Friday, October 29, 2004

Bill Jones & Bill O'Reilly

Lecture Notes: 10-28-04

But your fees are not included in the tuition.

Counselor: No, of course not.

Well I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding ---

Counselor: . . . You are on.

Yes! Welcome back to New Ruskin. Welcome. . . . uh, let’s clarify a few points. Some College visitors have asked if we meant to imply that Mr. Jones the putative Republican candidate for U. S. Senate had thrown the election in order to secure the continued support of Marin Senators Boxer and Feinstein for his state mandated “ethanol?”

No certainly not. We did not mean to imply that. We meant to categorically affirm it.

Earlier in the campaign Mr. Jones made a point of letting everyone know that he had funded his campaign with $2 million of his own money. (He is said to be worth $14 million.) Recently he let it be known that, due to business difficulties, he is illiquid and not able to fulfill his promises to make available to his campaign the financial resources which he had previously represented to the Republican Party of California would be spent on advertising. In other words he reneged on the promise to fund the campaign.

Let me be clear. If I had $2 million I would not spend it on a campaign for Senate, so I do not condemn Mr. Jones for prudence. I condemn him for being a liar.

Mr. Jones represented to the Party that he would use some of his own money. He made a promise and now says he will not keep the promise. There are others who would have been willing to fund their own campaigns had Mr. Jones not made his misrepresentations. Mrs. Jack Swanson has reported (on KSFO AM) that Mr. Jones has collected back from the contributions made to his campaign, by others, the $2 million he had previously “given.” He lied even about the original funding of the campaign.

I submit for your consideration that Mr. Jones knew from the beginning that it would be better for his “ethanol” plant to have the Marin Senator Boxer returned to office; that he deliberately failed to campaign, failing even to use the free media; ignoring issues, ignoring opportunities, deliberately sabotaging the Republican Party; all in furtherance of a collusive agreement with the Democrats to fix the Federal election for Boxer; and all of this in return for the continued support of the Democrats for Mr. Jones’ “ethanol” plant.

Our Governor has again said that another candidate for public office, Poizner, (who is spending $8 million for a State Assembly seat), is so rich that “he can not be bought.” It will be recalled that the Governor had previously said the same thing about himself. Further recall that, at the time, we reminded the College visitor of G. K. Chesterton’s point that, “A politician who claims that he is too rich to be bought is a fool, for he fails to perceive that he has already been bought.”

Let us offer the Governor, Mr. Jones as an example of just such a rich man as G. K. Chesterton describes. The problem with the Governor’s thesis is that it assumes that a man who has $14 millions is “above” mortal cares. For one thing Mr. Jones, like so many others, having arrived at $14 millions now wants $15 or $20 millions. Then too there is “insurance.” With so much of his capital sunk in the “ethanol” plant, (he did say he was illiquid), Mr. Jones far from being care free has a great many cares, a lot of them tied up, along with his millions, in his “ethanol” plant, which depends on state mandates as no consumer will voluntarily pay for the product of Mr. Jones’ plant.

Unfortunately I doubt that even this scandal of a deliberately thrown election will cause the Governor to reconsider his position about the superior virtue and trustworthiness of the rich. As we have said so many times before, the rich are no friends of free markets. They in general prefer to use the power of the state to fix and pervert the market. Mr. Jones for example.

As we have explained, (see The Magnificent Five in the E-Mail Archives at the Moynihan), the $7.4 trillion in national debt is especially favored by the rich because this allows them to completely withdraw from the vicissitudes of the market. No late nights studying what the consumers want, or how to meet those demands, etc. When your capital is in Treasury Bonds all you need do is clip coupons and let the I.R.S. shake the money out of the people. Even though the Governor is from Austria I have never heard him mention the Austrian School of Economics. In any case the Governor does not impress me as a man given to long reflection and deep introspection.

The other point that needs clarification is the issue of Mr. O’Reilly’s news judgment. Some College visitors have suggested that he may simply have considered the story presented here at this website and deemed it not newsworthy.

Possibly so. Two networks, one intentionally interfering with a private contractual relation, the other burglarizing a notebook. Both involved in years of harassment, over a decade, interfering with employment with one employer after another, electronic eaves dropping, on and on it goes, ending in suicide ---- well, ok so maybe it isn’t news.

But now look at what has happened. I claimed that my troubles started when I wrote some letters to the Senate. I claim that because I expressed conservative Republican views I became a target here in the ultra liberal Bay Area of San Francisco.

Now, Bill O’Reilly claims that he has been targeted in an extortion attempt, by politically motivated Democrat partisans who are taking advantage of some risqué after hours talk between collaborating adults.

Just on the correspondence of the two stories, wouldn’t you think that just these similarities would prompt interest?

One guest on the O’Reilly radio show complemented him on his great insight in recognizing the importance of the Swift Boat Vets story, “from the start.” O’Reilly accepted the complement.

Yet anyone familiar with the facts knows that O’Reilly repeatedly accused the Vets of a political “smear.” That he compared them to Michael Moore. That he famously concluded the Friday broadcast by informing his radio audience that the Vet’s story was a one week event and that they will not be heard from again.

The following week he announced that he was excited to have gotten an interview with John O’Neil for his TV show the following week, i.e. two weeks after O’Reilly had announced that the story would have been over.

I had said at the time, (see Lecture Notes), that O’Reilly took the side of the elite, in this case Kerry, over the merely middle class Vets. Subsequent events suggest another reason O’Reilly may have decried the “smear” and “lies,” etc. etc. At one point he even propounded the theory that the Swift Boat Vets were not “primary sources” because they were not actually on Kerry’s boat.

They were not “primary sources” because they were not flying away down river with Kerry. They were only fishing the wounded out of the water, trying to save the damaged boat, providing first aid, etc. etc. The absurdity of this argument is self evident.

What may not be so clear is why O’Reilly repeatedly makes these “mistakes” in judgment. His first consideration is his own ego: what is best for O’Reilly? Some times he guesses wrong. For example he not only did not investigate the charges made here about Weiner he positively endorsed him, even doing promotional spots for Weiner’s show. He seems enamored of Imus too. He even used Bo Dietl, Imus’ friend, in his own case, where clearly Dietl has seriously done damage.

