of anything up are the buyers, and they are making a bet, not a forcing bid. If there are enough of them, then the price will rise.

    But in the end, the price reflects supply and demand. If your idiot buyers of SUVs are forced to pay for for oil they cant refuse, since they need it to get anywhere at all in most places outside New York City which has a wonderful public transport systems and is making more room for bikes so that fewer of us get run over and killed, then that’s the bet they made, and the wake up call has arrived.

    In the future however are the fabulous $110,000 Tesla for which 1000 are now on order and other hot electric cars which go 100 + miles to the gallon, and the head of Ford is planning huge expansion into electric – many millions of vehicles are on the cards. Just plug them in when you get home, they have lithium ion batteries, stacked. The Tesla is faster than a Ferrari and can beat any race car on laps quite easily. So it looks as if demand for gasoline will ease from predicted levels, which may even catch the buyers you blame so much with their pants down.

    But it will have nothing to do with them Those who blame market speculators for pushing oil prices up are exhibiting crowd ignorance of the worst kind, ie that practiced by the media, which you are surely familiar with in other contexts eg HIV/AIDS.

    Unless of course they affect supply and demand with their actions, which they do as a market, so there is no blame there, or with monopoly power of some kind, cornering the market in trading instruments or in the supply of the product eg oil.

    Do you know any market speculators who have control over the supply of oil? Maybe you mean the oil companies or the Saudis?

    Certainly the Saudis are a bunch of thieves, not least stealing from their own people who share so little of the oil money that streams into the pockets of the royal family that their non royal per capita income which was $28,000 per annum three decades ago is now less than $10,000.

    The Saudi royal family are the biggest thieves in the world, and culturally nauseating in their use of the clerics to keep their people down, bereft of decent well funded education and jobs and liable if they are unfortunate Pakistani temporary workers to have their heads cut off if they complain. No wonder even graduates think of suicide piloting as a mission of escape from uselessness and repression.

    And guess who is the Saudis biggest pal? Why none other than George Bush, whose first act after 9/11 was to give the bin Ladens in the US a free pass and planes out of the country. Without Saudi money young George wouldn’t even have had a money losing business.

    Anyhow, if you can find monopoly power feel free to blame whomever you think is wielding it. But not the powerless speculator who risks his ass betting on the future of the oil supply.

  12. MacDonald Says:

    I suspect the speculators are made scapegoats for the effects of the energy and foreign policies, as well as being an example of the prevalent tendency to attack the symptoms rather than the root causes.

    Nevertheless, they can drive the prices up if they all rush to buy, and since this is futures they’re not constrained by any momentary shortage, imagined or real. The fact that some will lose in the end (not the large speculators who will know exactly when to get out, and not most of the big consumers they sell off to, since they can often make the ordinary customer/taxpayer foot the bill in the end) is of no consequence as long as the black gold fever rages on the market. Furthermore if the producers, the cos and the foreign policy makers all play on fears of terrorists and dependence on our enemies etc. they can keep the prices inflated far above what supply and demand actually dictate for a very long time.

    I don’t need to find a monopoly for this, since these people are all members of the same childishly named student fraternities. And Preznitz Bush, as you quite rightly remark, has always been loyal first and foremost to his oil buddies, whether Arabs or Bible Belters. His most consistent domestic policy concern has been the ANWR panacea, which he yet again makes a mighty push for before he is replaced in the White House by someone who might turn out to be marginally less Big Oil friendly

  13. MacDonald Says:

    Oh and Stossel DID come off as slimy on the Factor – and that was compared to O’Reilly himself, who usually makes most people look good

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    Is there an url for this entertaining meeting between Stossel and O’Reilly?

    We seem to agree on the markets factors involved. One would add that monopoly of information must play a large role in lining the pockets of the brave men and women who bet on rising prices, but let’s recall also that whenever the ceiling is reached there is no more profit in anything but successful short selling, a tricky business in a century where expansion of supply doesn’t look very possible in the long run. Hard to blame anything but supply and demand in the end for high prices which are now predicted by some to hit $200 or $300, so it will be interesting to see if Obama has the sense to expand public transport like crazy in the US.

    Nothing will ever beat the comfort of a compartment with close shaven furry tough velvet seats and solid latches and doors which we enjoyed in Britain in the days of yore, before electric engines and long multi seat carriages. Privacy maniacs used to smile and leer at the provincial platform boarding new passengers and crook their fingers at them to come hither ie to make them choose some other compartment.

