Eytom Blog

Can-Am CD Storage Cabinet

Today, I ordered another three drawer CD Cabinet from Can-Am. The product enjoys high quality and the staff is pleasent and capable. After I placed my order, I was informed that the gangsters at the Department of Homeland Security mandate that Can-Am obtain clients' Slave ID Numbers (SS#). These numbers are checked out by DHS prior to shipment. I refused the request and was told that there is a temperory avenue to send my CD storage cabinet across the border without giving The Number, but this avenue would soon not be available. Has collecting Compact Discs become a terrorist activity? The Database State is upon us.

South Asian Tsunami

Below is a first-hand account of the Tsunami, written by a friend vacationing on a Thai Island:

I am not sure how to begin our story - Lou's and mine - of how we survived the S. Asia earthquake. Does it begin as my friend said in another lifetime where she says I developed good Karma? Does it begin in a calander year? Does it begin 6 months ago with my cancer diagnosis? Or does it begin , as it probably should, the day after Christmas sitting in a woorden tail boat off the coast of Railay Bay in Krabi Province?

I squint and blink my eyes to clear my mind - to get the images out of my head - yet I want to hold them in my memory at the same time. I began writing this to yo uin the Thai Royal Ex.Lounge in the Bangkok airport - Lou is asleep on the cushions. We havent slept or eaten or showered in days.

Today, we've booked and paid for two hotels - none of which we will stay in tonight - because one simply does not exist anymore. We are heading to the mountains - no more water for us. But we are ok. We are ok. We are unscathed in fact - physically - amazing considreing the events within the past 24 hours.

[more]

12-26-04
Lou and I sit on a wooden long tail boat (after it arrived 30 minutes late - thanks goodness!) We are with about 15 other tourists ready to go to Phi Phi Island for 3 days of r&r. We booked ourselves at an upscale resort called the Princess - a perfect place to reflect on the past 6 months and look to the upcoming year. The boat is packed with people and luggage, but all of a sudden, the water receded and we were moored in the sand. The tide had gone out instantaneously. We were ordered to get off the boat and grab our bags. We thought we were going to have to push the boat up the sand in to the water. but then we looked right and saw a massive wave heading to a nearby cove (Ao Nang) and confused, we all made remarks about how we've ne ver seen waves here before!

Then I saw the faces of the boat staff go blank and ashen. They screamed to us "Run, forget your bags, Run!" We ran up to the platform - the small wall where the beach meets the cottages and restaurants. Thinking we just needed to get off the sand, we turned to look at the sea - and it had swelled so big that it was picking up and smashing sail boats in front of us like toys - it was stacking wooden boats like dominoes - sending them flying down sideways along the beach (and later into trees, pools, stores and cottages.) I heard "Run for Your Life!" and dropped my camera batteries in the sand and tried to get my stuff. A Thai man grabbed my bag and me and ran me down a walkway. I felt like I had lead in my feet. My head and body didn't agree about running! I couldn't see Lou. I couldn't find him as I screamed his name. I kept running from the Tsunami - wood and water at my feet and god only new what was comin at my back - boats, tables, ovens, computers, desks ....

I turned around and saw Lou carrying a man about 65 with another tourist - the man was bloody and muddy. Lou had rescued him from being pinned under tables and chairs - he as drowing and Lou picked him up. Lou tells me he saw me ahead and knew I was safe - so he stayed with the man who turned out to be French and couldn't speak any English. But he was in such pain - and so grateful. Lou dressed his wounds.

After the wave subsided, we stopped running. I need to find our friends Sunshine and Rob and their baby Deacan. We headed back toward the beach. It never occured to anyone that it wasn't over. We thought is was a freak thing happening to our little island.

(Someone just came up to me and said I look very sad and did I know someone down South .. I said yes, many.)

We couldn't believe it when we actually saw Sunshine standing by the pool holding Deacan. We hugged and cried. The pool was a cesspool - tress, boats, filth floating in it now. But then we heard the words "RUN RUN RUN" again! A second, bigger wave was coming. I ran, Lou ran with Sunshine (4 months pregnant) and this time, I was terrified, didn't want to stop and thought we would certainly die.

Somehow, Rob found us as we slowed in the middle of the cottages to get our breath. He'd been taken down by the water and had been hanging onto a tree. After the water receded, he ran through a smashed up store - without shoes - through glass - to find his family. (Rob lost one sandal and throughout the day hung onto the other one in hope to find its mate, but finally, he let it go!)

The restaurants had set up breakfast buffet with chaffing dishes and now they were cathching things on fire. Rob had run to help put the fires out and to warn people of the boats flying down the beach.
Banged up and a bit bloody, Rob found us and then we heard the third "RUN" and a wave of people pushed us further on.

We headed high now - I wanted to climb onto a roof, people were climbing trees - but Sunshine had it right - she said, " follow the Thai's" they know where to go and how to get there. What we didn't know at the time as that the tsunami was hitting not only the West Coast of Railay, but the East as well. We were trapped in the middle and the only ay to go was up - into the jungle. We followred a massive crwod at a run/walk pace up hill to a pagoda/bar area near a place where we had actually been climbing the day before. We kept hearing that more and more waves have hit and there were multiple earthquakes causing them! We just didn't know how many more to expect and when they'd stop.

We stopped at the pagoda - determining it as the highest, safest place we could be. Other tourists weren't so sure and headed deeper into the jungle. Eventually, probaly 200 people were waiting, waiting, waiting at what we now call "High Camp." When we first arrived, we tethered our bags to the poles - emptied a backpack out so we could put Deacan in it, and we made two "Go Bags" - the essentials we needed if we had to make a run for it. Luckily, we had our packs because we were going to a different island that day. We had our climbing gear, first aid kits, headlamps, hats and water.

Lou became the camp "medic" we say.He walked around with iodine and climbing tape - wrapping wounds and cleaning cuts, and swapping stories.The stories were so sad, terrifying an tragic. It was the land of the walking wounded - families in bathing suits - cut by glass and wood and other debris. Most people lost all of their bags and passports. We were lucky.

An Australian man named Dave emerged as the spokesperson for the group - he was the information focal point as he had a cell phone and a line to the Thailand Coast guard (or so we believed.). The group decided to get rid of all of the tables, chairs and glass. We had to get them out of our way so if the wave hit, we wouldn't be pinned or impaled by that debris at least. A line formed and furniture and glass was passed down flights of wooden stairs.

We waited for about 6 hours - waiting for the next wave to hit - and it never did. Or at least it didn't reach us. We began to here helicopters and get news about the earthquakes. There was no food - the kids were crying - and people were getting hungry and tired and the one bathroom began to overflow and reaked. It was time to make a move - and Lou decided that we needed to get into a cottage that was a bout the same elevation as where we presently were. We decided to make a run for it - because to get there - we had to run down and then up. At the same time, we heard another tsunami hit Phi Phi and was coming our way. We ran with Rob and Sunshine and Deacan - and made it up 6 flights of stairs to cottages high above the water.

Needless to say, we drank some beers, and ate as much rice as they could cook. We think many people spent the night at "High Camp" or up in the jungle further. But we took our chances. At some point during the night, we decided to run down to an internet shop that was still operating and contact our families. We caught a glimpse of the terrible devastation on the news and then realized the magnitude of what happened.

Nobody really slept that night - we hear helicopter after helicopter pass over - looking for bodies and helping the wounded get off the island. The next morning, a mass exodus took place. The governmetn had ordered everyone off the island - it was a disaster area and not safe and not sanitary. Speed boats were ferrying people off the island onto ferries. Lou decided we should stay a while and let the masses go first.

We ended up leaving that evening, cathing a boat then a taxi to the Krabi airport.It was a nightmare scene - we heard horror stories that I cannot repeat because it would take too long and bring me to tears again. One after another wounded was loaded on to the plane and then we left around 10 pm. We arrived in Bangkok around 11 - and were met by six ambulances, doctors, nurses,and various Embassy officials (BUT NOT THE US EMBASSY !! ) Most people had no passports, no clothes, no money, no family.
We decided to salvage our vacatinon and head to the hills of Thailand with our friends Sunshine and Rob. This is where we are now -Chiang Mai. But it feels so odd - so distant and broken from the reality we just experienced. We will try to get some sleep tonight - at least a good hot shower!

I don't know what one does with experiences like this - I haven't processed it all. The day I left Kathmandu for Thailand, I met a tourist whom I ended up telling my story about breast cancer. She gave me a yellow band from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Inscribed in it are the words: LiveStrong. I muttered those words a lot during the last few days - I suppose they are my mantra now.

PS. The hotel we were going to is gone - obliterated. It is now being used as a helicopter landing pad.

Pictures forthcoming in about a week.

The National Museum of the American Indian

Over the christmas break, I had the opportunity to visit The National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). It is located in the Imperial Capitol right on The Mall. The architecture is notable in its curvilinearity; there isn't a straight line inside or out. NMAI is able to accomodate a gazillion folks, which reflects its watered down post-modern presentation of so-called Native American life. Consistent with this po-mo approach, there is not a map or time-line in the building. A large wall presentation titled WE ARE THE EVIDENCE, lists the several tribes inhabiting North America in pre-Columbian days. The names are jumbled (more po-mo) and in no particular order, either geographically or size-wise. The NMAI has few descriptions under its sparse collection. For instance, 1,100 arrowheads are displayed without any indication of which tribes produced which arrowheads; like the tribal names, they are a jumble of finely crafted stonework and obsidian.

Interpretation takes precedence over artifacts at the NMAI. If you thought you might like to attend, save yourself some time and go right to the Brickskeller for a Belgian ale.

Driver's License Rules in Intel Law Spark Outrage

By Jeff Johnson

December 20, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A bipartisan group of senators, representatives, and members of the 9/11 Commission flanked President Bush Friday at his signing of sweeping intelligence reform legislation. But an equally diverse collection of citizens' groups criticized what they saw as the potential for government oppression and invasions of privacy codified in the new law.