O’Reilly has tried to befriend the very people who now abuse him, Imus, Weiner, and Dietl, who, as I say, has actually done immeasurable harm to him. Imus even went on the air, (when O’Reilly tried to get air time after the filings in court), abusing O’Reilly publicly and ridiculing him.

So, O’Reilly, not only did not take up the story presented here about Imus and Weiner, but O’Reilly tried to befriend both of these cowardly bastards, and both have betrayed him. All his efforts backfired. But the problem starts with the fact that he does not start his analysis by trying to find out what is true, he starts his analysis by thinking what is best for O’Reilly.

Had he started with the truth, he would now have a huge story about how two powerful networks, ABC and NPR, set out to destroy a man; how Don Imus and Michael Weiner for years have burglarized, harassed, and oppressed, this man, etc. etc.

Instead we have a story about how he has harassed, etc.

So Governor, now what? Jones, O’Reilly, Imus, Weiner, Dietl, all rich men. Millionaires several times over. And yet you still propound the argument that “rich men can not be bought?” Sir? Sir? Is this what you are continuing to argue?

Sir? If you do not answer I will kill myself in protest of you too?


Then it is done. I will protest you too! Come death lead me away from these villains and fools, whores and monsters, . . . I can say no more.

Garrison Keeler Tax & Spend

Lecture Notes: 10-28-04

How do you sustain yourself?

What stories do they tell themselves? That’s what I want to know. How do they live with themselves?

Garrison Keeler, for example, at home with his young wife and child, in the kitchen, preparing the salad with the vinaigrette dressing, walnut oil, the shrimp sizzling on the fire, the wine breathing . . . what stories does he tell himself?

He likes to tell his audience, he positively gloats, that he is a “tax and spend liberal” and proud of it. This is the ‘I’m rich and can afford to pay the taxes,’ conceit. (Also Sean Hannity.) Yet, as we know, (see prior Lecture Notes), the rich, like Mr. Keeler, are not the ones who end up paying the majority of the taxes. By operation of the market all costs are redirected by market forces.

Keeler Enterprises periodically raises the fees it charges “member stations,” much of the cost being paid out of Federal subsidies, and Mr. Keeler’s bank account is replenished so that when next he goes to the market, and swipes his card, the connection is completed and he takes another feast home to his young wife.

How does he live with himself?

Answer: This is why he is a liberal.

His liberalism is a salve he applies to his guilty conscience as he slides into his seat next to his very young wife, the pasta steaming, the wine glowing in the crystal goblet.

That part of the cost of his banquet has been paid by forced payments from the poor, the bottom 75% is a fact that needn’t bother one, if one simply ignores it. Ignore also the regular price rises of Keeler Enterprises and PBS and NPR and all the price rises of all the members of the top 25%. Forget that these price rises take place against a global background of deflation, of twenty five cents an hour labor abroad, of workers literally chained to their work benches, and not just in Chinese prison factories, of illegal workers here in the USA, three million a year, working sub minimum wage for Marin Senators clearing brush, forget a world of six billion, forget all this and enjoy! Dinner is served.

This is how Garrison Keeler sustains himself. Ignorant of market operations all he knows is that his bank account pushes him ahead of need, and his “tax and spend liberalism” protects his ego, his vanity, his happy enjoyment of his young wife and her child.

Tell him that government money is being wasted he will roll his eyes under those bushy eyebrows confident that even if it was wasted, ‘What of it? It came from the rich! Me and my rich friends, why we pay the majority of the taxes!’ You see? Impenetrable.

It is a willful ignorance. And still, this is what sustains him. That the rich are merely the tax collectors of the system, that they manipulate the price mechanism to avoid taxes is, for Keeler, “only a theory” compared to the hard fact of “tax and spend liberalism.”

He prefers his lie to the truth because this is what allows him to enjoy his “rewards” in peace and comfort. This is the story he tells himself. This is how he sustains himself.

Don’t get me wrong. I am a conservative. I am not proposing socialism as an alternative. For one thing consider that the taxes collected by the rich are voluntary, for the most part. Keeler does receive some subsidies, but most rich people can only raise their prices if there are consumers who are willing to pay. The market system is one of mutual consent.

But if we could force “tax and spend liberals” to face the fact that their taxes are being redistributed by the market from those who can raise prices, people like Garrison Keeler, onto people with less ability to raise prices, for example, all those workers who must compete with the slave laborer and the illegal migrant, then these liberals might take more seriously our reports that the tax is being misspent.

Because of the complacency induced by the wine, and the “tax and spend liberal” ideology, it is difficult to redirect the attention of liberals onto what is actually being done. In Boston, New York, San Francisco, for example, three big liberal, Democrat controlled urban centers, zoning has been used by the Post Liberal elite, Mr. Keeler’s friends, to price housing out of the reach of the people.
(see paper no. 1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability next link )
#1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability
Yet because of the stories Mr. Keeler tells himself, and his audience, they are literally blind to the harm government is doing to the people. Because he tells himself as he munches on his shrimp and salad, that he wants to do good, he thinks that he actually is doing good. That his party is ruining the people, taking their meager wages from them, in taxes yes, and in prices and price increases to a greater extent, and then using the power of government to drive housing, education, medical care, etc. beyond the reach of the people, is quite literally lost on Keeler as he stretches on his couch for his nap.

Every dollar spent by government should be regarded as theft from the people. But I am a conservative not a libertarian. The charge of theft is a rebuttable presumption. For example when it was proposed that the Golden Gate Bridge should be built and that the power of the state should be used to raise the capital, (through government bonds), and competition from ferries limited, etc. the project, the proposed expenditure, might be justified if it were shown that the bridge would open up Marin County real estate thereby lowering the cost of real estate for the people of San Francisco.

And this is what the advocates of the Golden Gate Bridge propounded. The good of the people! Yet, see how the people were betrayed. No sooner had the people been conned out of their money than the rich people of San Francisco and Marin immediately set about separating the people from their bridge. Senators Boxer and Feinstein in Marin and San Francisco respectively were part of the process by which the elite down zoned both counties driving up the cost of housing and forcing the middle class and poor out, leaving the people’s bridge for the benefit of the rich.