  15. MacDonald Says:


    Enjoy! Of course Stossel has the upper hand through most of it, but I think he is overdoing the let the free market be free thing. The slimey knows very well it ain’t that simple

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    MacD, could we plead with you not to lower the tone of this unique blog (unique for the high intelligence of contributors such as your distinguished self, and others on this page,) by using epithets which betray the fact that you are not aware of the vast audience watching you (as revealed by our stats)?

    Would John Stossel use the word about you in public? I sincerely doubt it. What you call a certain word is in fact his great soft sensitivity, which you would know if you met him. John Stossel would not hurt a fly that landed on his make up powdered nose. For such a man to voice tough ideas indicates a degree of courage that we would all do well to emulate.

  17. Cathyvm Says:

    Thanks for the link MacD, I had heard of/seen O’Reilly in action before – most notable being the “SHUT UP” sequences, and my impression is that he is the antithesis of what constitutes a “gentleman” but I had never heard of Stossel before.
    I cannot pretend to understand the forces at work here; I’ve never owned a stock or share in my life. To my financially uneducated mind it seems like a game of Monopoly in which the rules went missing. When the NZ$ goes down, gas gets more expensive. When the NZ$ goes up, gas gets more expensive – on planet Cathy this makes no sense at all.
    I suspect the same is true in the USA right now that the “mom and pop” investors seem to be the ones losing their nest-eggs hand over fist and are really hurting. I do not gloat – people plan for their old age the best way they can. Finance companies here in particular seem to be falling like proverbial dominoes. All I can say is that it very much seems that the “little people” are getting burnt while the “big boys” remain largely unaffected.

  18. MacDonald Says:


    In deference to the vast audience seeking (my) wisdom here, as well as your personal knowledge of Mr. Stossel, I will immediately stop using the S word. However, I cannnot help but think that the attractively tanned Mr. Stossel would simply return the favour by curling his sensitive lips under the always newly trimmed moustache and snarl the D word about me, should anybody ask his opinion.

    That’s usually the case with pop-mythbusters:


    Perhaps Cathy’s local currency does not have much direct influence on the price of oil and gas
    one way or the other, but she brings up another point which you have left out for some reason: the impact of the falling dollar on oil prices. It does seem to be more of a problem to the Americans than to the Europeans at the moment, but is that dollar-related or over-consumption-related one wonders?

  19. Douglas Says:

    I can’t say that I understand the economics of this all, but it looks to me that these speculators are buying on margins and many have no hard investments or fixed assets in the oil industry. Every time, the government loosens or abolishes the regulatory agencies and regulations, the consumers get screwed.

    Look at the debacle of home loans. In the end, everyone looses.

    I think we should know, at least, who these speculators are and have a clear idea what they are up to. They should be restricted, taxed or fined.

    Any decent President would have nationalized the oil industry by now or reined in the speculators.

    I heard somewhere that as late as 2005, (the last census) the US was totally self sufficient in oil. The problem is that we export a good deal of it and therefore are victims of the oil companies greed, here and abroad.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    One absurd idea after another. But I am distracted by the spelling of the word “lose” as “loose”. Quite honestly I thought this little backwater of enlightened erudition (SG/NAR) was immune to this appalling inroad into language still unknown to the dictionary I hope, even if it is all over the Net, but it seems not. One shudders to think what is next. Maybe text messaging shorthand will take over too.

    The falling dollar is merely the result of the net imbalance of the trade and capital accounts over time if my recollection of sophomore economics is correct, ie after years where the image of the US as the world’s best investment allowed money to pour into this highly entrepreneurial economy and its government and private instruments ie bonds and shares, and pay for the rather inflated value of the dollar which brought us all our cheap Asian electronic products etc, suddenly the chickens finally came home to roost and all the free money sloshing around the international capital markets found equally promising places to go eg China, so end of subsidy end of story and end of artificially high dollar. US exports are now making rapid strides as a result, which must be helping the economy keep going a little. Naturally oil prices in terms of dollars tend to be higher if the dollar sinks, and if the sheiks sold more of the stuff it would send the price down again in the end.

    But what that has to do with unleashing speculators who buy too much oil on margin I can’t think. If someone thinks the price of oil is going to go up he/she might buy oil derivatives and ride up but he/she is buying from people who think he/she is wrong otherwise they wouldn’t sell. And what has that got to do with home loans, where too much credit was extended to people who hadn’t a chance of paying the rates that they would be liable for after the initial sucker rate gave way to higher ones, unless housing prices continued to inflate? People were just buying into a bubble created by irresponsible lenders who handed off the final ownership to some pension fund manager in Scotland who half the time didn’t know what he/she was really buying into after all the trading handoffs got so long a chain that no one could track them.