President Bush called the new law, "the most dramatic reform of our nation's intelligence capabilities since President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.

"Under this new law, our vast intelligence enterprise will become more unified, coordinated and effective," Bush said. "It will enable us to better do our duty, which is to protect the American people."

But critics of the bill -- liberal, conservative and libertarian -- questioned one provision they said could greatly expand the government's ability to monitor and limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

At issue is Section 1027 of Subtitle B of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, entitled "Drivers Licenses and Personal Identification Cards."

That provision requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security to "establish minimum standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards issued by a State" within 18 months after the enactment of the law. Licenses and photo IDs from states that fail to comply with the standards would not be accepted by the federal government for any purpose, including getting past airport security, entering a federal building or even claiming certified mail.

Peter Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America supported the provision. He and other survivors of those killed in the terrorist attacks agreed with the Kean (9/11) Commission's conclusion that the standardization of driver's licenses will make it more difficult for terrorists to again successfully attack on U.S. soil.

"The 9/11 Commission says it in black and white on page 390 [of its report] that the federal government should set standards for driver's licenses," Gadiel recently told reporters.

Proponents of Section 1027 said requiring uniform, basic information on driver's licenses was not the same as creating a national ID card issued by the federal government. But Jim Babka - president of DownsizeDC.org, a citizens' group that lobbies Congress to reduce the size of the federal government - disagreed.

"When you standardize everything, when the federal government sets all the rules and collects all the names in a federal database, it doesn't matter what entity actually hands you your card," Babka argued, "you've got a national ID card."

High potential for abuse, fraud, disclosures and mistakes

Babka warned that a national ID card system would have an inherently high potential for abuse, in part because the new law designates appointed officials, rather than elected representatives, to set the standards.

"You need a driver's license to purchase a gun from a dealer, you need it to travel on any form of public transportation, you need it to get a job, you need it to open a checking account, to cash a check, to check into a hotel, to rent a car, and to purchase cigarettes or alcohol," Babka explained. "So, if the federal government can set the standards so high as to deny you a driver's license or a photo ID, it's effectively turned you into a non-person."

Section 1027 supporters defended the law and pointed to the legislative mandate that the standardization regulations, "shall include procedures and requirements to protect the privacy and civil and due process rights of individuals who apply for and hold driver's licenses and personal identification cards."

But Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, took no comfort in that alleged protection.

"When the government says they're concerned about my privacy after they've just said I have to have one of their cards, somehow, that's not very reassuring," Pratt said.

"I still have a Social Security card that says, 'Not for Use for Identification,'" Pratt added. "Anybody who thinks that they are going to stop where they are doesn't understand 'mission creep' in government."

George Getz, communications director for the Libertarian Party, concurred.

"When they passed the Social Security Act, they said, 'Oh, my gosh, this will never be used for identification purposes,' and, who knows, maybe they meant it at the time," Getz speculated. "But that Social Security number has now, in effect, become a national ID number."

Babka said he believes even those who trust the government not to intentionally misuse the information collected in a national ID card database should still be concerned about the potential for highly personal information to be improperly disclosed.

"The danger of having this stuff collected on a list, especially a highly centralized list," Babka continued, "is that it will be much easier for someone to 'accidentally' end up with information that you wouldn't want getting out, that you wouldn't want your neighbors, your family or your friends to know about."

Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union said she fears mandating a uniform national ID standard could actually make it easier for terrorists to create their own fake identification documents and steal others' information.

"There's a problem with counterfeiting in this country and stealing someone's identity is a huge problem," Murphy told CNN/FN's Lou Dobbs. "And so if we can't even protect the $20 bill, how in the heck are we going to protect a national ID card?"

"This is not a way to reduce terrorism, since terrorists will always find a way to create fake identities," Getz said, echoing Murphy's comments. "That's exactly what happened with the 9/11 hijackers."

Pratt pointed out another area of concern: Incorrect data could be accidentally or intentionally associated with an honest citizen's record in a national ID database. He recalled an incident in which security officials prevented Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) from boarding a plane because his name was mistakenly placed on a "no-fly list."

"He was able to call the head of the appropriate agency, the Transportation Security Administration, and tell them to get his record straightened out," Pratt said. "Now, the rest of us may be able to finally buy the gun or get on the plane, but they won't clean up the data because the bureaucrats don't care.

"They're treating us as if we were a bunch of cattle to have a brand on our butt and a tag in our ear," Pratt concluded, "so that the government can know where we are at all times."

Law targets 'innocent' citizens, ignores terrorists, illegal aliens

Getz said the flaws with the legislation go even deeper than its potential for abuse, fraud, unintentional disclosures of personal information or mistakes. The law simply regulates the wrong people, he charged.

"Only the innocent will have to submit to this kind of government surveillance scheme, and that's exactly what's wrong with it," Getz said. "It targets the innocent and it certainly won't inconvenience terrorists one bit."

Babka said the issue comes down to one of simple statistics.

"Most of the people reading this are not terrorists. I'm not a terrorist and 99.99 percent of the population aren't terrorist[s]," Babka said. "But, this will affect 99.99 percent of the population.

"This is too much," Babka concluded, "this is overkill."

Hello?

Stallman will record a voice message for your pphone if you get three people to join the FSF!

FSF - Associate Member

Jury recommends death for 'Sausage King'

This case reminds me of Carl Drega, who snapped when the state pushed him too far.

*begin story*

by Ann Bagel on 12/16/04 for Meatingplace.com

Self-proclaimed "Sausage King" Stuart Alexander should be executed for killing three meat inspectors at his San Leandro, Calif., factory in June 2000, a jury decided Tuesday.

In October, the same jury found Alexander, 43, guilty of three counts of first-degree murder for fatally shooting U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors Jean Hillery and Tom Quadros and state inspector Bill Shaline at the Santos Linguisa Factory. (See Alexander, so-called 'Sausage King,' found guilty of first-degree murder, Meatingplace.com, Oct. 21, 2004.)

During the six-month trial, jurors repeatedly watched footage from security videotape showing Alexander shooting each of the inspectors in the head after they had been felled by gunfire. Prosecutors said he killed them as they tried to cite him for allegedly selling sausage without government approval.

In a written statement, Dr. Barbara J. Masters, acting administrator of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, said, "FSIS appreciates the years of hard work of all involved in bringing Alexander to justice. While this case has come to a close, our memories of these brave and committed public servants remain eternal."

If the death verdict is upheld at Alexander's formal sentencing hearing Feb. 15, the case will automatically be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The Case for Ebeneezer

by Butler Shaffer

My interest in Charles Dickens’ "A Christmas Carol" began one Christmas eve when, as a small child, my parents turned on network radio to listen to what, even then, had become a classic Christmas eve festivity: Lionel Barrymore’s presentation of the Dickens story.

Radio was a medium that required the imagination to paint scenes far more colorful, and to concoct monsters far scarier, than anything motion pictures or television have ever been able to present. With radio, the listener was the stage designer, costumer, and location director.

[more]

In later years, I watched Alistair Sim's movie version of the story – the best of all the movie treatments, in my view. The film’s special effects portrayal of Marley was nowhere as hideous and frightening as the one I had created in my mind while listening to the radio. Listening to Marley’s chains being dragged up a darkened staircase elicited a stark terror that far exceeded the scene I saw in the movie.

As I became older, I decided that Mr. Dickens had given Ebeneezer Scrooge an undeserved reputation for villainy, placing him in such company as Uriah Heep, Iago, Dr. Moriarty, or Snidely Whiplash, to name but a few. It is my purpose, in making this holiday defense of my client, to present to you a different interpretation of the story, that you will see the villainy not in my client’s character, but in Charles Dickens’ miscasting of the true heroes of the time of which he wrote, namely, the industrialists and financiers who created that most liberating epoch in human history: the industrial revolution.

Lest there be any readers who need reminding of the virtues of this period, let me quote from that eminent English historian, T.S. Ashton, who wrote of the impoverished conditions of England and other nations prior to the industrial revolution. As he expressed it, "[t]he central problem of the age was how to feed and clothe and employ generations of children outnumbering by far those of any earlier time." England, he went on, "was delivered, not by her rulers, but by those who, seeking no doubt their own narrow ends, had the wit and resources to devise new instruments of production and new methods of administering industry. There are today on the plains of India and China men and women, plague-ridden and hungry, living lives little better, to outward appearance, than those of the cattle that toil with them by day and share their places of sleep by night. Such Asiatic standards, and such unmechanized horrors, are the lot of those who increase their numbers without passing through an industrial revolution."

It is out of profound respect for those whose pursuits of their selfish interests have done far more to better the lives of others than have the combined efforts of all the self-styled altruists, saints, social workers, politicians, and other mischievous beings, that I have undertaken this defense of one of the most maligned financiers of this humanizing epoch. As you read my defense of Scrooge, and make a comparative judgment of my client and his accuser, Charles Dickens, I ask you to keep in mind the warnings of another 19th century writer, Anatole France, who observed: "Those who have given themselves the most concern about the happiness of peoples have made their neighbours very miserable."

May it please the Court. . . and frankly, even if it doesn’t please the Court.

I find myself, once again, in the company of people like Clarence Darrow, who observed that "there are those who run with the hunters, and those who run with the hunted." In representing my client, Ebeneezer Scrooge, I am running with the hunted.

Over the years, we have witnessed a thoroughly one-sided treatment of my client at the hands of the prosecution, as represented by Charles Dickens. On the basis of emotionally-riddled allegations, coupled with pure economic ignorance, we have been asked to find Mr. Scrooge "guilty" of the most ill-defined wrongdoings. Most of us have been dissuaded from even imagining the possibility of a defense for a man like Scrooge. Indeed, I suspect that many reading this brief are doing so under the impression that this is nothing more than a joke or, at best, a humorous proceeding designed to satisfy your legalistic fancies about "due process," so that you may proceed to hang my client with a clear conscience on your part.