(Shhhh! Don’t wake up Mr. Jones. He wouldn’t want to make any of these points. Let him sleep. The campaign will soon be over and he can go back to his “ethanol” plant. Boxer and Feinstein are big supporters of Mr. Jones’ “ethanol.” It is in fact a government monopoly. People would not voluntarily agree to buy Mr. Jones’ “ethanol” because of the laws of physics. (It takes more energy to make “ethanol” than it produces. It is a poor bargain where no one benefits. Well Mr. Jones benefits. Benefits as long as his “opponent” Boxer and the other Marin Senator Feinstein support the “ethanol” fraud.) Sleep Mr. Jones, sleep.)

This is the reality of the “tax and spend liberalism” which Mr. Keeler advocates. This is the dark truth he shields his guilty liberal conscience from. He knows that there is an “unfairness” in society but rather than investigate it he projects it onto the Republicans, who are the villains in the story he tells. That the “unfairness” might be more basic, that it might stem from his own perverse ideology can not be admitted by him on account of his desire for a sound nap.

Keeler has contacts at KQED and Marin, possibly with Yvonne herself. He has made many references over the years to my situation. (At one point I even considered if I was being targeted by old men with young wives: Keeler, Imus, MacLaughlin, Swanson . . . Then it came to me. I was only hearing from people who have radio microphones in front of them. And what kind of people have radio microphones? Self absorbed egotists, the kind of men who have second, third families, marrying younger and younger wives.)

What stories do the egomaniacal tell? Comforting stories. Stories full of kitsch. They are never responsible for the harm they see all around them. Imus was at first for the war but his ego found it more comfortable for him to now tell the story that he is against the war. MacLaughlin also has found more restful snoozes sustaining his ego with a new story line: such is the power of young wives.

For the longest time I could not understand O’Reilly’s lack of interest in the story of this website. Here was a chance to expose his competitors, Weiner, Imus, the whole NPR involvement, then too the chance to expose ABC, and thereby possibly push FOX into the top three, displacing ABC. A story of how powerful egotistical broadcast personalities used their power to destroy a man for no other reason than that they could. This was a story that FOX should have lusted after.

Then find out what is going on, I found out that in April, when I was protesting Imus, (see Imus Protests: April), O’Reilly was talking dirty to a girl.

Counselor: . . .

A woman. So what stories does O’Reilly tell himself. He used to bitterly complain about his Federal taxes. Now he can not beg Andrea enough to take $6 million off his hands? Instead of talking dirty to Andrea he could have been on the phone to me, developing a story about how a rival network set out to destroy me . . . could have pushed FOX into the forefront, a major story, and he is talking to Andrea, holding the phone in one hand and----

Counselor: . . .

And anyway what does he say to himself? How does he sustain himself? What stories does he tell? He could still have his $6 million; he could have helped FOX; could have done justice, why not? Bill, why? . . .

I don’t get it. And yet people will say O’Reilly he is a white male and I am a white male and add our incomes together to get the average white male income, like we are on the same team? Not only did he not take the story he has repeatedly expressed contempt for me. Argued against even general obvious points. (see Clones, 2nd edition) Same team? The rich white men even support quotas as another way to torment humanity. To hell with justice! Imus, Weiner, O’Reilly, stand for the platform of memememememe.

How do you all sustain yourselves? What stories do you tell yourselves?

I don’t understand you . . .

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Bo Dietl & Don Imus

Lecture Notes: 10-26-04

Some College visitors have expressed surprise that we should have described Bo Dietl as an amateur. (see Lecture Notes: 10-25-04)

In civil litigation! His prior experience as an “investigator” has been limited to knocking the heads of Brooklyn thugs together.

In the Mackris case Bo Dietl turned a straightforward employer-employee sexual harassment claim into a case of defamation, invasion of privacy, unauthorized release of confidential information, oppression, etc. etc.

See Bo this is what comes from having a mouth that is bigger than your brain. What do you think visitors? Would you want to hire this loud mouthed coward? Want to turn a small claim into a big one? Or a big one into an even bigger one? I think not. Not very good advertising for Bo Dietl and Asses is it.

Of course, Don Imus, on the other hand is himself a loud mouth coward so no doubt he will still hire Bo. ((see Psy Ops) One College visitor even suggested that Bo Dietl may even have used GAB Robins to eliminate some competition for Bo Dietl and Asses.)

The degenerate Don Imus today used the public air ways to issue a series of threats to unspecified victims, promising them that he would destroy their lives, warning them that he is “vicious.” This is the same way Mrs. Jack Swanson described herself when in 2002 and 2003 she was carrying the Iman’s water. (see Psy Ops) “I’m vicious,” she said of herself. Don you talk like Mrs. Jack Swanson, are you as dumb as Mrs. Jack Swanson?


Imus concluded his rant with the boast, “What are you going to do . . . hire an attorney? I’ve got the best attorneys in the country.” See how proud Imus is that the judiciary has been perverted by the rich. Also see that there is no F.C.C. to stop him from using the public airways to issue his threats.

I couldn’t understand why Imus was so upset with the F.C.C.. Even if they do issue a fine it will be paid by Viacom not Imus. Then I realized what it was. It was just the idea that someone would judge him. Just the idea that there was someone with “authority” over him. Expelled from high school. Sent to juvenile Hall. Forced into the Marine Corps. His whole life he has been acting out against “authority.” The F.C.C. represents the father figure for him. (But why? Latent homosexuality perhaps?)

Notice, conservatives, that here with Don Imus we see, the flaunting of the bling bling, the “gangsta” slang, the mouthing of the empty liberal platitudes, as symbolized by his empty headed support for John F. F. Kerry, the Post Liberal elite unabashedly presenting its true face. The wizened junkie face of Don Imus. The Post Liberal elite is here ascendant, in full possession of the powers of the state (the next President?); it fears no challenge to its power, not from the judiciary, nor the F.C.C.: those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.

full text at

Monday, October 25, 2004

St. Mackris v. O'Reilly

Lecture Notes: 10-25-04

Bad Credit

That is what Drudge splashed on Andrea Mackris. Bo Dietl had just said that he and his “investigators” were going to ruin her reputation, defame her, destroy her, undermine her credibility, and sure enough two days later Dredge had her credit report.

But here we can separate the amateur from the professional.