    That was just the extension of credit to people who couldn’t pay, and the investments were the modern equivalent of tulip bulbs, except that someone got to live in the houses actually built. Lots of people with insufficient income have gone bust and lost their homes, and so have some renters in houses owned on such a basis. But it was all an artificial growth on top of the normally fluctuating supply and demand market in housing, housing hopes and housing dreams, which is not a single solid product with known supply parameters and predictable and hard to replace uses such as oil. Reining in the speculators is hardly feasible in practical terms and has no theoretical justification whatsoever, since they don’t have any power over supply or demand. It is the President of the United States and his buddies among the Saudis and the oil business who should be reined in, though exactly how we do that when the voters of this fair country give him the highest office in the land I am not sure. Maybe Obama can be educated in economics in a hurry but this now seems doubtful given what increasingly looks like a lack of imagination to match his rhetoric. Maybe it is a pity that Nader never has a chance. He sounds strangely enlightened compared to everybody else now including Obama.

    See Nader tweaks Obama

    Ralph Nader released the following statement in response to Senator Obama:

    Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven’t been paying attention to his campaign.

    Actually, I have.

    And it’s clear from Senator Obama’s campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure–whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich–who are taking advantage of 100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.

    Senator Obama is opposed to single-payer national health insurance.


    Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.

    Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with waste, fraud and abuse–instead of cutting it and investing the long-ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and public works–including schools, clinics, and libraries.


    Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against.

    Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn’t say he would immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation, because by doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as Senator Obama would have it.)…. etc.

    How do you like that point about the minimum wage? Would Duane Reade and Starbucks survive? More to the point, will Obama win or will McCain get in as people tire of Obama and Clinton and their horrid exposure of how much they are prepared to change to win? 25% of Clinton voters are planning to vote for McCain or not at all, according to a poll on ABC -if they do Obama is sunk.

    While he was sweeping all before him with his rhetoric for change he seemed unbeatable, but Hillary has beaten him down and now all we have is a tired man without the magic he once had. So what once seemed inconceivable, the hard headed prediction that McCain would win out, now becomes the growing possibility. Surely not….

    A man who insists of playing Signed Sealed Delivered I’m Yours as a campaign song (mighty good one at that, of course) when he is preaching change, I dont know, does that really work? The song implies submission to the dictates of the dominant sex (female). Is submission the right note for the knight of change to sound? When is the last time Obama said something exciting?

  21. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. TS.

    I think you derive most of the absurdity from conflating two different messages from two different people, perhaps even the different messages within the respective messages.

    Lose/loose could be an oversight from someone who is not yet aware that you value spelling/typing above all else. I myself have committed that faux pas on occasion – in fact, once I wrote to a prominent forum (almost as prominent as this one) and spelled faux pas “fault” pas. Another stubborn one for me is “seize” and “cease”. I have on more than one occasion ceased the day quite early on the morn (yes, ‘on the morn’).

    There were those, including a certain Mexican Geppetto and his gaily dancing and singing Pinocchio, who warned you against being overly impressed with Obama a long while ago. Now that warning has finally found a home to roost in your distinguished chimney-pipe it seems. Obama has also, let’s not forget, all but offered Bush and the telecoms eavesdropping amnesty. But he is still preferable to McCain who found the habeas corpus-rights Supreme Court decision the worst in memory – and in his case we know he is talking long-term memory.

    It will still be easier to hold Obama responsible for commitments to certain principles, rather than McCain, who is openly against those commitments, on principle, and therefore would appear but straight-talking and consistent as he invades and tortures and creates his hundred-year-Reich in the Middle-East.

  22. Truthseeker Says:

    Those who make fun of the plodding and earnest host with sufficiently dashing wit are automatically forgiven, even if their points are wrong, incomprehensible or both. In this case however the barking dog running excited circles around the ponderous water buffalo is under a misapprehension. The former Obama, the original who tilted with pointed lance at the vast gas balloon of current Washington power club-media rhetoric which so blatantly camouflages inaction on many important fronts such as rescuing the poor and middle class from the depredations of the rich, clever and confidence abusing elite still has our hearty approval. But where is he?