In this day of Ashcroftian logic, wherein dissent is regarded as evidence of criminal conspiracy, some of you might be inclined to take a front row seat alongside another Dickens character – and precursor to FoxNews commentators – the irrepressible Madame LeFarge, to demand Scrooge’s swift punishment, lest the accused slip through the net on the "legal technicality" that he was not guilty as charged! Not unlike the allegations in a child abuse case, many may be inclined to respond: "what kind of defense could be made of a man like that? What would you expect someone who had done such a horrible deed to say?"

To even mount a defense on behalf of my client is to risk the disapprobation of all those burdened by the sentiments of "political correctness." This is the age of tabloid thinking, which presumes that if allegations rise to a sufficient level of heinousness, no defense is conceivable, not even the defense of "innocent of the charges alleged." Some might even say that the more atrocious the allegations leveled at another, the less evidence that is necessary to sustain the charges, and the greater the burden upon the defendant to refute and disprove such charges.

What is the bill of particulars with which my client is charged? Pay close attention to Mr. Dickens’ allegations. His case comes down to just two points: [1] my client has managed to become very rich, and, [2] he insists on keeping his money for himself. That’s it! That is the essence of his alleged wrongdoing.

Knowing that the facts of this case support no more wrongdoing against my client than his being self-interest motivated, Mr. Dickens resorts to a subtle form of vilification by giving my client a pejorative name in an effort to win you over to the prosecution side by your expected revulsion at the sound of his name:

S-C-R-O-O-G-E ! Though I hope that you are sophisticated enough to resist such an apparent ad hominem attack against people of wealth, such has not been the response of most men and women. Like Ayn Rand’s sniveling bureaucrat, Wesley Mouch, the name "Ebeneezer Scrooge" is designed to evoke prejudice and animosity in the mind of the reader, so that people will be predisposed to support any case against the man, no matter how ill-founded.

Even Ebeneezer’s politically-correct nephew is blessed with a name from the maternal side of Scrooge’s family. Dickens certainly had more neutral or wholesome names from which to have chosen for my client. David Copperfield, Nicholas Nickleby, Mr. Macawber come immediately to mind. Even the character Fezziwig conjures up a joviality and good-natured spirit in the minds of those who had never read the story. Can you imagine my client with the name Sidney Carten, going off to work each day expressing the thought "’tis a far, far better thing that I do today?" Can you imagine such words coming from the pen of Charles Dickens and crossing the lips of my client as he goes about his business of lending money to those whose productive dreams will help to enhance the well-being of tens of thousands of total strangers?

Just as a defendant is told that he must take his plaintiff as he finds him, a lawyer must take his client as he finds him. And so I proceed to the merits – if, indeed, such exist – of the case against Ebeneezer Scrooge. While a general demurrer should have disposed of this bogus and malicious action in swift fashion at the outset, such was apparently not done in a timely manner by my predecessor, and I am now compelled to go forward on the facts – and their legal significance – of this case.

Taking my client as the miserable fellow Dickens has presented him, let me be the first to admit that if Ebeneezer’s obsession with materialistic pursuits rendered him an unhappy person, and were it the purposes of his detractors to help extricate him from his self-imposed miseries and to restore him to that state of happiness and innocence so common to most of us in our childhood years, no one would be happier than I. But it is not my client’s happiness that the prosecution endeavors to obtain, but his money. The case against Ebeneezer Scrooge is nothing more than a well-orchestrated, vicious conspiracy to extort from my client as much of his money as can be acquired through terror, threats of his death, and other appeals to fear. The only happiness that ensued to my client from this campaign arose from the ultimate cessation of terror inflicted upon him. Like the victim of any crime, the termination of wrongdoing offers a momentary relief that can be mistaken for pleasure, but it is an illusion. Such is the only happiness that Mr. Dickens has in mind for my client.

Make no mistake about it: my client has been the victim of a cruel criminal conspiracy to extort his money, as well as of such torts as intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel and slander, trespass, assault, malicious prosecution, battery, nuisance, and false imprisonment. To that end, my client may elect to bring his own suit, but for now let us focus upon his defense to this action. As we do so, pay particular attention to the utter contradiction underlying Dickens’ case: my client is charged with being a greedy, money-hungry scoundrel, and yet it is the conspirators against him who want nothing more than his money! Scrooge – unlike his antagonists – earned his money in the marketplace by satisfying the demands of customers and clients who continue to do business with him, and did not, as far as we are told, resort to terror or threats of death to get it. Perhaps Dickens does no more, here, than engage in psychological projection. In doing so, he reminds us of the definition of a "selfish" person as "one who puts his greedy interests ahead of mine!"

It is instructive that Dickens tells us virtually nothing about the nature of Ebeneezer’s business. We know that he is something of a banker or financier, but we are told nothing about the nature of his investments. Even if he has not been a creative entrepreneur himself, he has, presumably, been responsible for financing many successful enterprises, which have not only benefited the rest of the community in terms of goods and services they provide, but afford employment to countless individuals, including Bob Cratchett. For all that we know – and it would seem to be beneath Dickens’ sensibilities to ask such a question or care about the answer – Scrooge may have provided capital for researchers seeking a cure for the very ailment from which Tiny Tim suffers. We know that, at the very least, by managing to stay in the lending business these many years, and accumulating handsome earnings in the process, Scrooge’s decision-making has been beneficial to others. All of this goes unmentioned by Comrade Dickens, who prefers to focus upon the fact that Scrooge has actually profited from these many benefits that his sound business decision-making has indirectly bestowed upon his neighbors.

If we are to understand the essence of the case against my client, we must inquire into the nature of the collectivist thinking that produced it. In matters of economics, such people believe that wealth is simply a given, something that has come into existence in very mysterious ways, and in a fixed amount that has somehow managed to get into the hands of a few people through presumed and unspecified acts of dishonesty, exploitation, and unscrupulousness. Dickens expresses the dreary sentiment of "original sin" – an idea central to all collectivist thinking – which presumes individual self-interest to be a source of social misery rather than the fount of human well-being. That the pursuit of private selfishness can generate good for others – even when doing so was not the purpose of the actor – was far too complicated a concept for Dickens’ simplistic, fragmented mind. But to all collectivists, including Dickens, the idea that more wealth could be created never manages to invade their imaginations.

Charles Dickens – writing at the peak of the industrial revolution – missed this essential feature of the period. To those who view wealth in such a limited way, the only question becomes "how is this fixed body of wealth to be most ‘fairly’ redistributed?" The question of "how can more wealth be created?" – and what conditions would be necessary for accomplishing such ends – never enters their minds, for the pursuit of such conditions would utterly destroy all socialist systems. The beneficiaries of such redistribution are looked upon as passive and dependent recipients of other people’s decision-making. In this connection, Bob Cratchett is the prototypical "proletarian." It is to Mr. Cratchett that I would now like to direct my attention.

The central character in this campaign of terror and extortion against my client is one Bob Cratchett, the 19th century’s version of Forrest Gump, a witless and chronic loser with no apparent control over any significant aspects of his life save, perhaps, for his body’s biological functions. He is an inflatable "Bozo" clown, whose only purpose in life is to absorb the blows visited upon him by others. He is the poster boy for "victimhood," a flatliner devoid of any dynamic sense of life.

Let me offer this caveat, however: we do not allege this man to be one of the principal conspirators against my client. Far from it, for to have dreamed up, or to have actively participated in a scheme as convoluted and diabolical as the one perpetrated against my client, seems far beyond the ambitions or the imagination of Bob Cratchett or any members of his family.

At this point, many of you are probably thinking to yourselves, "surely, he’s not going to denounce the Cratchett’s, is he? They are one of the most revered of all families; a part of the pantheon of secular gods in our culture. I can’t believe he’s going to go after them!"

Yes I am! I am going to attack the Cratchetts!

"He can’t do that," you may now be saying to yourselves.

Just watch me!

One of the offenses with which my client has been charged was that he had not paid Bob Cratchett a large enough salary. Cratchett has worked for an allegedly substandard level of pay – whatever that may mean – for my client for many years. Why? Why did he not quit? Why didn’t he go to work for some other employer – perhaps one of the politically-correct businessmen who periodically show up at Scrooge’s office to solicit and browbeat charitable contributions from my client?

Put yourself in Cratchett’s position: imagine yourself to have been the "victim" of years of under-appreciated and underpaid work, head of a large family – one of whose members suffered from a life-threatening ailment – what would you have done? Would you have simply sat around in a kind of "Super Lotto" stupor, hoping that great fortune would befall you through some act of dumb luck? Certainly, in the early days of the industrial revolution wherein Dickens wrote, when new businesses were starting up all over the place in a great burst of economic creativity, there must have been all sorts of opportunities available for a competent bookkeeper. Great fortunes were made by those who rose up out of abject poverty – such men as Andrew Carnegie come to mind, a young boy who went from seeing his father begging in the streets for work, to become the richest man of his era. At no time in history had there been a greater opportunity for self-betterment than during the industrial revolution, where demonstrated merit helped to destroy the state-conferred privileges of feudalism.

To anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics, two things should be clear: [1] if, as has been alleged, my client is a tight-fisted, selfish man, he surely would not have paid Bob Cratchett a shilling more than his marginal productivity was worth to Scrooge’s firm, and [2] if Bob Cratchett was being woefully underpaid by my client, there must have been all kinds of alternative employment available to this man at higher salaries. If Cratchett cannot find more remunerative work, and if my client is paying him the maximum that he is marginally worth to his business, then Cratchett must be worth precisely what my client is paying him! Economic values are subjective, with prices for goods or services rising or falling on the basis of the combined preferences of market participants.