Do you think her credit report “improves” her case or “undermines” it?

Why did she take the calls? Why didn’t she just hang up the phone?

Remember? You have read these “points for the defense” being raised by the elite and the defenders of the elite. Paul Harvey for example.

She was his subordinate. He could have called almost any woman in the world. He chose this one. Why?

Because she was his subordinate. Because he knew she had a mountain of debt. (Two thirds of which were for student loans. But even this was presented as “high living” or “living beyond her means.” (Rose above her station did she?)) She needed the income. Needed the job in “his” organization. And what’s more he knew she needed the job. (Or does Fox not do credit checks on employees?)

And there is more. She had just returned from CNN, where she had been involved in another sexual harassment by employer situation. She was vulnerable and O’Reilly knew it.

Let us pause here and reflect on the “women of CNN.” Why did she have to deal with the harassment by the CNN superior? Or do you suppose the CNN management never sexually harassed any other female employee? Well, of course because the other “CNN women” did not stand up to the harassment. Were they so desperate for their jobs in the “media” that they would whore themselves out to management?

Or consider, why has no one at KGO-ABC come forward and given evidence about the burglary at the Colonial Motel. Rosie Allen? Want to guess? Because they too are desperate to keep their jobs. Bought and paid for. They are property of management. Corporate slaves.

So now geniuses, you tell me, (I only have 24 years experience in insurance litigation, what do I know?), but you are “J” School graduates, columnists, talk radio “personalities,” you tell me, does Ms. Mackris’ credit make her claim of duress more or less plausible?

Well of course, more plausible. Like so many others O’Reilly has confused his sex drive with his greed, his vanity, his desire for power. He admits he has “a big mouth,” by way of explanation. He derived special pleasure from not only the “phone sex,” but from the subordinate. She was the subordinate. She needed the job. He knew she had debts; and that he could force himself on his subordinate, this is what gave him the special pleasure he craved. He also knew she was involved in a prior sexual harassment situation at CNN. Would anyone believe her twice? After all she could just hang up the phone. Right? Isn’t that what you said? Genius? (Bo, this is satire, the humor lies in the fact that we all know you are a loud mouth coward, a fool. (That is why you helped Imus harasse me at GAB Robins. Because you are a coward.))

And speaking of cowards let us not forget the cowardly women at CNN and FOX. Or do you suppose that O’Reilly has not sexually harassed other subordinates at FOX?

And please remember all the cowards at KGO ABC who knew of Michael Weiner’s burglary at the Colonial Motel. And speaking of disturbed sexual deviants: remember too Michael Weiner following me to Berkeley, (see Psy Ops), and his following me to the health club and standing outside in the night, looking in windows from the darkness, (see Intel Operations), remember the electronic eaves dropping at the Colonial Motel, (see Psy Ops), and at the storage garage, (see Psy Ops); remember too Michael Weiner’s constant discussion of his homosexual desires, his love letters to Allen Ginsburg, (see Micael Savage Sucks . com); and as with O’Reilly, it was not just the sexual desire either, it was for Michael Weiner also the exercise of power --- the power to destroy another man’s life, that gave him his special pleasure.

text continues at

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Benedict P. Morelli

Benedict P. Morelli
Attorney at Law
950 Third Ave10th FloorNew York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Benedict P. Morelli;

You do not know me but you no doubt have heard of my tormenters whose oppression I have endured for over twelve years: Michael Weiner, Don Imus, Bo Dietel, and of their friend, Bill O’Reilly. It is too late for me, but I wish to help you and your client.

Bo Dietel’s “surveillance technicians” were used by Don Imus in 2003 when I worked for GAB Robins to . . . To Be Continued . . .

* * * * * * *

Number one Web Site for coverage of the number one story in Radio, as determined by Google?

Google Search Results for:

Imus, Weiner, O’Reilly:

Imus Protests April 2004... Your knowledge of what Don Imus, and Michael Weiner, and Ron ... exercise,” your “sense of truth.” For example consider when Bill O’Reilly, just before ... - 90k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Lecture Notes: April... Bill O’Reilly has advised his listeners not to be honest with even their wives ... that Mr. O’Reilly developed a close relationship with Michael Weiner, of hate ... - 47k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Hannity, Beck Savage New Ruskin College

Lecture Notes: 10-05-04 Junkie Nation III

If you can not defend America at $17.25 an hour then you can not defend America.

I was listening to Tammy Bruce discuss the Los Angeles grocery store strike. Now that she is a conservative she is uncomfortable taking up the worker’s side but she did not want to take up with management either. (The strike was over a slight increase in the portion of the health insurance costs the workers would pay. Though the amount was not large the union leadership judged it a bad precedent that the workers should be made to pay more. (Health insurance is an interesting example of where all the lies and hypocrisy of the political establishment are shown up for what they are.))

So Tammy Bruce took a middle position by pointing out that the average worker’s wage was “only” $17.25, under the contract. The wage was not in dispute in the strike, but she wanted to know, “Why would you settle for only $17.25?” She demanded of her audience, “Don’t you want anything better? Are you going to settle for that?” she mocked.

This is a line we get from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his limos and jets and mansions. The ‘How come you are not rich like us?’ challenge.

Now dears, $17.25 is slightly above the national medium. True, half the workers earn more, but also half the workers earn less. And here you have the reason why these imposters are not really conservatives, or even the “patriotic” Americans that they claim to be.

They are, with their superior ability, drive, ambition, (or was it just luck?), contemptuous of the rest. They defend the Free Enterprise System only because they have millions.

There is nothing wrong with striving. Strive! An individual can always strive to “get ahead.” Even whole societies can try to better themselves. But for all your effort you can not undo the laws of the universe. There will always be a top and a middle and sad to say a bottom. (This is why none of them will discuss the Bell Curve or even the general topic of the genetic origins of cognitive ability. They can not admit that there are limits on what can be achieved. As noted earlier, (See Clones 2nd Edition at the Max Weber Institute), it is typically American to insist that “All men are created equal,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)

In other words there will always be a medium wage. If you can not justify living in America at $17.25 an hour then you can not justify America. And saying, ‘OK, that is fine for starters but to get ahead . . . or yes, but the opportunities are really what make America great, etc. etc.’ are all merely evasions. Some individuals may rise up above the medium, but by definition there will always be a medium. (This is why Economics is a tautology.) That America can be justified for ordinary citizens living decent ordinary lives at $14 an hour, or $11.25, or $5.75, etc. would simply not occur to them. Just as admitting that the national average I. Q. is 100 seems Un-American so too “settling” for an “ordinary” job making an “average” income also seems vaguely unpatriotic.

