ITWASSOOTED: December 2009

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

jared allan = non factor

champion players make a difference against all comers, jared alan aint able to do it week in and week out.

my conclusion = he's all hype and no champion big money big mouth

I think maybe he did go to the cordon bleu university, a souse chef might be afraid of him rushing to a refrigerator through him but not any offensive lineman in Chicago or Carolina!
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

December 28th Is Childermas! Fuck Brad Childress

Holy Innocents' Day, also called Childermas
28 December
In some cultures it is said to be an unlucky day, when no new project should be started.

The Massacre of the Innocents is an episode of mass infanticide by the King of Judea, Herod the Great,

In Spain and Hispanic America, December 28 is a day for pranks, equivalent to April Fool's Day in many countries. Pranks are known as inocentadas and their victims are called inocentes, or alternatively, the pranksters are the "inocentes" and the victims should not be angry at them, since they could not have committed any sin.

fitting that this "prank day" is named after brad fucking childress the coach of the Minnesota vikings who fooled all of us into thinking they had a defensive pass rush, a secondary that could cover instead of being toast, a special teams play instead of special Olympics players, an offensive line that really is offensive to viewers eyes and most especially a fucking adrian Petersen who gets paid to fumble in crucial situations!?

you tell me NFL aint rigged a gawd damn touchdown favorite is blown up by a depleted and hopelessly outmatched bears team? what 90% of Monday night money on vikings down the gamblers fucking tube?!!!

ya its hardly rigged you no block in the back calling penalty only when it suits the gambolers motherfuckinbastards

vikings mauled by bears: 36-30 disaster looms for ill prepared over their heads vikings in first round playoff ouster!
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 5

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Under the radar, Obama pushes for Patriot Act renewal

fRichard Moore
Investigative Reporter

eingold expresses frustration over Senate version

With key sections of the U.S. Patriot Act set to expire Dec. 31, the Obama administration - essentially tiptoeing through the corridors of Congress and using the raucous health care debate as cover - has quietly maneuvered for renewal of the controversial provisions, which he opposed as a senator.

Perhaps the most contentious measure is the business records provision, also known as the library provision, which allows the government to seek a court order forcing private entities such as banks, hospitals, and libraries to hand over "any tangible thing" - from library circulation records to medical records - officials think is relevant in a terrorist investigation.

This week, with time running out and no time to debate the bill on its merits, Democratic supporters of reauthorization in the Senate tried but fail to win House support to embed the provisions in a separate $626 billion Pentagon funding bill. The House has passed a bill with stronger civil liberties protections, but that version is not expected to survive.

Congress will now likely approve temporary extensions and deal with reauthorization early next year, giving opponents renewed hope they can still defeat or modify aspects of the national security language.

In early October, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-8 to send the measure to the Senate floor. The provisions would allow the government to continue to use roving wiretaps to monitor suspects, to obtain business records of national security targets, and to track and surveil so-called 'lone wolves' whose connection to a foreign government or terrorist group has not been established.

The legislation, co-sponsored by judiciary committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would tweak the ability of the FBI to gain certain personal records of citizens, requiring the agency to show "specific facts" that requested records pertain to a terrorism investigation.

Core language remains

Still, the most controversial aspects remain intact. Earlier this year, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) had worked to place language in the bill strengthening civil liberties protections, but in the judiciary committee the Obama administration worked with Republicans to craft seven amendments, effectively watering down Feingold's work.

Feingold said the bill that emerged from the judiciary committee left him "scratching his head."

"The Patriot Act reauthorization bill passed by the Judiciary Committee falls far short of adequately protecting the rights of innocent Americans," Feingold said in a statement. "Among the most significant problems is the failure to include an improved standard for Section 215 orders (getting personal information through national security letter requests), even though a Republican controlled Judiciary Committee unanimously supported including the same standard in 2005."

Feingold said what was most upsetting to him was the willingness of too many members of the Democratic-controlled committee to defer to behind-the-scenes complaints from the FBI and the Justice Department.

"We should, of course, carefully consider their perspective, but it is our job to write the law and to exercise independent judgment," Feingold said. "After all, it is not the prosecutors' committee; it is the judiciary committee. And while I am left scratching my head trying to understand how a committee controlled by a wide Democratic margin could support the bill it approved, I will continue to work with my colleagues to try to make improvements to this bill."