It is this interplay of marketplace forces – which Dickens neither understands nor favors – coupled with Cratchett’s passive, sluggish disposition when it comes to improving his marketable skills or opportunities, that accounts for Cratchett’s condition in life. My client should no more be expected to pay Cratchett more than his marketable skills merit than would Dickens have paid his stationer a higher than market price for his pen, ink, and paper, simply because the retailer "needed" more money!

Dickens’ ignorance of basic economics would, if acted upon by Scrooge, have produced adverse consequences for Cratchett himself. Had Ebeneezer paid Cratchett a higher salary for his work, he [Scrooge] would very likely have been able to attract a larger number of job applicants from which he could have selected employees whose enhanced marginal productivity might have earned Scrooge even greater profits. At such a point, terminating Cratchett’s employment would have been an economically rational act by Scrooge. As matters now stand, Scrooge’s employment policies have left him with the kind of groveling, ergophobic, humanoid sponge we have come to know as Bob Cratchett; a man we are expected to take into our hearts as expressions of some warped sense of the "Christmas spirit." Being an astute businessmen, Ebeneezer Scrooge was well aware of the marketplace maxim that "you get what you pay for."

Unaccustomed as Commissar Dickens is to the informal processes of the marketplace, we would not expect him to tell us anything about competitive alternatives for Cratchett’s services. Perhaps there are employers out there prepared to pay him a higher wage than he is receiving from my client. If this is so, then we must ask ourselves: did Bob Cratchett simply lack the ambition to seek higher paying employment? It would appear so. At no time do we see this man exhibiting any interest in trying to better his and his family’s lot. Not even when the aforementioned businessmen arrive for their annual shakedown of my client, does Cratchett so much as suggest to them: "gentlemen, I have a son who is afflicted with a life-threatening condition, and if you would be so inclined to look upon him as one of the objects of your charitable purposes, I would be greatly appreciative." He can’t rise from his self-pitying position long enough to even speak up for Tiny Tim at a time when any responsible and loving parent would have jumped at the opportunity to plead his son’s case. If Cratchett is such an unfocused sluggard that he is unable to generate the slightest motivation to speak up on behalf of his son when provided with the opportunity to do so, why should my client have visited upon him the moral opprobrium of a community of readers who presume that he should be more greatly motivated on behalf of Tiny Tim than was Tim’s own father?

The prosecution, in the form of Mr. Dickens, would have you believe that my client is a heartless and irresponsible person. But how much parental love and responsibility is exhibited by the sniveling and whining Bob Cratchett, who does little more than sit around and hope, . . . hope that someone will show up with more ambition and sense of urgency and caring for Tiny Tim than do he and his deeply lobotomized family. What if your child was drowning in a lake: would you just stand on the shore and hope that a Boy Scout would show up looking for a daily "good deed" to perform? What if you came upon a school building that was afire and full of trapped, screaming children. Would you just stand there and watch and wonder to yourself: "why doesn’t someone sound the fire alarm or try to rescue those poor children?" Such would have been the response of Bob Cratchett; such is the model of individual responsibility offered up to us by Charles Dickens!

Neither, in this connection, can we ignore the behavior of Scrooge’s nephew, who pops into the story early enough to chide his uncle for his miserly attitudes, and appears later, at a lavish Christmas party feted for his "yuppie" friends. For all his sanctimonious rhetoric about caring for others, why were no gold coins forthcoming from the nephew’s pockets on behalf of Tiny Tim? We see in this nephew the forerunner of the modern "politically correct" limousine liberal, who has all kinds of plans for disposing of other people’s money, while carefully shepherding his own, a man Mark Twain might have had in mind when he wrote of those who believe that "nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits."

If a lack of imagination and ambition is not at the crux of Bob Cratchett’s problem in maintaining his inert, status quo position for so many years, then perhaps we should consider the possibility that this man was simply incompetent. Cratchett appears to us as a tenured example of the "Peter Principle," the recipient not so much of an earned salary as a sinecure. He was unable to obtain a more highly paid employment, I suspect, because he was incapable of performing at any higher skilled level than that of the bean counter he apparently was, and seemed satisfied in remaining. Had he been more competent and energetic, he might have sought employment from a competitor of Scrooge’s, who would have seen qualities profitable to his firm. But I suspect that, had Cratchett approached any of these businessmen for employment, they would have been observant enough of his elemental dullness to have responded: "don’t call us, we’ll call you."

If Cratchett’s stagnating in the backwaters of Scrooge’s shop was due to his basically poor work skills, we are once again confronted with the question: why did Cratchett not seek to enhance his skills, as by learning a more remunerative trade? That would certainly have been a great benefit to his family, including affording additional resources with which to possibly rescue Tiny Tim from his malady. But, alas, Bob Cratchett was, once again, either too unambitious or too unimaginative to pursue this course of conduct. Indeed, about the only gumption we see Cratchett exhibiting in this story is in his groveling request for another lump of coal for the stove, or his equally weak-kneed appeal for a day off on Christmas. Such is the extent of his courage, ambition, and love for his family.

My client – whatever his reasons – has seen fit to keep this incompetent, noncreative dawdler on his payroll. But instead of being praised for not terminating this slug, he stands condemned for not paying him more than he was marginally worth; more than any other employer would have paid him if, indeed, any other employer would have hired him in the first place! Perhaps my client’s retention of Bob Cratchett should be looked upon as the most charitable of all the acts engaged in by anyone in Mr. Dickens’ story!

As I have already suggested, you can see that Bob Cratchett is not an active party in this conspiracy of terror and extortion against my client. He is both too dull and too lazy to have participated in such a scheme. Had this plot depended upon mobilizing the imagination or energies of Bob Cratchett, Ebeneezer would have spent a quiet night of sleep, without being intruded upon by the snarling and clanking Jacob Marley, let alone the associated bogeymen and shakedown artists who show up to terrorize my client.

You are now able to see the fundamental contrast of characters presented to us by Charles Dickens. Scrooge – the only person in the novel exhibiting any creative intelligence, and the only one who produces anything – is the villain because he has not given an unearned portion of his wealth over to Bob Cratchett – a man presented to us as a victim incapable of producing much of anything! In this brief synopsis, you see the thoroughly dispirited nature of socialism, a philosophy for losers, that feeds upon, and requires the continuing nourishment of, the mindset of victimology.

The morally culpable wrongdoers in this shakedown of my client, though, have to be the spirits, who trespass, at night, upon the quiet enjoyment of my client’s premises to terrify him with previews of his own demise should he not succumb to their demands to part with his money. No more blatant act of criminal extortion could be imagined than that visited upon my client by these spirits. If these forces are representative of the denizens of the allegedly heavenly planned community, I can only wonder how more unbearable it could be to spend eternity in warmer climes! At least "Old Scratch’s" subdivision has the honesty of not pretending to be an idyllic paradise while peddling guilt and terror! Perhaps it is a tipoff to the diabolic nature of the prosecution in this case that the name "Dickens" has long been a synonym for the devil!

It might be argued that Dickens’ spirits were simply interested in the reclamation and rehabilitation of my client’s soul, and that such acts of terror had the well-being of Scrooge at heart. Such were the arguments used, during the medieval Inquisition, to justify the torture and burning-at-the-stake of heretics or, in later generations, to the persecution and hanging of witches. Lest you accept this shabby explanation for their behavior, ask yourself this question: would these spirits have deigned to visit Ebeneezer if he had been a penniless beggar? Would they have bothered this man for a single moment had there been no money to squeeze from him? The spirits informed Scrooge that he needed to think of more than just himself, and to consider the interests of posterity. But what had posterity ever done for him?

Furthermore, at any point in the story, did these spirits demonstrate regard for the well-being of other persons who might be inconvenienced by Scrooge’s being terrorized into giving away his money? If my client is to throw his money around, or pay more for services than what they are marginally worth to his firm, what is to happen to the plans of those who had arranged to borrow money from Scrooge’s firm, only to be later told that the funds for such loans were no longer available? Do the spirits have any way of compensating them for their disappointments or, like socialists generally, are they totally indifferent to the unintended consequences of the events they set in motion?

It is at this point that my strongest condemnation for these spirits arises. Any decent person in whose veins course even a minimal level of humanitarian sentiment must look upon the spirits with utter contempt and moral revulsion. Keep in mind, these specters are possessed with the powers to suspend ordinary rules that operate throughout the rest of nature. They can successfully defy gravity, move backwards and forwards in time, cause matter to become invisible, raise the dead, and foresee the future. Having all of these amazing powers, why did these spirits not intervene to cure Tiny Tim of his ailment? The answer is quite clear: like socialists and welfare-staters generally, they didn’t give a damn about Tiny Tim’s plight! This poor, crippled boy was nothing more to them than an opportunity, a convenient resource to exploit in furtherance of what was important to them: to wring from my client whatever amount of money they could. The fate of Tiny Tim was held hostage; left to the outcome of an elaborate blackmail scheme! Assuming that Ebeneezer has free will, he might have chosen to resist this campaign of terror, and to awake on Christmas morning more determined than ever to protect his assets from these psychic extortionists. Too bad for Tiny Tim, in that case, for the spirits were more interested in furthering their abstract ideological interests – including obtaining power over others – than in stooping to actually help another human being in need. If the campaign against my client failed, they would simply have moved on to other more profitable causes, leaving Tiny Tim to face an early death which, presumably, it was within their powers to prevent.

Had the spirits been truly desirous of helping the Cratchett family, they would have been better advised to focus their time and energies upon this family rather than upon my client. The "Ghost of Christmas Past" could, perhaps in some proto-Freudian style, have taken Bob Cratchett back to his youth, to help him discover why he had become such a passive, wimpy recipient of other people’s decision-making. Then, perhaps, the "Ghost of Christmas Present" could have appeared to warn Cratchett of the dreary fate awaiting his family as a consequence of his incompetence, laziness, passivity, and psychic bankruptcy. The prospect of Tiny Tim’s death, and of his own family ending up in a dismal poor house, might have been enough to stir some semblance of ambition in this hapless lummox.