The problem with these carnival barkers and hucksters is that their “patriotism,” their “conservatism ,” is phony. Their insistence on the “American Values,” of “success,” “achievement,” and “American optimism,” has been bought. One suspects that if they were not multi-millionaires they would not feel that “America is the greatest country in the world.”

Some of them are clearly ill at ease discussing ordinary Americans, and their ordinary concerns. Bruce’s incomprehension that half of America would not only “accept” $17.25 but would rejoice over it, revel in it, spend the weekend celebrating that they had reached a point in their lives that they could make so much, is an example. Michael Weiner found himself, (when he was still a “compassionate conservative,” before he became an “independent nationalist”), trying to defend the minimum wage. He was apparently aware that as a conservative he should be against the minimum wage but like Bruce, (both former leftists, homosexuals, looking for a niche in the radio business), he could not bring himself to oppose it.

He could only ask his conservative listeners to have “some heart.” He simply could not think through the problem on any other level. “You know, you conservatives, it is not all with your head . . .” he whined.

How might a real conservative defend the minimum wage? If you were really a conservative and not just pretending to be one to get a radio gig, you might start by recognizing that conservatives are not libertarians. We recognize that the state may have to interpose itself to restore balance in society. This is especially so when the state has interfered in society and disrupted the social balance.

Unlike libertarians we do not have religious scruples about using the power of the state. We have time and again pointed out all the ways the elites have taken over the power of the state for their own ends. They have used the state to block entry into markets, created monopolies, erected barriers to the entry into the professions, and even ordinary occupations such as beauticians, and street cart vending. Regulations have been piled up on every area of life and the tax code is annually churned just to guarantee its utter incomprehensibility. Actual traffic barriers have been erected to keep the vulgar mass out, and zoning codes guarantee the elite control over not only their property but everyone else’s property as well.

School districts are tightly regulated to make sure stray students do not cross over the boundaries that the zoning codes are indented to establish. We do not want our little darlings to go to school with the wrong sort! Still we call them “public schools.” For generations they were unequally funded not withstanding the claim of “public” and our conceits about free, open and equal, etc. etc. Even now no one would claim these “public” schools are equal and the bureaucracy and unions maintain a strangle hold to prevent innovation.

Well, one could go on, . . . suffices to say that the powerful have manifold control over all the organs of society and the combined effect is to stifle the market and limit the freedom of the people. Therefore, simply setting a minimum wage, an admittedly small counter balance, a pitifully small counter balance, is hopefully only a step to redressing the injustice wrought in the abuse of state power for the special interests of the elite.

But to make these arguments Michael Weiner would have to have genuinely thought about these social political economic issues. But Michael Weiner is a fraud. He just wanted a right wing radio niche. So he used the argument he might have used when he was wooing Ginsberg, “heart, man, you got to have heart.” He could not make these arguments because he really does not care about any of these issues. He is lost in his own “fat relentless ego.”

Alan Watts said that Americans insisted that all men are created equal because if it should turn out that they are, in fact, not equal, America will feel disappointed. They would feel humanity had let them down. As we have explained this is certainly true of Bill O’Reilly, but it is even more so true of Hannity and Beck.

Both have public humiliation days when they hold ordinary Americans up to ridicule. Hannity does a “Man on the Street Interview,” and Beck has his “Moron Jeopardy.” Both seek to demonstrate how stupid people are, with Beck usually shouting, “And these are the people who will decide the election.”

All the hosts have segments where they demonstrate the stupidity of the human race by reading the answers to questionnaires. Typically they conclude by saying, “and 20% didn’t even know that . . . etc.” High School students are a common source of amusement. Yet these repeated, boringly repeated segments all arise from the same source. They all simply refuse to accept the bell curve distribution of cognitive ability just as they reject the distribution of income.

Limbaugh has often used the teacher competency test as an example of the general stupidity of mankind. (Mr. Limbaugh has it in for schools, which he pronounces “screwools” as in “screw” the schools. He has many times explained that he acted out in school and appears never to have established a respect for, or appreciation of, learning.)

But teacher competency testing perfectly illustrates the problems that arise if one is unwilling to accept the limitations of human existence. My understanding of conservatism is that to be truly called a conservative one must firstly recognize reality, and the limitations reality imposes on the policy maker.

Question: If the teacher competency test were designed so that only the average student in the graduating college class passed the exam, how many of the teachers would have passed?

Answer: Almost none.

Why? Because teachers are all most all of them drawn from the bottom third of the graduating college class. The tests have been “dumbed down” because of this reason: you would not have any teachers if the test were more difficult.

This failure to comprehend the reality of the human situation is not limited to radio carnival barkers and hucksters. The high school diploma suffers for the same reason. The average I. Q. of 100 is not sufficient to be competitive for college. This is a fact of human existence. But the stupid American insistence that “All men are created equal,” utterly confuses the public discussion. If you prepare the students for college, 75% will fail. If you have a curriculum for the middle 50%, still 25% will fail and the top 25% will not be challenged. You need a different curriculum for the different, may I say unequal?, students, may I say human beings?

But the point I want to leave you with is this: Can you not see that the same egotism of the carnival barkers that caused them to ridicule the average wage, also causes them to ridicule the average I. Q.? 100 is the average. You need to be one full standard deviation above the mean, 115, to qualify for even being considered “marginal college material,” according to Dr. Charles Murray.

Counselor: So you were lucky?

Boy, don’t I know it ------ Yvonne!

Counselor: What?

This stuff is confidential.

Counselor: Oh, sorry.

Only 25% of the population is above 115. Again, I say, if you can not justify America for people with I. Q.s between 85 and 115, that is 50% of the population then you can not justify America. Can you not see that it is the same issue?

Whose country is this? For whom are we arranging things? The top 25% or the bottom 75%?

I know I over used this word, but you are hypocrites.