Feingold opposed the bill in committee, but Sen. Herb Kohl voted for reauthorization in the end, along with Democrats Al Franken of Minnesota, Charles Schumer of New York and Feinstein. Joining Feingold in opposition were Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orin Hatch of Utah, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Feingold did win an amendment that restricts so-called "sneak and peek" searches that allow the government to enter a home and perform a search without having to inform the subject of the search until months later. The senator's amendment requires that subjects of sneak-and-peek searches be notified within seven days, unless a judge grants an extension.

In 2008, the federal government reported 763 sneak-and-peak warrant requests and 528 requests for extensions, as of the year ending Sept. 30, 2008. Four of the applications were denied.

Only three of the 763 warrant requests were terrorism related. Sixty-five percent concerned drug investigations.

The provisions

The first of the three provisions would allow a secret court to continue to permit "roving wiretaps" without the government identifying who is being targeted, or which specific phone lines or communication devices are to be monitored. What officials must do is assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist.

The second provision, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, permits the FBI to ask a FISA, or secret court, to order the production of any item relevant to a FISA investigation. Specifically, section 215 permits the FBI to "make an application (to the court) for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)..."

As with roving wiretaps, the government must assert that the records are relevant to foreign intelligence gathering and/or a terrorism investigation.

Under the "lone wolf" statute, the U.S. may target for surveillance non-U.S. persons it believes are engaging in terrorism or are preparing to undertake terrorist activities, whether or not that person can be linked to a foreign power or organization. Previously, the government had to establish such a link.

In a September letter to Leahy, assistant attorney general Ronald Weich recommended reauthorization of all three provisions on behalf of the Obama administration. Roving wiretaps helps authorities track targets who take measures to thwart FISA surveillance, he stated.

"It has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders," Weich wrote.

The provision for business records was used 220 times between 2004 and 2007, Weich wrote, but government auditing showed no abuse had been uncovered.

"At the time of the USA Patriot Act, there was concern that the FBI would exploit the broad scope of the business records authority to collect sensitive personal information on constitutionally protected activities, such as the use of public libraries," he wrote. "This simply has not occurred, even in the environment of heightened terrorist threat activity. The oversight provided by Congress since 2005 and the specific oversight provisions added to the statute in 2006 have helped to ensure that the authority is being used as intended."

Weich did say in the letter the administration might be willing to compromise on some of the language to include more civil liberties protections.

"The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities," Weich stated.

How time flies

As an Illinois senator in 2005, Barack Obama opposed the core of these provisions when they were up for renewal then, saying he wanted to safeguard the country from terrorist attack but had concerns about seeking business records and the wiretapping language.

"But soon after the Patriot Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and freedoms as Americans," Obama said in a Dec. 15, 2005, speech on the Senate floor. "That it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion."

Obama told his colleagues he had been working in a bipartisan way to improve the law.

"That's why as it comes time to reauthorize this law, we've been working in a bipartisan way to do both - to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties," he said. "To show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can. What we have been trying to achieve, under the leadership of a bipartisan group of senators, is some accountability in this process - to get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion."

Nonetheless, in conference, the Congress had jettisoned the bill's safeguards, leaving him no choice but to oppose reauthorization, he said.

"This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law," Obama said. "When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. They simply need sign-off from a local FBI official. That's all."

Obama said the legislation ignored American case law and fundamental principles.

"And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document - through library books they've read and phone calls they've made - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law," he said. "No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong."

Three years later, however, Obama was singing a different tune, voting to allow warrantless wiretaps of Americans' calls if they were communicating overseas with somebody the government believed was linked to terrorism.

He also supported immunizing the nation's telecommunication companies from lawsuits charging that they had participated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Richard Moore can be reached at
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Raymi And Fil broke up!

I dunno i don't get the newsletter, I just discovered it myself.

And Raymi is already shacked up with the next victim yes you heard me the next duffas is ALREADY in the clutches of the blogbrity that is Raymi.

onward and upwards we go..... movin on

update: the "shacking up" was a temp move she now has invaded another space. It appears dave was not a target just a port in the storm.
another note as we here at sooted suspected , raymi likes girls. so says fil .
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tiger did what?

and I don't care.

for some reason I'm not jealous of tigers greatness and hardly revel in his slide from your lofty perch you all set him on.

tiger got lotsa money lotsa biches lotsa great golf strokes and you didn't ....hahaha fuck off.

now whats really buggin me this week is the vikings slide from greatness, WTF!? why are chili and farviking feuding? get it together biches don't blow this thing this close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0


Europe’s small, debt-strapped countries could follow the lead of Argentina and simply walk away from their debts. That would shift the burden to the creditor countries, which could solve the problem merely by a change in accounting rules.