These spirits might even have offered him more positive assistance, perhaps by encouraging him to develop better marketable skills, in order that he might remove his family from the dire straits to which Cratchett seems all but indifferent. What level of paternal love is exhibited by this totally inept member of the boobeoisie, who has no more imagination or motivation on behalf of his ailing son than to sit around whining that his son will surely die unless someone else, . . . somehow, . . . at some uncertain time, shows up to bestow unearned riches upon his family? Bob Cratchett represents that growing class of mathematically challenged men and women who believe that a lottery ticket is the most realistic means of acquiring riches!

The Cratchetts are good for little more than sitting around the house spouting empty bromides and homilies, seemingly oblivious of the need to make fundamental changes in their lives. At no time in the story do we find either of the adult Cratchetts considering alternatives by which they could improve their economic condition. We do not, for instance, read of Mrs. Cratchett telling Bob – as they huddle around their rapidly-cooling fireplace – "Bob, I saw Sally Struthers on the telly today, and she was advertising for a correspondence school where you can learn all kinds of new skills. Perhaps you could study ‘charter accountancy,’ Bob, and make more money." Neither is any offer made by Mrs. Cratchett to seek employment in order to earn money that could be used to help their ailing son. Tiny Tim continually reminds them "God bless us, every one." But let us not forget that other admonition long since lost on the Cratchetts: "the Lord helps those who help themselves."

You can see that Tiny Tim is not the only cripple in this family! His parents are existentially handicapped and show no disposition to change. If there is anyone to whom an accusing finger should be pointed, here, it is not my client, but that hapless, helpless, and hopeless brood known as the Cratchetts; a weak-kneed gaggle prepared to do little more on behalf of the ailing Tiny Tim than to sit around hoping that my client will experience a transformation in consciousness sooner than will they, and that he will agree to pay the inept Bob Cratchett more money than he is worth!

Of course, any suggestion that the Cratchetts exercise independence and self-responsibility in their own affairs would run counter to the political and social agenda that Dickens, through his assorted spiritual operatives, have over such proto-proletarians. To have the Cratchetts of the world become truly self-governing and autonomous would be fatal to the socialist mindset, which requires a passive, compliant, conscript clientele, only too willing to exchange one master for another. Neither Charles Dickens – nor his intellectual heirs such as Frank Capra – could have enjoyed financial success in a world of independent, self-liberated, self-conscious, and self-directed men and women.

As we reach the end of the story, we see my client reduced to such a state of psychological terror at the prospect of his own death, that he awakens and begins throwing money out the window to a stranger in the street. In the mind of Dickens, Scrooge has now justified his existence by abandoning the rational decision-making that has made his firm successful, and adopting the mindset of a social worker who barges into the Cratchett household and begins running their lives. While Ebeneezer’s post-nightmare behavior reflects what can only be described as the most immature understanding of how wealth is both produced and exchanged in the marketplace, they also represent significant legal issues. I would suggest that a man who has been induced, by dread fear of his own death, to part with his money, has available to him the claim of duress to restore to him what was involuntarily taken from him. The basic principles of property and contract law support the conclusion that transactions entered into under duress are voidable, if not void absolutely.

Secondly, the fears generated by the aforementioned spirits have probably risen to such a level of influence upon my client’s mind that, in addition to his claims of duress, he could be said to have lacked legal capacity to exercise rational decision-making over his property. What sight could be more demonstrative of this incapacity than the spectacles of Scrooge throwing money out into the street to a stranger; bestowing gifts upon a thoroughly incompetent and ungrateful employee and his family; and giving this sluggard an unearned pay raise?

In the final analysis, this case against Ebeneezer Scrooge comes down to an emotional appeal based upon the resentment and envy that is at the core of every second-rater’s personality. Such charges as have been leveled against my client only serve to confirm, in the minds of far too many, that the success of the few is always bought at the expense of the many, and that financial wealth is only accumulated through fraud, corruption, exploitation, dishonesty, and a depraved insensitivity to human suffering. With such beliefs do the unmotivated or the unsuccessful soothe their shabby egos. "I may be poor, but at least I didn’t sacrifice my principles" is the common defense of those whose accomplishments come up short in comparison with their more prosperous neighbors. It would be unrealistic, I suppose, to have expected a different result from a collectivist such as Dickens, who had a most restrictive and depressing view of the human spirit.

Still, I cannot help proposing a settlement offer that would produce a different ending for this story. As I stated at the outset, my client has not only been stereotyped as a tight-fisted man of commerce, but he has bought into such stereotyping for his own sense of identity. Scrooge did not experience any internally-driven transformation of consciousness as a result of his encounters with the spirits. Any change that he exhibited was superficial in nature, based upon his attachment to material values: his life instead of his money. But bear in mind that Dickens, like other socialists, is an equally materialistic creature. Had Scrooge been truly transformed by these experiences, his life might have been opened up to happier and more pleasurable pursuits than can be had through the counting of either his money or the remaining days of his existence.

Like some, whose visions of a better world extend no further than transferring vast sums of their money to politically-based organizations – instead of helping to remove the barriers that restrain others from bettering their own lot – Ebeneezer could have been more beneficial to the Cratchetts in ways that money can never accomplish. Neither the Cratchetts nor any of the spirits exhibit an interest in helping Bob transform himself into a more productive person. If Ebeneezer had wanted to help his employee become less existentially crippled – instead of just making him the object of his gratuitous inclinations – he could have taken Cratchett aside and told him: "Bob, you’re a loser! At this rate, you and your family are destined for that long slide down the razor blade of life into total entropy. I recognize that the nature of our relationship helped to condition you into becoming the mess you are now. But what will your future be like when I and my generosity are not around to sustain you? Let me help you by providing some lessons in advanced accounting practices, so that you can become marginally more productive to me and, in the process, help you earn more money. This is the industrial revolution, Bob, and opportunities have never been greater for anyone with a creative idea. Why don’t you get one? Even a boob like you might get rich in this setting."

Still, I doubt that Bob Cratchett would get the message. I suspect that he would still cling to his tin-cup lifestyle, preferring to trade upon our sympathies rather than develop creative talents; never to experience the joy of existential equality and dignity that comes from being a producer of goods and services that other people value. Sympathy should take us only so far, and never become a substitute for the self-respect that comes from being in control of one’s life. Tiny Tim may, it is hoped, rid himself of his crutch: I have my doubts about Bob Cratchett doing so.

At some point, we need to show some appropriate respect for the forces of natural selection that have long directed the life process. We ought to learn from the rest of nature: either we make ourselves capable of adapting to an ever-changing world – by improving the skills or other learning with which we act upon the world – or we prepare to die. Dickens’ approach, like the underlying methodology of the welfare state, does nothing to provide long-term help for the Cratchetts of the world. Scrooge’s unearned generosity will not only increase his costs of doing business – thus increasing the likelihood of his own business failure – but, upon his bankruptcy or eventual death, will leave Cratchett in the position of having to find a new host upon which to attach himself for the remainder of his parasitic life.

In spite of all this, there may yet be some hope for Tiny Tim to escape from the limited future implicit in the restricted imagination of Charles Dickens. Tim may have some potential, if only he can be freed from this family of whining misfits. If he is not rescued, but manages to survive only as a result of the shakedown perpetrated upon my client, his future may be a bleak one. He may even end up confined to a "bleak house," or, worse still, spend his adult years in the spiritually drearier position of being an executive director of some political action group designed to mobilize other social misfits, yawlers, and existentially bankrupt men and women.

As part of a settlement offer, my client would consider adopting Tiny Tim – should his parents agree – and cut loose the rest of the Cratchett family to continue their mindless, unfocused, dispirited, and passive bottom-feeding in the shallow and stagnant end of the human gene pool. But let us have no more of these "drive-by" specters from the netherworld, who feign their concern for crippled children. Like other opportunistic parasites who tell us that they "feel our pain" even as they are causing us more pain, let us have no more of the self-serving guilt-peddling that keeps men and women subservient to those who threaten to cut off their dependencies.

Tiny Tim is young enough to be given the benefit of the doubt as to his future. As for the other members of the Cratchett family, let us allow the evolutionary processes of nature to dispose of these nonadaptive, nonresilient, nonambitious leeches who exhibit not the least sense of intelligence or creativity in the plight of one of their own, for whom they exhibit only superficial concern.

The claim against my client is without substance, and should be dismissed with prejudice. It is the industrial revolution’s version of a scapegoating action, grounded more in bigotry than in fact or reason. In the end, I can offer no better answer to such charges than those provided by my client himself: "bah, humbug!"

The defense rests.

December 13, 2004

Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Heinlein

Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love

Who Owns the Fed?

by Bill Woolsey

The Federal Reserve System prints $100 bills at a cost of 6¢. So who pockets the $99.94 profit?

It was in the late eighties. I was a new faculty member at The Citadel, teaching Money and Banking. A memo was in my box. There was a phone number and a note that someone had questions about the Federal Reserve.

Being dutiful (and not tenured), I returned the call. A man answered. I said that I was from The Citadel and understood that he had some questions about the Fed. An interrogation then began.

Bill Woolsey teaches economics at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C.

"Isn't it true," he demanded, "that the Federal Reserve pays the Treasury three cents for each dollar bill printed?" I replied that this was pretty much true.

He continued, "Isn't it true that the Federal Reserve lends this money to ordinary banks and charges 3% interest?" I noted that while the discount rate was currently at 3%, it has sometimes been higher or lower. I added that the Fed doesn't really lend out currency directly and that these Federal reserve advances aren't very important. He interrupted, "Is it true or not?" I said, "Pretty much so."