Your smarmy smirking about your own “success,” your gloating pride in your “achievement” at “this point in my life,” etc. etc. is hucksterism, because you will not recognize the reality of the situation ---- out – side – your – fing – egos.

And this is why you are not really conservatives. . . . .

full text at

Monday, October 04, 2004

Junkie Nation part II New Ruskin College

Lecture Notes: 10-04-04 Junkie Nation part II

It’s October. . . . . . . Surprise!

Does anyone speak Arabic? I’ve got 42 pages in Arabic I need translated.

Discussions of training terrorists in Palestine, Egypt, Somalia, Al Qaeda, mustard gas, anthrax, it is all there. But of course this will make no difference.

‘Everyone knew he had some contacts . . .or, yeah, anthrax and mustard gas but no . . .’

There is always some evasion or equivocation. Kerry will say, “Well like I said . . .” and there it will be. He has said everything several different ways. It is the wrong war but he would have gotten France to go in on it . . . or . . . maybe he would have gotten France to share the Oil for Food kickbacks?

But that is the thing with junkies. There is no reasoning with them. Their pills go straight to their heads, their egos, and there is no way to reach them, they will not, can not, subordinate their egos to reason. And in broadcasting there are some very large egos . . . .

Peter Jennings defends Dan Rather. He defends Rather? That is Peter Jennings of ABC. The same ABC that owns KGO. The very same KGO whose former employee, Michael Weiner, used his contacts to burglarize the Colonial Motel and steal my notebook. (see Intel Operations) He read it on ABC air for a week.

Then the following week Mrs. Jack Swanson, the wife of the station manager, Jack Swanson, an ABC station manager, spoke about the stolen notebook with Brian Wilson. Then Jim Dunbar and Ed Wygant, Ron Owens, Bernie Ward, Barbara Simpson, Gene Burns, Rosie Allen, Ted . . . Ed Baxter, all of them, all ABC employees either quoted from the stolen notebook or made references to it.

But ABC does not find anything exceptional in this. What credibility do they imagine they still have? But do not expect to reason with them; not with junkies.

So? What difference that we now have 42 pages of documents confirming what we already have documented with other sources? (see McGurk Tutorial, see Required Reading at the Moynihan)

Everyone knows what is going on, ABC Management knows what ABC employees have done, are still doing. Management is literally married to some of them!

Who cares! There will always be some excuse. That is how it is with junkies.

$2 billion in kickbacks will soon be flowing out of Florida. Will the IRS be investigating? The IRS is part of the fraud. (see The IRS and the Illegals from the North at the Moynihan) Oh, the IRS will investigate --- to make sure they get their share of the loot. Do you imagine that government is not corrupted? How do you explain the explosives on Flight 800? Do you explain it? Junkie? Why do we set legal immigration from Mexico at 170,000 a year? If we think it should be 3 million why do we not just change the law? Got a clue junkie? Why would they continue with a bridge that they knew was unsafe for 6 years? What is the kickback on $1.4 billion? Do you know junkie?

Rob Robinson, an independent insurance adjuster in the Bay Area, who worked for Frank Blaha at GAB Robins for 6 months reports that the company has a collusive relationship with contractors, one in particular, that they use on nearly all large losses, from which they receive kickbacks amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and do you think the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California will investigate? Are you naïve or stupid?

No one cares. The junkies pop some more pills . . . move on . . .

Scot Bobro trash talks claimants at Farmers day after month after year. Who cares? Do you think Farmers cares? Why? It is liability insurance. The claimants can not sue for bad faith anymore. Screw them. What if the AAA Auto Club uses felons on parole, has gang members, and gang member’s wives waiting for them to get out of San Quinton, in their claims office? You got a problem with that? Screw you too. When the former Mrs. Doctor Dean Edel, Vice President of Public Affairs of AAA, arranged for Michael Krasney to call me at AAA it was a joke. See? A joke? What can I do? And when AAA enters into an agreement with local unions to provide insurance at group rates so that the union bosses, some of whom have 20 accidents on their records, can get discounted insurance, that is part of the deal, see man? Part of the scam. Like cutting a drug, you know? Junkie? Don’t you dig the scene?

When KQED used its influence with Yvonne [deletion], the marriage counselor to betray her client just another joke. And Don Imus at State Farm using his contact with Shotgun Tom Kelly’s brother more jokes. What if I only got $16 an hour while the other adjusters got $26? Why that was part of the joke. The difference is rent. Another joke. That was 1998. And 5 years later, Don Imus used his influence again with Frank Blaha and GAB Robins, (the crooks), to harasse me again. That is even funnier. No? (see Psy Ops and Who Killed Duane Garrett? Part II)

And then there is Mrs. Imus. Sitting at the dinner table with her son. The two of them together. Alone. Where is the junkie? He is watching the debate with the sound off huffing on his treadmill. The “fat relentless ego”, the junkie, so oblivious, then explains all of this to his radio audience. Not enough that he leaves his young wife and child alone at the table, too self absorbed for even the minimal responsibility, no this junkie wants us to know that this is how he treats his wife.

Not enough for him to shame her in private. No, he must let everyone know how he treats his young wife and child. As with Michael Weiner, we have here a “fat relentless ego” that has become neurotic. But we can no longer call it abnormal.

Kerry for president of the junkie nation.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Macabre with Lee Rogers New Ruskin College

Lecture Notes: 10-03-04

One of the pleasures of Uncle Lee’s Radio Show is that you know that at 2:00 am he starts looking for the morning story. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night, at 2 or 3, and it is a comfort as I fall back to sleep to know that Uncle Lee is sitting under the single light bulb hanging from the ceiling of his kitchen, pouring over the newsprint of dozens of newspapers, searching for just that one story of the macabre.

I realize that now he sits at a computer terminal surfing the net, but I prefer to see him in one of those New Yorker cartoons, with the wife in a pyramid of curlers standing at the door, the dog on its back, little stubs of legs sticking up in the air. Searching.

And what is an Uncle Lee morning story? The classic was about the mathematics graduate student in Washington who was jilted by his girlfriend. This would be a good start for anyone’s radio show but what separates it out from the mass and elevates it to Uncle Lee’s Show is that the man decides to revenge himself, not on the girl, but on someone, chosen at random.