Total financial collapse, once a problem only for developing countries, has now come to Europe. The International Monetary Fund is imposing its “austerity measures” on the outer circle of the European Union, with Greece, Iceland and Latvia the hardest hit. But these are not your ordinary third world debtor supplicants. Historically, Iceland was settled by the Vikings, who successfully invaded Britain; Latvian tribes repulsed even the Vikings; and the Greeks conquered the whole Persian empire. If anyone can stand up to the IMF, these stalwart European warriors can.

Dozens of countries have defaulted on their debts in recent decades, the most recent being Dubai, which declared a debt moratorium on November 26, 2009. If the once lavishly-rich Arab emirate can default, more desperate countries can; and when the alternative is to destroy the local economy, it is hard to argue that they shouldn’t. That is particularly true when the creditors are largely responsible for the debtor’s troubles, and there are good grounds for arguing the debts are not owed. Greece’s troubles originated when low interest rates that were inappropriate for Greece were maintained to rescue Germany from an economic slump. And Iceland and Latvia have been saddled with responsibility for private obligations to which they were not parties. Economist Michael Hudson writes:

“The European Union and International Monetary Fund have told them to replace private debts with public obligations, and to pay by raising taxes, slashing public spending and obliging citizens to deplete their savings. Resentment is growing not only toward those who ran up these debts . . . but also toward the neoliberal foreign advisors and creditors who pressured these governments to sell off the banks and public infrastructure to insiders.”

The Dysfunctional EU: Where a Common Currency Fails

Greece may be the first in the EU outer circle to revolt. According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Sunday’s Daily Telegraph, “Greece has become the first country on the distressed fringes of Europe's monetary union to defy Brussels and reject the Dark Age leech-cure of wage deflation.” Prime Minister George Papandreou said on Friday:

"Salaried workers will not pay for this situation: we will not proceed with wage freezes or cuts. We did not come to power to tear down the social state."

Notes Evans-Pritchard:

“Mr Papandreou has good reason to throw the gauntlet at Europe's feet. Greece is being told to adopt an IMF-style austerity package, without the devaluation so central to IMF plans. The prescription is ruinous and patently self-defeating.”

The currency cannot be devalued because the same Euro is used by all. That means that while the country’s ability to repay is being crippled by austerity measures, there is no way to lower the cost of the debt. Evans-Pritchard concludes:

“The deeper truth that few in Euroland are willing to discuss is that EMU is inherently dysfunctional – for Greece, for Germany, for everybody.”

Which is all the more reason that Iceland, which is not yet an EU member, might want to reconsider its position. As a condition of membership, Iceland is being required to endorse an agreement in which it would reimburse Dutch and British depositors who lost money in the collapse of IceSave, an offshore division of Iceland’s leading private bank. Eva Joly, a Norwegian-French magistrate hired to investigate the Icelandic bank collapse, calls it blackmail. She warns that succumbing to the EU’s demands will drain Iceland of its resources and its people, who are being forced to emigrate to find work.

Latvia is a member of the EU and is expected to adopt the Euro, but it has not yet reached that stage. Meanwhile, the EU and IMF have told the government to borrow foreign currency to stabilize the exchange rate of the local currency, in order to help borrowers pay mortgages taken out in foreign currencies from foreign banks. As a condition of IMF funding, the usual government cutbacks are also being required. Nils Muiznieks, head of the Advanced Social and Political Research Institute in Riga, Latvia, complained:

“The rest of the world is implementing stimulus packages ranging from anywhere between one percent and ten percent of GDP but at the same time, Latvia has been asked to make deep cuts in spending - a total of about 38 percent this year in the public sector - and raise taxes to meet budget shortfalls.”

In November, the Latvian government adopted its harshest budget of recent years, with cuts of nearly 11%. The government had already raised taxes, slashed public spending and government wages, and shut dozens of schools and hospitals. As a result, the national bank forecasts a 17.5% decline in the economy this year, just when it needs a productive economy to get back on its feet. In Iceland, the economy contracted by 7.2% during the third quarter, the biggest fall on record. As in other countries squeezed by neo-liberal tourniquets on productivity, employment and output are being crippled, bringing these economies to their knees.

The cynical view is that that may have been the intent. Instead of helping post-Soviet nations develop self-reliant economies, writes Marshall Auerback, “the West has viewed them as economic oysters to be broken up to indebt them in order to extract interest charges and capital gains, leaving them empty shells.”