His next question was a bit different. He asked, "Isn't it true that the Federal Reserve is privately owned?" I agreed that it was, "kind of."

The rest came out in a bit of a rush. "So, isn't it true that, for every dollar printed, the Federal Reserve covers the three cent cost of printing the currency with the interest and so makes a one dollar profit for the owners. And that's how the international bankers get their money to rule the world."

I said that no, that wasn't true, but I had no quick and easy explanation. And my conspiracy theorist wasn't interested in anything other than a confirmation of the first three premises. His logical deduction of a one dollar profit and his alleged bankers' conspiracy weren't things he needed to have confirmed.

The government prints money and spends it. The result is price inflation, which is often blamed on the greed of businessmen.

I had never heard anything like it. Now, don't get me wrong. I have been a libertarian since I was a teenager in the mid-'70s. The notion that the Federal Reserve, as an engine of inflation, was nefarious seemed natural. It was just this particular approach to the evils of the Fed that was new to me.

Soon after, a former student visited and asked me about Pat Robertson's discussion of the Federal Reserve in his book "The New World Order."1 As my student relayed the story, the Fed pays three cents for each dollar, lends it out at 3% interest and so on. Another student reported on a story about a Washington call girl. She claimed that all the politicians had credit cards. Where did they get the money? The Fed pays three cents per dollar bill and so on. A year later, at a local Libertarian Party meeting, a newcomer was distributing issues of The Spotlight, a publication of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby. Among the articles about the dual loyalists in the State department was one about the Fed. It pays three cents per dollar bill, lends it out at 3% interest, and so on. This time, however, it was the international Jewish bankers making all the profit.

A Google search on the Federal Reserve and ownership will generate several hundred thousand hits, many of which allege that the private owners of the Fed are making huge profits from the issue of currency. There are quite a few links to sites that specifically debunk the conspiracy theory. Some links are to Federal Reserve sites that describe the system's ownership structure.

The conventional wisdom among libertarian economists is that central banking is the modern means by which governments continue their traditional policy of debasement — using inflation as a means of public finance. The government prints money and spends it. The result is price inflation, which is often blamed on the greed of businessmen who actually set the prices. Could economists be wrong? So I did some research.

The conspiracy theorists have a point regarding the ownership of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve system is made up of twelve Federal Reserve banks. According to the Atlanta Federal Reserve bank, "They were to be quasi-private bankers' banks, owned by the member banks, which would buy all the stock of the Reserve Banks and receive dividends for it."2

It is impossible for the shareholders of Federal Reserve banks to earn capital gains or suffer capital losses on their stock.

Any Principles of Economics or Money and Banking text describes the situation, usually in similarly ambiguous terms. Baumol and Blinder state, "Technically, each Federal Reserve bank is a corporation; its stockholders are its member banks."3 Mishkin explains, "Each of the Federal Reserve banks is a quasi-public (part private, part government) institution owned by the private commercial banks in the district that are members of the Federal Reserve system."4

The courts have taken notice of the Fed's peculiar status. In the 1982 case, Lewis v. United States (see "The Lewis Decision"), the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals opined, "Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Torts Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." On the other hand, the opinion notes, "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes."5

Apparently, there is something unusual about the status of these Federal Reserve banks. Some libertarian economists describe claims about the "private" nature of the Fed with an attitude of "if only." In the context of a proposal to privatize the Federal Reserve banks, Richard Timberlake explains that "The member commercial banks already 'own' the twelve Fed banks," but adds that, "they have no property rights."6 Murray Rothbard notes that "[c]entral banks are often nominally owned by private individuals or, as in the United States, jointly by private banks, but they are always directed by government-appointed officials, and serve as arms of the government."7

According to the Federal Reserve Act, a Federal Reserve bank is a special type of corporation chartered by the Federal government.8 Shortly after the act was passed, the United States was divided into twelve districts and a Federal Reserve bank was organized in each district.9 National banks (private commercial banks chartered by the Federal government) were forced to join the Federal Reserve system. State chartered banks could join if they chose, though most did not.10 Any newly chartered national bank must still join the system and existing or new state chartered banks can still choose to join.

One requirement of membership was for a bank to purchase stock in its district Federal Reserve bank. The amount purchased was fixed by the Act. Each member bank must purchase stock equal to 3% of its capital.11

While the Fed no longer pays off Federal Reserve notes with anything, it continues to account for them as liabilities.

Take a bank's total assets — vault cash, loans, investments, building, and equipment. Then subtract its liabilities — checking accounts, savings accounts, bonds. The difference is the bank's capital, which, in banking lingo, is another term for net worth. Multiply by 3% and that is the dollar value of the Federal Reserve stock a bank must hold.

The par value of the Federal Reserve stock was fixed by the Act at $100 per share.12 As a bank's net worth changes and deviates from the 3% requirement, its Federal Reserve bank issues it new shares or buys back excess shares — always at the $100 par value. If any bank joins the system, its district Federal Reserve bank issues new shares. If any member bank fails, its district Federal Reserve bank pays off the shares.

The Federal Reserve Act contained a provision for selling shares to the general public or even to the U.S. Treasury if necessary to meet a minimum capitalization for each district bank. These provisions weren't needed, and so all shares are held by member banks.13

All member banks are U.S. chartered banks — chartered by the federal government as national banks, or by one of the states. However, the stockholders of the various banks can be U.S. citizens or foreigners.

So, private investors, including foreigners, own the member banks which in turn seem to own Federal Reserve banks. That is the element of truth in the conspiracy theory.

The member banks' "ownership" of the Fed is consistently described as "quasi," technical, or nominal. The key reason is that owning stock in a Federal Reserve bank does not provide the usual benefits of stock ownership.

In 2003, the total dividends to the member banks were $518 million. That amounts to .02% of government spending.

One of the key benefits of the corporate form of business relative to partnerships is that the owners can sell part or all of their interest in a business by selling some or all of their shares. But Federal Reserve banks aren't like ordinary corporations. Aside from the transactions with their Federal Reserve banks to maintain the 3% ratio to capital, the member banks cannot buy additional shares or sell off their shares. They cannot pledge the shares as collateral for loans.14

Most investors purchase stock to earn capital gains, in the hope that it will increase in value. There is no market for Federal Reserve stock — its price remains at the par value of $100. It is impossible for the shareholders of Federal Reserve banks to earn capital gains or suffer capital losses on their stock.

Of course, stockholders in ordinary corporations can also hope for dividends. As the owners of the business, all profits belong to them. In most corporations, the board of directors decides if and when to pay dividends on common stock. But the Federal Reserve banks are different. The Federal Reserve Act fixes dividends at 6% per year.15 That is $6 per year per $100 share. Any additional earnings go to the U.S. Treasury.

If an ordinary corporation is liquidated, any remaining assets belong to the stockholders. But that isn't the situation with the Federal Reserve banks. If the Federal Reserve is liquidated, the member banks get back their $100 per share and pending dividends and anything left over goes to the U.S. Treasury.16

Stockholders generally vote for their corporation's board of directors, and that is true of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve banks. But there are some very unusual voting rules. Usually, stockholders vote their shares, so that the largest stockholders get the most votes. Each member bank, however, gets just one vote regardless of the number of shares it owns in its Federal Reserve bank.17

Each Federal Reserve bank has nine board members. They are divided into three groups. There are three Class A directors, three Class B directors, and three Class C directors.18

The politicians control the Fed in the same sense that they control the judiciary.

The Class A directors can be involved in the banking industry and usually are. The member banks are divided into three groups — large, medium, and small banks. While this is measured by their stockholdings, stock holding is proportional to net worth, which is closely associated with total bank size. The large banks elect one Class A director, the medium-sized banks elect another, and the small banks elect the third.19

Class B directors are elected in much the same way, except that none of them can be bank employees or stockholders. Each member bank gets one vote and the large, medium, and small banks elect one director each.

Class C directors cannot be involved in the banking industry either, but they aren't chosen by the stockholders. They are instead appointed by the Board of Governors in Washington D.C.20

To sum up, the stockholders of each Federal Reserve Bank elect two-thirds of its board of directors. They don't vote by shares, but rather each bank gets one vote. Bank size does influence voting, however, with large, medium, and small banks getting two directors each — one banker and one nonbanker.

For most corporations, the board of directors selected by the stockholders is free to choose top management. While the board of directors of each Federal Reserve bank chooses its president, that decision is subject to approval by the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C.21

There are seven members of the Board of Governors and they are appointed by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. They are appointed for 14-year terms. The chairman is appointed by the president with approval by the Senate for a four-year term.22 The current chairman is Alan Greenspan.

The Board of Governors is clearly a federal government agency. Its members have substantial independence from the president and Congress because of their long terms — less than federal judges, but more than those serving on most federal regulatory commissions.

The Board of Governors dominates the twelve Federal Reserve banks. Not only does it appoint one-third of their boards of directors, it has an effective veto power over the selection of the twelve Federal Reserve bank presidents.

The Federal Reserve Act authorized the board of directors of each Federal Reserve bank to set its own discount rate in consultation with the Board of Governors. This was the interest rate at which Federal Reserve banks made loans (called advances) to member banks.23 While some of those supporting the Federal Reserve Act thought that there would be different discount rates across the United States depending on local conditions, the consultation process with the board of governors resulted in the twelve boards of directors setting a uniform discount rate.24 During the Great Depression, the Banking Act of 1933 changed consultation to a requirement that Federal Reserve banks obtain Board of Governors approval for their discount rates.25 There continued to be a single discount rate for the Federal Reserve system, though it was routinely approved by each Federal Reserve Bank's board of directors.

There are any number of ways in which regulations associated with the Federal Reserve system impose unjustified costs on banks.