    In the aftermath of the mildly sickening liars’ bonding fete of Barrack and Hillary at Unity I imagine that consciously or not many people in the US who have the same shallow and feeling based political views that your inattentive host tends to form will have been seriously put off Obama by his willingness to parade his status as a liar in front of the world so blatantly, sharing with Hillary a ridiculously plain, spotlit and center stage exhibition of how political interest lay behind and now lies behind his former attacks and current embrace of the lovely if equally compromised actor on this stage, Hillary, she now of the somewhat forced if now longer slightly over the top smile.

    The whole point is that we all loved Obama #1 but Obama #2 has emerged as your clever friend may have cynically foreseen as a sellout before he has even been elected, and the point is made in public with widespread headline coverage and many TV stations playing over the earlier nasty attacks they made on each other as if the networks were competing with YouTube.

    Of course we all knew perfectly well this would happen and why and pragmatically support it if we are Democrats but the disgust underneath is there and may be great especially for independents or undecideds. It really underlines in the most vivid way how inclined to compromise Obama is, and perhaps that is not all bad if he is merely following in the footsteps of Clinton (if you count his record a great success, although some would say that he was not personally responsible for getting rid of the deficit).

    But it leaves one with a sense of revulsion if one is a truthseeker and was happy to see Obama when he appeared to be one too, and if principle is really important to the voter he will take a second and third look at McCain or at least his running mate, given that that heroic Bush imitator is liable to keel over at any minute judging from his halting speech.

    Come Nader all is forgiven.

    Anyhow I am fully with Gail Collins who wrote yesterday a little Times Op Ed column saying all this rather quietly (see Unity Is Crowded:

    Sometimes it’s trying to figure out how to get through a killer presidential campaign without losing every single quality that made people want to vote for you in the first place.

  23. MacDonald Says:

    Who knows where your former fellow truthseeker has vanished to – or should I say been vanished to? Perhaps he is at this moment languishing ‘neath an iron mask in a dark dungeon due to the scheme conceived by some cunning Aramis.

    Based both on premonition and current observation, it does seem McCain is using up the precious few marbles he has left faster than an SUV can pick your pocket at the pump. He is therefore a mighty symbol of the Empire wouldn’t you say? Aren’t they both really? plodding senility on one hand and the mirage of youth already emitting the odour of rot on the other.

  24. MacDonald Says:

    Who knows where your former fellow truthseeker has vanished to – or should I say been vanished to? Perhaps he is at this moment languishing ‘neath an iron mask in a dark dungeon due to the scheme conceived by some cunning Aramis.

    Based on both feeling and current observation, it does seem McCain is using up the precious few marbles he has left faster than an SUV can pick your pocket at the pump. He is therefore a mighty symbol of the Empire wouldn’t you say? Aren’t they both really? plodding senility on one hand and the mirage of youth already emitting the odour of rot on the other.

  25. MacDonald Says:


    Don’t swallow those inane talking points about Clinton and Obama being hypocrites for making up. There’s nothing unseemly or extraordinary in that. Their positions are so close anyway. Nobody gave McCain a hard tiime for immediately enlisting his worst Republican opponents and starting pandering to the neocons who had been taking him apart on talk-radio.

    That’s the least of it all.

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    That’s the least of it all.

    The inattentive MacD has emerged, Alas! I blame myself for not writing it out in an interesting and intelligible way.

    My point, labored though it was, was that on the emotional level of feelings based on 1% information half of it false which I share with the masses when it comes to the basis on which I vote, Obama #1 got my vote and Obama #2 is a bum, even thought I understand the tritely obvious rationale for his desperate need to arm himself against a senile Bush#3 (which is arguable, by the way).

    So this is no inane talking point this is the underlying driving force of the new phase of the election until Obama #2 recaptures the heroic mode.

    It is always important to perceive the subterranean level of emotions and feelings since these often drive decisions against reason, which most of the masses seem to view as some kind of threat to their happiness.

    As Plato remarked this is merely a philosophical choice. Would you rather be Socrates unhappy or a pig happy?

  27. MacDonald Says:

    I have absolutely paid attention and understood that you admit to being uninformed. Nevertheless, what’s the point, emotional or otherwise, in having Obama shun Clinton and half the Democratic voters? She is defeated. Now what would you have the noble, heroic victor do? Spit on her and hers from on high, or try to unite the party he represents, as promised? Alas, I think your ideal is an Independent, a lone wolf like Nader or Ron Paul, or Malcolm X perhaps, in which case there never was an Obama #1 outside your own distinguished chimney-pipe. Obama was always a man of the Party in the levelling sense of the word; neither has he pretended otherwise. He has been less than honest and straight-talking about some things, but never the one you choose to hold forth as the symbol of his Fall.