But the people are not submitting quietly to all this. In Latvia last week, while the Parliament debated what to do about the nation’s debt, thousands of demonstrating students and teachers filled the streets, protesting the closing of a hundred schools and reductions in teacher salaries of up to 60%. Demonstrators held signs saying, "They have sold their souls to the devil" and "We are against poverty." In the Iceland Parliament, the IceSave debate had been going on for over 140 hours at last report, a new record; and a growing portion of the population opposes underwriting a debt they believe the government does not owe.

In a December 3 article in The Daily Mail titled “What Iceland Can Teach the Tories,” Mary Ellen Synon wrote that ever since the Icelandic economy collapsed last year, “the empire builders of Brussels have been confident that the bankrupt and frightened Icelanders must finally be ready to exchange their independence for the ‘stability’ of EU membership.” But last month, an opinion poll showed that 54 percent of all Icelanders oppose membership, with just 29 percent in favor. Synon wrote:

“The Icelanders may have been scared out of their wits last year, but they are now climbing out from under the ruins of their prosperity and have decided that the most valuable thing they have left is their independence. They are not willing to trade it, not even for the possibility of a bail-out by the European Central Bank.”

Iceland, Latvia and Greece are all in a position to call the bluff of the IMF and EU. In an October 1 article called “Latvia – the Insanity Continues,” Marshall Auerback maintained that Latvia’s debt problem could be fixed over a weekend, by a list of measures including (1) not answering the phone when foreign creditors call the government; (2) declaring the banks insolvent, converting their external debt to equity, and having them reopen with full deposit insurance guaranteed in local currency; and (3) offering “a local currency minimum wage job that includes healthcare to anyone willing and able to work as was done in Argentina after the Kirchner regime repudiated the IMF’s toxic package of debt repayment.”

Evans-Pritchard suggested a similar remedy for Greece, which he said could break out of its death loop by following the lead of Argentina. It could “restore its currency, devalue, pass a law switching internal euro debt into [the local currency], and ‘restructure’ foreign contracts.”

The Road Less Traveled: Saying No to the IMF

Standing up to the IMF is not a well-worn path, but Argentina forged the trail. In the face of dire predictions that the economy would collapse without foreign credit, in 2001 it defied its creditors and simply walked away from its debts. By the fall of 2004, three years after a record default on a debt of more than $100 billion, the country was well on the road to recovery; and it achieved this feat without foreign help. The economy grew by 8 percent for 2 consecutive years. Exports increased, the currency was stable, investors were returning, and unemployment had eased. “This is a remarkable historical event, one that challenges 25 years of failed policies,” said economist Mark Weisbrot in a 2004 interview quoted in The New York Times. “While other countries are just limping along, Argentina is experiencing very healthy growth with no sign that it is unsustainable, and they’ve done it without having to make any concessions to get foreign capital inflows.”

Weisbrot is co-director of a Washington-based think tank called the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which put out a study in October 2009 of 41 IMF debtor countries. The study found that the austere policies imposed by the IMF, including cutting spending and tightening monetary policy, were more likely to damage than help those economies.

That was also the conclusion of a study released last February by Yonca Özdemir from the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, comparing IMF assistance in Argentina and Turkey. Both emerging markets faced severe economic crises in 2001, preceded by chronic fiscal deficits, insufficient export growth, high indebtedness, political instability, and wealth inequality.

Where Argentina broke ranks with the IMF, however, Turkey followed its advice at every turn. The end result was that Argentina bounced back, while Turkey is still in financial crisis. Turkey’s reliance on foreign investment has made it highly susceptible to the global economic downturn. Argentina chose instead to direct its investment inward, developing its domestic economy.

To find the money for this development, Argentina did not need foreign investors. It issued its own money and credit through its own central bank. Earlier, when the national currency collapsed completely in 1995 and again after 2000, Argentine local governments issued local bonds that traded as currency. Provinces paid their employees with paper receipts called “Debt-Cancelling Bonds” that were in currency units equivalent to the Argentine Peso. The bonds canceled the provinces’ debts to their employees and could be spent in the community. The provinces had actually “monetized” their debts, turning their bonds into legal tender.

Argentina is a large country with more resources than Iceland, Latvia or Greece, but new technologies now allow even small countries to become self-sufficient. See David Blume, Alcohol Can Be a Gas.

Local Currency for Local Development

Issuing and lending currency is the sovereign right of governments, and it is a right that Iceland and Latvia will lose if they join the EU, which forbids member nations to borrow from their own central banks. Latvia and Iceland both have natural resources that could be developed if they had the credit to do it; and with sovereign control over their local currencies, they could get that credit simply by creating it on the books of their own publicly-owned banks.