In 2003, the Fed changed its lending policy. Today, any financially sound bank (member or not) can obtain loans from its district Federal Reserve bank at the primary credit rate. It is set at 1% above the Federal Funds rate.26 Since the Federal Funds rate is the interest rate at which banks borrow from and lend to other banks for overnight loans, there is little motivation to borrow from the Fed. Financially troubled banks can obtain loans at the secondary credit rate. That rate is set at .5% above the Federal Funds rate and entails added supervision.27 Given this new policy, the "power" of the board of directors of a Federal Reserve bank to set the discount rate has become a dead letter.

While the Federal Reserve Act implies that lending at the discount rate would be the key element of monetary policy, that approach was long ago superseded by open market operations. Open market operations are the purchase or sale of government bonds by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee directs open market operations. It is made up of the seven members of the Board of Governors and five Federal Reserve Bank presidents. The president of the New York Federal Reserve always serves and the other four slots rotate among the other eleven Federal Reserve bank presidents.28

The committee sets a target for the Federal Funds rate.29 The open market trading desk at the New York Federal Reserve buys or sells government bonds. Generally, they purchase them at either a faster or slower rate so that surpluses or shortages of funds in the market cause private traders to agree to interest rates on overnight loans close to the target.

When the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee sets its target for the Federal Funds rate, it is also determining the primary and secondary credit rates for loans by the Federal Reserve banks. Today, monetary policy is controlled entirely by the Open Market Committee.

The politicians appoint the Board of Governors, which makes up seven of the twelve members of the committee. That same Board of Governors appoints one-third of the boards of directors, which select the Federal Reserve bank Presidents that make up the remaining five-twelfths of the committee. And the Board of Governors has an effective veto over the selection of Federal Reserve bank presidents.

Because of the 14-year terms for the members of the Board of Governors, today's monetary policy mostly depends on the appointments made by politicians in the past. Short of rewriting the Federal Reserve Act, appointments by today's politicians will only gradually effect future monetary policy. That is why the Federal Reserve System is described as an independent agency within the federal government.

For the Fed, final authority is in the hands of the politicians.

Many of the conspiracy theories claim that the private owners of the Fed are making large profits from the issue of currency — Federal Reserve notes. The twelve Federal Reserve banks are responsible for issuing Federal Reserve notes, but they don't print currency themselves. They pay the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, a division of the U.S. Treasury, for the service. Estimates for the amount the Fed pays for printing each note vary from 2 cents to 6 cents. In 2003, about 8 billion notes were printed. The Fed purchased currency with a face value of $143 billion30 and then paid the U.S. Treasury $508 million.31 That amounts to about 6 cents per note and .3 cents per dollar printed.

It is like having copies made at Kinko's, and even more like the cost of printing checks. The printing cost doesn't have much to do with the amount the checks will be worth when they are written and spent.

While paying less than one cent per dollar issued sounds profitable, the Federal Reserve Banks do not treat this as profit. The Fed accounts for Federal Reserve notes as a liability — a debt of a Federal Reserve bank.32

When the Fed was formed, the United States was on a gold standard and the Fed was obligated to pay off Federal Reserve notes on demand with lawful U.S. money — mostly gold coins and gold certificates. While the Fed no longer pays off Federal Reserve notes with anything, it continues to account for them as liabilities.

After the Fed has currency printed and before it is issued, it is just paper — like a blank check. When the currency is issued to banks or ends up in the hands of other firms or households, it becomes a liability for the Fed. When the currency is deposited by a bank back into the Fed, it is again meaningless paper — like a cancelled check. Unlike a used check, however, the Fed can issue out currency again.

While the Fed accounts for Federal Reserve notes as liabilities, the U.S. government guarantees them as well. If a Federal Reserve bank were to fail, then the U.S. government would pay off the outstanding currency. To protect the U.S. government from losses, it requires that Federal Reserve banks set aside U.S. government bonds or gold certificates as collateral.33 When the United States left the gold standard, there was no longer any possibility of the Fed defaulting on Federal Reserve notes, so the secondary U.S. government guarantee became meaningless. Still, the Federal Reserve banks pledge collateral for Federal Reserve notes.

The Federal Reserve doesn't directly lend currency to banks. When a bank gets an "advance" from the Fed, the Fed just makes an entry into its computer and credits the bank's deposit account. So rather than paying less than one cent per dollar for the money they lend to banks, the Fed actually pays nothing.

Of course, banks can withdraw currency from their deposit accounts at the Federal Reserve banks whenever they want. And they do so regularly, to cover currency withdrawals by their depositors and to stock ATM machines. The Federal Reserve banks have currency printed up as needed to cover withdrawals by the banks. And while the total stock of currency is usually expanding, a substantial portion of the Fed's printing cost is for new currency to replace worn currency that has been withdrawn from circulation and shredded. In 2003, the Fed increased the stock of Federal Reserve notes by $42 billion and replaced $101 billion of worn currency.34

The conspiracy theorists' claim that private owners of the Fed are making bundles of money is false.

Suppose the Fed lent money to a bank, charging 2.25% annual interest (the primary credit rate in August 2004).35 The bank might withdraw the funds and the Fed would be obligated to issue it currency which would cost .3 cents per dollar (or 6 cents per note). When the bank repaid the loan (probably the next day), the Fed would earn a tiny fraction of a cent per dollar. The returned Federal Reserve note, however, wouldn't be revenue. And the Fed could issue it out (perhaps by lending) again and again until it wears out.

Total outstanding loans by the Fed to the banks was $245 million in July 2004.36 At 2.25% interest, that would earn the Fed an income of about $5.5 million per year. But since the total amount of Federal Reserve notes is approximately $700 billion,37 it is apparent that Fed lending to banks does not play a significant role in the creation of currency.

Conspiracy theorists, like Thomas Schauf38 and Eustace Mullins,39 complain that the private owners of the Federal Reserve are profiting from the national debt. Since the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air through open market operations — purchasing government bonds — they are at least looking in the right direction.

As of July 2004, the Fed held government bonds worth $693 billion.40 Contrary to the claims by some conspiracy theorists that the entire national debt is associated with the issue of currency, the Fed's holdings are about 9% of the $7.5 trillion gross national debt.41 After subtracting securities held by various federal government trust funds, the Fed's holdings are about 15% of the remaining $4.5 trillion net national debt.42

When Fed bond holdings are added to the small amount of its lending to banks, the $11 billion gold reserve, $40 billion in holdings of foreign exchange, along with repurchase agreements, Federal Reserve bank premises, and the like, the Fed's assets cover its liabilities — Federal Reserve notes issued, the $25 billion that banks have deposited at the Fed, the government's $4 billion deposited in the Fed, and various other small items.43

Since government bonds make up the bulk of the Fed's assets, the interest from those bonds provides most of its revenue. In 2003, the Federal Reserve's total income was $24 billion, of which $22 billion came from holdings of government securities.44 While that is a substantial amount of money, the total interest expense for the U.S. government was $153 billion45 and total government spending was $2.157 trillion.46 The Federal Reserve's earnings on bonds were a bit over 14% of the government's interest expense and 1% of total government spending.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that personal income tax funds are earmarked to pay interest to the Fed, and if no such interest was paid, there would be no need for the income tax. Fed interest earnings amount to a bit over 2% of the $987 billion in personal income collections in 2003.47 Total interest payments by the government are about 15% of income tax revenues.

The chief problem with the theory that the private owners are making huge profits from the Fed is that the Fed transfers large amounts of money back to the U.S. Treasury each year. In 2003, the amount transferred was $22 billion.48 Since that is exactly how much interest the Fed earned from U.S. securities, the net cost of the Federal Reserve to the U.S. taxpayers was zero.

Zero? The conventional view among economists is that the Fed makes money for the government. How? One way to look at it is that if the Fed didn't own these government bonds, then someone else would. Those investors would not transfer their earnings back to the Treasury. By having the Federal Reserve own a portion of the national debt, the U.S. government saved $22 billion in interest expense in 2003.

Conspiracy theorists like Schauf have proposed that the government replace Federal Reserve notes with "greenbacks" — U.S. Treasury notes that bear no interest.49 They claim that this would free the government from paying interest on part (or even all) of the national debt.

If the government replaced Federal Reserve notes with that sort of currency and retired interest-bearing debt, then the government would not have paid the Federal Reserve $22 billion in interest. But neither would the Fed have transferred the $22 billion back to the Treasury. An exact match doesn't occur every year. In 2002, the Fed earned $25 billion on government bonds and transferred back only $24 billion.50

Still, that didn't create an additional $1 billion "profit" for the member banks that "own" the Federal Reserve. The member banks make six cents on each dollar they are forced to have invested in the Federal Reserve system. In 2003, the total dividends to the member banks were $518 million.51 That amounts to .02% of U.S. government spending. It amounts to about .5% of the $100 billion in total commercial bank earnings.52

The rough equivalence between the interest the Fed earns from the government and the amount it transfers to the U.S. Treasury causes most economists to see these financing issues as a shell game. Since nearly all the interest paid on debt sold to the Fed is transferred back to the U.S. Treasury, there isn't really any interest paid. The government uses the Fed to partly finance its deficit by creating money and spending it. The end result is no different than if the U.S. Treasury just printed up "greenbacks" and spent them. The process is just a bit more "efficient" than the ancient practice of melting down silver coins and mixing in lead. Most economists would argue that the Fed created $36 billion for the government in 2003.53 That is the change in the monetary base (currency and reserves) less the expenses of operating the Federal Reserve system.

Do shady international bankers control the Federal Reserve? Perhaps, but not because they "own" the Federal Reserve system. The politicians have control, in the same sense that they control the federal judiciary. Government appointees make up the majority of the Open Market Committee and those same appointees have an effective veto in selecting the Federal Reserve presidents who make up the remainder of the body. Further, they appoint one-third of each Federal Reserve bank's board of directors, which in turn choose those presidents.