  28. Truthseeker Says:

    My point O chimney pipe cleaner is not that Obama shouldn’t compromise ior play electoral or Presidential politics, only that leadership qualities including principled politics are the sine qua non for the kind of voters he attracted originally who are fed up with compromise with voter and lobbyist, and Obama shouldn’t be exhibiting that kind of behavior on center stage, especially when he is abandoning many of his earlier positions now and taking on rightist advisers eg economists from the Chicago school, adding up to enough platform change to disenchant the lefties and Arianna Huffington, author of the new book Right is Wrong, who lambasted him on ABC Sunday morning.

    Yes it would be a fine thing if Nader had a decent chance. But yes Obama #1 was never that independent, if you wish to say so. I am not sure it was clear at the time where his limits were, but there was something about his style which implied a new level of inner direction matching his fine words. That link should not have been broken.

    PS eg Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity.

    July 2, 2008
    Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

    WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.

    Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.

    In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

  29. Baby Pong Says:

    I believe it was the poster called “Marcel” who first pointed out on this blog, many months ago, that Obama was a phony and that if he were genuine, the media would not be promoting him, they would be suppressing him like they did a genuine reformer, Ron Paul.

    Not that Marcel is omniscient or anything. He also predicted that Hillary would beat Obama (which could still happen if Hillary’s wet dream comes true and Obama gets assassinated or something). Marcel’s prediction was well-founded, but, as he also pointed out, the super-elite Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateral kingmakers love both of them, so it was clear that it didn’t matter which of them they finally selected, the end result would be the same. “Oh, what a wonderful milestone for black people!” “Oh, what a wonderful milestone for women’s rights!” Whichever spin they chose, it would serve to distract from the reality that both candidates are fully dedicated to a New World Order that hates both blacks and women. (more on this below in this sadly disorganized post)

    In any event, for anyone who wants to throw a monkey-wrench into the elitist’s New World Order plans for a world dictatorship with everyone (except the elitists themselves of course) being monitored 24/7 by RFID chips, it seems to me that you should hope that McCain wins.

    This is because the policies of both McCain and Obama, to move the US toward a North American Union modeled after the EU, a precursor to eventual World Government (which means world dictatorship), to continue and repeat the many frauds like Hiv/Aids, 9/11, bird flu, HPV, vaccination (undoubtedly soon to become mandatory), to continue and expand the various wars, etc., will be very similar except in the smallest details.

    But Obama would be much worse because his blackness and phony liberal persona will serve as a feint that will persuade left-leaning people to support these policies, the same policies that they would oppose if they were promoted by McCain or Bush. As historians have noted, Nixon could only go to China because of his right wing credentials. A “liberal” would have been called a communist for going to China. So the charismatic “leftist” Obama will find it easier to institute fascist New World Order policies than will the “rightist” McCain. He will be supported and called visionary and compassionate for instituting the same policies that would get McCain opposed and denounced as a tyrant.

    That’s why they installed the “liberal” Tony Blair and the “liberal” Bill Clinton into office, where they both proceeded to institute fascist NWO policies.

    Left/Right is all a big game, and the intellectuals of this blog ought to be able to see through it.

    McCain for president!

    (Like your vote matters, they also have those Diebold voting machines now, and can program whichever outcome best meets their needs)

  30. Truthseeker Says:

    Hmmm Diebold machines..very relevant just now in NYC, see latest post. Thanks for the inspiration. However, we trust that you have revised your opinion of Obama’s qualifications in the wake of his triumphant tour of points East across the sea, when European leaders went gaga over the prospect of dealing with a clearminded, tall, well educated man of the 21st C world.

    The only people who will lose Obama his crown are the illiterates who can’t bring themselves to view him as their leader because he is too overqualified to relate to and trust – one of them darn prodigies you can’t imagine having a beer with. But you really think Ron Paul’s honesty and sanity are big enough to overcome his limitations of skill and stature?

  31. Cathyvm Says:

    I don’t normally comment on US politics; we don’t get much coverage here. As a hetero female I can say Obama is rather scrummy-looking, and he seems to be “smarter than the average bear”, but would it make me want to vote for him? Doubtful. As Baby Pong pointed out they all seem to be puppets like Tony Labiar [not sic]. Basically it’s choose pro-corporate or pro-corporate – an increasingly common phenomenon in most developed countries. Next year may be the first time in my (adult) life that I don’t bother to vote. The Diebold machine issue makes me laugh (in despair). Didn’t Bush justify invasion of EYE-raq as taking democracy to the country? Democracy my increasingly sagging bottom!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.