In fact, there is nothing extraordinary in that proposal. All private banks get the credit they lend simply by creating it on their books. Contrary to popular belief, banks do not lend their own money or their depositors’ money. As the U.S. Federal Reserve attests, banks lend new money, created by double-entry bookkeeping as a deposit of the borrower on one side of the bank’s books and as an asset of the bank on the other.

Besides thawing frozen credit pipes, credit created by governments has the advantage that it can be issued interest-free. Eliminating the cost of interest can cut production costs dramatically.

Government-issued money to fund public projects has a long and successful history, going back at least to the early eighteenth century, when the American colony of Pennsylvania issued money that was both lent and spent by the local government into the economy. The result was an unprecedented period of prosperity, achieved without producing price inflation and without taxing the people.

The island state of Guernsey, located in the Channel Islands between England and France, has funded infrastructure with government-issued money for over 200 years, without price inflation and without government debt.

During the First World War, when private banks were demanding 6 percent interest, Australia’s publicly-owned Commonwealth Bank financed the Australian government’s war effort at an interest rate of a fraction of 1 percent, saving Australians some $12 million in bank charges. After the First World War, the bank’s governor used the bank’s credit power to save Australians from the depression conditions prevailing in other countries, by financing production and home-building and lending funds to local governments for the construction of roads, tramways, harbors, gasworks, and electric power plants. The bank’s profits were paid back to the national government.

A successful infrastructure program funded with interest-free national credit was also instituted in New Zealand after it elected its first Labor government in the 1930s. Credit issued by its nationalized central bank allowed New Zealand to thrive at a time when the rest of the world was struggling with poverty and lack of productivity.

The argument against governments issuing and lending money for infrastructure is that it would be inflationary, but this need not be the case. Price inflation results when "demand" (money) increases faster than "supply" (goods and services). When the national currency is expanded to fund productive projects, supply goes up along with demand, leaving consumer prices unaffected.

In any case, as noted above, private banks themselves create the money they lend. The process by which banks create money is inherently inflationary, because they lend only the principal, not the interest necessary to pay their loans off. To come up with the interest, new loans must be taken out, continually inflating the money supply with new loan-money. And since the money is going to the creditors rather than into producing new goods and services, demand (money) increases without increasing supply, producing price inflation. If credit were extended for public infrastructure projects interest-free, inflation could actually be reduced, by reducing the need to continually take out new loans to find the elusive interest to service old loans.

The key is to use the newly-created money or credit for productive projects that increase goods and services, rather than for speculation or to pay off national debt in foreign currencies (the trap that Zimbabwe fell into). The national currency can be protected from speculators by imposing exchange controls, as Malaysia did in 1998; imposing capital controls, as Brazil and Taiwan are doing now; banning derivatives; and imposing a “Tobin tax,” a small tax on trade in financial products.

Making the Creditors Whole

If the creditors are really interested in having their debts repaid, they will see the wisdom of letting the debtor nation build up its producing economy to give it something to pay with. If the creditors are not really interested in repayment but are using the debt as a tool to exploit the debtor country and strip it of its assets, the creditors’ bluff needs to be called.

When the debtor nation refuses to pay, the burden shifts to the creditors to make themselves whole. British economist Michael Rowbotham suggests that in the modern world of electronic money, this can be accomplished by creative banking regulators simply with a change in accounting rules. “Debt” today is created with accounting entries, and it can be reversed with accounting entries. Rowbotham outlines two ways the rules might be changed to liquidate impossible-to-repay debt:

“The first option is to remove the obligation on banks to maintain parity between assets and liabilities . . . . Thus, if a commercial bank held $10 billion worth of developing country debt bonds, after cancellation it would be permitted in perpetuity to have a $10 billion dollar deficit in its assets. This is a simple matter of record-keeping.

“The second option . . . is to cancel the debt bonds, yet permit banks to retain them for purposes of accountancy. The debts would be cancelled so far as the developing nations were concerned, but still valid for the purposes of a bank’s accounts. The bonds would then be held as permanent, non-negotiable assets, at face value.”

If the banks were allowed either to carry unrepayable loans on their books or to accept payment in local currency, their assets and their solvency would be preserved. Everyone could shake hands and get back to work.

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Monday, December 07, 2009

pearl harbor was rigged just like 911 and climate warming bullshitpeakoil change

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Consensus is a political concept and has no place in a scientific forum.

There once was a consensus among “leading scientist” that the earth was flat.
There once was a consensus among “leading scientist” that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.

stolen from
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Constititution of the United States: 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

eXTReMe Tracker