However, if one begins with an understanding that the Fed is fundamentally a political operation, then it is unusual in that bankers have an extra avenue of influence. Like everyone else, they can vote, lobby, and make campaign contributions and so influence the politicians. Unlike everyone else, they can own shares of stock in member banks that "own" the Federal Reserve banks and so influence directors, Federal Reserve bank presidents, and the Open Market Committee.

Do shady international bankers make large profits from the Federal Reserve? It depends on what is meant by "large." Since there is little or no risk in stock whose value remains at par, and the interest rate earned by the Fed on its government securities portfolio is closer to 3% than the 6% dividend, perhaps a substantial cut in payments to the member banks is in order. If the dividend rate were reduced to reflect the current return on the Fed's portfolio, the taxpayers could save as much as $250 million a year in financing the national debt.

However, this potential gain depends on the low levels of interest rates for the last few years. Since 1960, the rate on Treasury bills has been greater than 6% almost 40% of the time. It was consistently above 6% from the fall of 1977 to the summer of 1986. When the T-bill rate peaked at 15% in March of 1980, the Fed was earning substantially more on its security portfolio than the dividend rate it was paying the member banks.54

Further, from a libertarian perspective, there are any number of ways in which regulations associated with the Federal Reserve system impose unjustified costs on banks. Reserve requirements force banks to tie up more funds than they believe necessary in vault cash and Federal Reserve deposits. The banks earn less interest and the Fed and the U.S. Treasury collect roughly what the banks lose. More importantly, by taking away the right of banks to issue redeemable, dollar-denominated banknotes, the Fed's compulsory monopoly on currency issue reduces bank earnings by tens of billions of dollars. How a competitive banking system would distribute those funds between bank stockholders and customers is difficult to predict, but there is a cost to having the government finance its budget deficits by issuing currency.

Who owns the Fed? The owners of a business typically have ultimate authority over operations and serve as residual claimant. Stockholders elect directors, who appoint top management. Stockholders receive the profits — excess revenues after all other claims on funds are paid.

For the Fed, final authority is in the hands of the politicians. They appoint the Board of Governors, who dominate the Federal Reserve banks. Further, any earnings of the Federal Reserve banks beyond expenses, including the 6% dividend to the member banks, goes to the U.S. Treasury. Since the U.S. government has final authority and serves as residual claimant, the most reasonable view is that the Federal Reserve system is government-owned.

The conspiracy theorists' claim that private owners of the Fed are making bundles of money is false. The conventional view among economists (including libertarian ones) that the Fed is a government operation that partially finances fiscal deficits by money creation is fundamentally correct. The live question among libertarians is how to get the government out of the banking system — perhaps by truly privatizing the Fed's operations — in a way that prevents inflation and macroeconomic instability.

Footnotes

1. Pat Robertson, "The New World Order," (G.K. Hall and Co., 1992), pp. 171–85
2. Richard Gamble, "A History of the Atlanta Federal Reserve 1914–1989," (Atlanta Federal Reserve, 1989), http://www.frbatlanta.org/publ.cfm
3. William Baumol and Alan Blinder, "Principles of Macroeconomics," (Tomson-Southwestern, 2004), p. 225
4. Frederic S. Mishkin, "The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets," (Pearson-Addison-Wesley, 2004) p. 338
5. Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
6. Richard Timberlake, "Monetary Policy in the United States," (The University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 417
7. Murray N. Rothbard, "What has the Government Done to Our Money?" (The Mises Institute, 1980), http://www.mises.org/money/3s8.asp
8. United States Code, Title 12, Chap. 3, SubChap. IX, Sec. 341
9. Ibid., Subchap. I, Sec. 222
10. Ibid., Subchap. XIII, Sec. 321
11. Ibid., Subchap. XI, Sec. 282
12. Ibid., Sec. 287
13. The Federal Reserve Act, Sec. 2, 8–13, http://www.federalreserve.gov/GeneralInfo/fract/sect02.htm
14. United States Code, op. cit., Subchap. XI, Sec. 287
15. Ibid., Sec. 289
16. Ibid., Sec. 290
17. United States Code, op. cit., Subchap. XII, Sec. 304
18. Ibid., Sec. 302
19. Ibid., Sec. 304
20. Ibid., Sec. 305
21. U.S. Code, op. cit., Subchap. IX, Sec. 341
22. U.S. Code, op. cit., Subchap. II, Sec. 241–2
23. U.S. Code, op. cit., Subchap. IX, Sec. 347
24. Richard Timberlake, "Money, Banking, and Central Banking" (Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 189–90. This was not always the case. In its early years, the Fed's different banks did have different rates. See p. 213 of "Monetary History of the United States" by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz.
25. U.S. Code, op. cit., Subchap. IX, sec. 347
26. The Federal Reserve Discount Window, http://www.frbdiscountwindow.org
27. Ibid.
28. U.S. Code, op. cit., Subchap. IV, Sec. 263
29. The Federal Reserve Board, http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm
30. Bureau of Printing and Engraving, http://www.moneyfactory.com/section.cfm/2/51
31. 90th Annual Report, (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, 2003), p. 129
32. Ibid., p. 129
33. U.S. Code, op. cit., Subchap. VII, sec. 411–12
34. 90th Annual Report, op. cit., p. 279
35. Economic Data, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MPCREDIT/118
36. Economic Data, op. cit., http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW/45
37. 90th Annual Report, op. cit., p. 260
38. Thomas Schauf, "The Federal Reserve is Privately Owned," http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm
39. Eustace Mullins, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve," (Bankers Research Institute, 1984), p. 164
40. Economic Data, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN/5
41. Ibid.
42. Economic Data, op. cit., http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBATN/5
43. Factors Affecting Reserve Balances, (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,, Aug. 2004), http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/
44. 90th Annual Report, op. cit., p. 270
45. Economic Data, op. cit., http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYOINT/5
46. Economic Data, op. cit., http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONET/5
47. Tax Stats at a Glance (Internal Revenue Service, 2003) http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html
48. 90th Annual Report, op. cit., p. 129
49. Schauf, op. cit.
50. 90th Annual Report, op. cit., p. 125–6
51. Ibid., p.129
52. Governor Mark Olson, (Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors, 1983), http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040301/default.htm
53. Economic Data, op. cit., http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOGUMBNS/45
54. Economic Data, op. cit., http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TB6MS/116

Admiral Kimmel: Another Victim of the State

And this time, it is one of "their own". It is old news that Pearl Harbor was a set-up in some form and to some degree-Admiral Kimel is one of two men who took the fall-or had blame thrust upon him anyway.

I've said it before, I'll say again now: Fuck the State. Besides, anybody with a beef against Roosevelt is a step in the right direction.

Help me Jebus!

Just when I think the christophiles have run out of ways to prove that modern Christianity has lost its mind, they pull a new trick out of their...hat.

Last night was the beginning of Chanukah and one of my friends was making latkes in celebration. He was running short on mix and joked that he needed another Chanukah miracle. Then he paused and mused that this was difference between Jes and Christians...Jews just pray for some more food and a candle, the Christians? The gotta have a whole person!

Bibleman *Incidentally, Bibleman is not the miracle (just making sure there's no confusion)

Cowen on Hollywood

Why Hollywood Rules the World, and Whether We Should Care

Molon Labe!

Excellent 2nd Amendment Site

The Stentorian: Second Amendment Site

One Step Closer to Independence

As we become more proficient at space exploration and long-distance surveying we get ever closer to finding the new frontier and thus the means of escaping the State.

Cassini-Huygens: Multimedia-Images

What is it good for?

Apparently killing people and producing a future generation of one-legged/one-armed insurgents.'

Fallujah in Pictures

Fractals Explained

These two articles do a wonderful job of simplifying the basic math of fractals.

Fractals & the Fractal Dimension

Fractal Dimension

Two posts in one

The Longbottom Leaf

Japan, media still deny Nanking massacre

BY ADAM GAMBLE AND TAKESATO WATANABE

Here's something compelling to think about on Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7:

Last month on Veterans Day, the world learned of the tragic death, apparently by suicide, of Iris Chang, the youthful American author of Chinese descent who wrote the 1997 best-selling history The Rape of Nanking. Chang's book did more than any other work to reveal the facts of the 1937-38 Nanking massacre in which the Japanese Empire raped untold thousands and murdered perhaps as many as 300,000 unarmed Chinese civilians and soldiers. Many in Japan still officially deny the massacre took place despite historical evidence and eyewitness accounts establishing it as unimpeachable fact. Outcry among them succeeded in derailing a Japanese edition of Chang's book.

Intolerably, official denials of the massacre continue to this day among Japanese government officials and media editors. The same day news of Chang's death broke, the Japanese publisher Shueisha Inc. said that it would bow down to conservative Japanese politicians by censoring material about the massacre in one of its magazines.

Here's something compelling to think about on Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7:

Last month on Veterans Day, the world learned of the tragic death, apparently by suicide, of Iris Chang, the youthful American author of Chinese descent who wrote the 1997 best-selling history The Rape of Nanking. Chang's book did more than any other work to reveal the facts of the 1937-38 Nanking massacre in which the Japanese Empire raped untold thousands and murdered perhaps as many as 300,000 unarmed Chinese civilians and soldiers. Many in Japan still officially deny the massacre took place despite historical evidence and eyewitness accounts establishing it as unimpeachable fact. Outcry among them succeeded in derailing a Japanese edition of Chang's book.

Intolerably, official denials of the massacre continue to this day among Japanese government officials and media editors. The same day news of Chang's death broke, the Japanese publisher Shueisha Inc. said that it would bow down to conservative Japanese politicians by censoring material about the massacre in one of its magazines.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Where To From Here? by Ron Paul

Caveat: Suffice it to say that Rep. Paul and I do not see eye-to-eye on all issues. Fore example, I find his anti-abortion stance illiberal and indicative of the State-ness of the Church; both are truly happy to use force to ensure compliance with, or at least lip-service to, the mono-dogma.