Uncle Lee adds to the story in the retelling by commenting on the places where it takes place in Washington as he and his co-host and the station manager, his co-host’s husband, Jack Swanson, have all just returned to the Bay Area from Washington. Uncle Lee’s recollections about the university campus, the city, the weather, add vivid details as the story of love and revenge unfolds.

The graduate student locates his victim on the university campus, walks up behind the stranger and strikes him on the head with a hammer. Oh? No, shoots him with a gun. (I am getting my mathematics graduate student murders mixed up.)

So far all of this would be standard for any morning radio show, but what qualifies it for Uncle Lee’s Show is the final twist that only Uncle Lee can provide. After a pause he adds, that the victim turns to see who, why? “Can you imagine?” Uncle Lee asks, “In his dieing moments, as the blood is gushing from his wound, he turns to see who is his attacker . . . and just before the blood flows from his brain, while he still has his last consciousness, he looks into the face of his murderer . . . to see . . . who? . . . And he does not even recognize him. Can you imagine?”

This is the final twist that only Uncle Lee would have thought to supply. (Notice that Uncle Lee has perhaps himself imagined being murdered and turning to face his attacker.) But what Uncle Lee thought most horrible, not that someone would want to kill you, well, ok, probably lots of people would like to kill Uncle Lee, this goes without saying, but can you imagine, . . . not even recognizing the guy?

That the murderer should have simply chosen the victim at random seemed monstrous to Uncle Lee. How deranged! However, I disagree with Uncle Lee.

A man who has arrived at the conclusion that he might just as well kill someone at random is a lot closer to sanity than a murderer who thinks he has a reason for killing a particular victim.

If you have arrived at this point in your reasoning, that killing is so useless that you might as well kill at random as kill anyone in particular, then you are very close to the final step in the process of seeing that there is no reason to kill anyone at all.

In seeing that there was no reason to kill his girlfriend, the murderer may well have thought that he should kill his rival, or her parents, or her friends? Teachers? Clergyman? Then there is the whole society that created the social situation, the social environment, etc. etc. At this point, seeing as how there was no logical point of starting the killing, or stopping, I think the murderer reasoned he may as well pick someone out at random.

But it is just at this point that if we could have spoken to him we could have shown that just as it is futile to determine who to kill, so it is futile to kill anyone. The murderer must have reasoned that there were billions of starting points for the patterns of thought, lines of reasoning, for the question: why did she jilt me? Since it is impossible to affix responsibility to anyone person in the vast network of possible explanations he reasoned then to just pick someone at random.

Selection on the basis of random chance is an admission of futility.

If futile why anyone at all? Why bother? Revenge?

If you see that there is no logical way to affix responsibility, that there is nothing out there, the last step is to see that there is no one inside to be revenged. Just as the girl is just part of a vast network of causality so too you are yourself similarly just a part of other vast networks of causality.

full text at

Friday, October 01, 2004

Schwarzenegger Saves $1.4 billion

Lecture Notes: 10-01-04

Because of the leadership of the State’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger the proposed bid to replace the Oakland Bay Bridge has been rejected, saving $1.4 billion on an unsafe design.

$1.4 billion was nearly lost attempting to build a cable stayed bridge to replace the Oakland Bay Bridge. The cable stayed design, where cables are not anchored at either end as in a suspension bridge, could not have withstood even a “small car bomb” according to a U. C. Berkeley Civil Engineering Professor, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who has previously consulted on the repairs of the existing bridge that was damaged in the 1989 Earthquake.(

In reporting on this story the S. F. Chronicle reporter, Michael Cabanatuan, repeatedly reported that the rejected bridge design was a “suspension” bridge instead of reporting that it was a cable stayed bridge. This failure to accurately report the story completely missed the essential point of the story.

Though the two types of bridges look similar no one has ever built a cable stayed bridge of the proposed size. The Army Corps of Engineers reported that the design did not meet the maximum foreseeable earthquake for the San Francisco region’s two (2) faults.

As we have previously reported, (see Lecture Notes September 4, 2004), Professor Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl says that the proposed design is highly vulnerable to progressive collapse. Because the cables of a cable stayed bridge do not carry the load to anchors at either end of the bridge, as in a normal suspension bridge, they can not carry the load of the bridge if the road deck should be damaged by even a “small car bomb.”

The key to this story is that the design, the cable stayed or self anchoring design, is highly vulnerable to collapse if the bridge’s geometry should be damaged by an earthquake or even a “small car bomb.”

However, the Chronicle reporter wrote, “McPeak [ head of the Business, Transportation & Housing Agency] said the bridge experts are certain a cable-stayed bridge -- a fairly common design -- can be constructed not only cheaper but faster than a single-tower suspension span.” But the proposed design is a cable stayed bridge that uses a single tower. The whole point of the story is lost on the reporter. And therefore the readers will not learn the truth of the problem. And therefore the corrupt Post Liberal Bay Area elite that has taken control of the levers of power can continue their misrule, their corrupt rule. This is progressive collapse of our social institutions.

And this is the consequence of the corruption of our society: The Chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a Marin County Supervisor, Steve Kinsey, has known of the proposed design’s vulnerabilities since at least 1998. Yet when he was told that the Governor had rejected the bid claimed “rebidding the bridge puts the public in greater danger.”

Here you have this liar, Kinsey, this corrupt Bay Area politico, who knew that the design was unsafe, highly vulnerable to earthquake and terrorist damage, since 1998, accusing the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of putting “the public in greater danger.”
What words can we say? Hypocrisy? Mendacity?

full text at

Junkie Nation New Ruskin College

Lecture Notes: 09-30-04 Junkie Nation

It may have occurred to some since our last lecture (see Lecture Notes 09-25-04), that, if it is true that there is no such thing as “progressive taxation,” then is there never to be social justice? Is there no way to right the scales of inequity and alleviate human suffering? Is there nothing that can be done?

Well, of course dears, yes, there is much that can and ought to be done, but first answer why you think the place to have started was taxation? Of all the starting places why would you think we should begin with taxes?

Is it not because you want to take from the rich? Don’t you start your analysis with taxation because of social vengeance? ‘They have too much.’ ‘Capital is theft?’ Or, ‘Take from the rich and give to the poor.’ Robin Hood? You think: ‘The poor are poor because the rich have too much?’

However, once you have agreed to forgo wage and price controls, (and you should agree), then you have agreed to leave people with their property. Leaving people with their property, seeing as how there is inequality among their abilities, then you have agreed that there should be inequality of property. You will never be able to create equality among them, certainly not by taxation.

Now you have been deluded about the idea of “progressive taxation” for many reasons; because you believe in an objective structure of the world, because you have been lied to about these matters for generations, because of, what Ludwig von Mises called, the fallacy of the evenly rotating economy, for many reasons you have been mislead, but mainly you want to take from the rich and give to the poor because, more than wanting to help the poor, you want to hurt the rich.

But once again, I say, that if you do not impose wage and price controls, unless you take their property, your “progressive taxation” will simply be redistributed by the market.

The rich are rich, they have been moved to the front, because the consumers demand their products and services. As long as they are allowed to work out these relations among themselves, the rich will retain there position in front, in high demand, and every other supplier of goods and services will fill in to the rear with lesser and lesser demand for their goods and services. This is a law of the universe. If you try to interfere with it, and for example, try to place those in the rear in the front, they will be trampled by the people as they chase after the leaders whose goods and services they prefer.

You can not reverse this order with taxation, in the absence of wage and price controls, as every tax will simply be added on to all the other costs and redistributed to the consumers in the prices. For example the Value Added Tax (VAT) can be seen as the Progressive Income Tax one day later. On April 15 you assess the owner of a hotel his income tax. On April 16 the owner raises the rate on his hotel rooms by an amount to cover the tax. But this is the VAT tax. Indeed the VAT may be said to be more “fair” in that it is applied to every hotel room, i.e. even to hotels that otherwise would not be able to, for what ever reason, raise their rates. Under the Income Tax some hotel owners may not be able to raise their rates in response to the tax. However, on April 17 the VAT tax disappears in the whirl of the market as all costs are swept along and redistributed by the same market forces that move the rich to the front and drop the poor off in the rear.

This is why most economists shrug their shoulders when asked as to the “incidence of taxation” or which tax is more fair. It is not just that they are agnostic. It is true that the science of Economics imparts no special way of perceiving “fairness.” You would be better going to ask the inmates of a Seminary what is fair as ask an economist. Economics is the study of remunerative human action, meta questions of “fairness” are outside its scope. But the more important reason economist can not answer this question is that the economy is a dynamic process where Income Taxes, VAT taxes, all taxes are being swept up in the flurry of the market and disappear from sight in the prices.

In general the lower the taxes the better. The ancient Taoists would have appreciated this point. The less interference with the people and their choices the better. Less chance of being trampled. It is true that Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith has devoted his career to explaining all the ways the consumer’s choice is less than it appears but what ever freedom they have we are best leaving them with it such as it is.

Secondly, we can say that the more defuse the tax the better. Simply because there is uncertainty how the taxes will be redistributed, we should keep them small and apply them at as many points as possible so that if they do interfere from time to time with market activity, their impact will be the less. Instead of such a heavy reliance on the Income Tax we would do better to reduce that tax and supplement it with a VAT tax and Capital Tax. The Capital Tax would also be redistributed throughout the market, but it would allow us to lower our reliance on the Income Tax, and it would also stimulate the investment of capital into productive investments instead of conspicuous consumption, in as much as the tax would be owed whether the capital earned a return or not.

Now the point I want you to see is that taxation is the wrong place to look, if you are seeking social justice. Where is the right place?

Where the money is spent!

The only place you have control, (at least in principle), the only place where you can establish social justice is in the expenditures.
(In practice the elite monopolize the public expenditures for their own enrichment. For example the Golden Gate Bridge was supposed to advance development by connecting the growing San Francisco to Marin County. However the Bay Area elite then down zoned both counties turning the bridge into a $4 billion amusement ride. So the poor pay the most in taxes and prices and then the elite use the tax money to drive up prices even further. Social justice?)

And this is the most important point I want to leave you with: Where are most of the expenditures made? In the market!

It is in society, in the market, where you should establish social justice. That is where the people live. Don’t look at government. Government is a fraction of society. It is out there in society where you must act not in government.

Don’t tell me how much government has budgeted for affordable housing. How much could that ever be? Look at the people! There, in that swirling dynamic market is where most of the money is being spent, not in your affordable housing programs.

For example, ask yourself what are you doing to block the entrepreneurs and capitalists from meeting the demand of the consumers?

And you say to me what? ‘Oh, but we need our zoning ordinances, our building codes, our school district boundaries, $20,000 sewer charges, 1 to 2 year delays in permits, litigation, architectural review boards, litigation, impact studies , litigation, etc. etc.’ (see paper no. 1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability )

But dear, whether your social justice? H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

You are liars.

You are not really concerned that in the Bay Area housing prices have been driven out of reach of the people. The rich, a faction of the rich, have colluded to use government to block capitalists from building housing. One faction manipulates the levers of power to prevent development, to prevent the market from satisfying the demands of the people for housing. Social justice? You do not really give a damn.

You are liars.

Barbara Simpson knows about the burglary, about the involvement of the KGO and KSFO employees use of the stolen notebook to harasse me. Bernie Ward also has made repeated references to it.

Yet see how the ‘Ol’ Static Factory’ (KSFO) a 5,000 watt station in the Bay Area is used by Barbara Simpson to do show after show about cattlemen. Cattlemen’s land rights. Did you know they were not allowed to open range their cattle? Land development rights. Mineral rights. Forestry. All of these subjects have been exhaustively covered by Barbara Simpson on a station that is difficult to pick up 10 miles from its transmitter.

Zoning? Down Zoning? Corrupt political power to reduce supply of housing? Housing prices and rents the highest in the nation? Housing crisis? Nielsen lowered the household count in the Bay Area by 83,000 households? Their market is shrinking, not their share, but the market itself, and still they will not cover the story. No, no couldn’t care less. Remunerative human action? You could not bribe the employees of KSFO to cover the housing crisis even though their rating would go up; that is how corrupt they are.

Bernie Ward will complain bitterly about the plight of the poor and homeless on KGO. Will recount how he has to “step over a homeless person to get into the donut shop,” but discuss how the liberal power elite of the Bay Area . . . . .

text continued at