Just in time for Halloween!

It's John McCain!

21 Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story

By David Ray Griffin, courtesy of Global Research:

Note: Although the points are stated briefly, I give in each case the pages in my most recent book---"The New Pearl Harbor Revisited"---where the issue is documented and discussed more extensively.

(1) Although the official account of 9/11 claims that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks, the FBI does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted and has admitted that it "has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (NPHR 206-11).

(2) Although the official story holds that the four airliners were hijacked by devout Muslims ready to die as martyrs to earn a heavenly reward, Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs, and paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).

(3) Many people reported having received cell phone calls from loved ones or flight attendants on the airliners, during which they were told that Middle Eastern hijackers had taken over the planes. One recipient, Deena Burnett, was certain that her husband had called her several times on his cell phone because she had recognized his number on her Caller ID. But the calls to Burnett and most of the other reported calls were made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement showed that, given the technology of the time, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had been impossible. By the time the FBI presented a report on phone calls from the planes at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, it had changed its story, saying that there were only two cell phone calls from the flights, both from United 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet (NPHR 111-17).

(4) US Solicitor General Ted Olson's claim that his wife, Barbara Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, reporting that hijackers had taken it over, was also contradicted by this FBI report, which says that the only call attempted by her was "unconnected" and hence lasted "0 seconds" (NPRH 60-62).

(5) Although decisive evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks was reportedly found in Mohamed Atta's luggage---which allegedly failed to get loaded onto Flight 11 from a commuter flight that Atta took to Boston from Portland, Maine, that morning---this story was made up after the FBI's previous story had collapsed. According to that story, the evidence had been found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan Airport parking lot and the trip to Portland was taken by Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. After the FBI learned that neither of the Bukharis had died on September 11, it simply declared that the trip to Portland was made by Atta and another al-Qaeda operative (NPHR 155-62).

(6) The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers---such as videos of al-Qaeda operatives at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a headband discovered at the crash site of United 93---also show clear signs of having been fabricated (NPHR 170-73).

(7) In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there is also evidence of their absence: If hijackers had broken into the cockpits, the pilots would have "squawked" the universal hijack code, an act that takes only a couple of seconds. But not one of the eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).

(8) Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the military, according to which planes showing signs of an in-flight emergency are normally intercepted within about 10 minutes, the military's failure to intercept any of the flights implies that something, such as a stand-down order, prevented standard procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10, 81-84).

(9) Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode in which Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the White House, apparently confirmed a stand-down order at about 9:25 AM, which was prior to the strike on the Pentagon. Another man has reported hearing members of LAX Security learn that a stand-down order had come from the "highest level of the White House" (NPHR 94-96).

(10) The 9/11 Commission did not mention Mineta's report, removed it from the Commission's video record of its hearings, and claimed that Cheney did not enter the shelter conference room until almost 10:00, which was at least 40 minutes later than he was really there, according to Mineta and several other witnesses, including Cheney's photographer (NPHR 91-94).

(11) The 9/11 Commission's timeline for Cheney that morning even contradicted what Cheney himself had told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" September 16, just five days after 9/11 (NPHR 93).

(12) Hani Hanjour, known as a terrible pilot who could not safely fly even a single-engine airplane, could not possibly have executed the amazing trajectory reportedly taken by American Flight 77 in order to hit Wedge 1 of the Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).

(13) Wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the Pentagon to be targeted by foreign terrorists, for several reasons: It was as far as possible from the offices of Rumsfeld and the top brass, whom Muslim terrorists presumably would have wanted to kill; it was the only part of the Pentagon that had been reinforced; the reconstruction was not finished, so there were relatively few people there; and it was the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented obstacles to a plane's flight path (NPHR 76-78).

(14) Contrary to the claim of Pentagon officials that they did not have the Pentagon evacuated because they had no way of knowing that an aircraft was approaching, a military E-4B---the Air Force's most advanced communications, command, and control airplane---was flying over the White House at the time. Also, although there can be no doubt about the identity of the plane, which was captured on video by CNN and others, the military has denied that it belonged to them (NPHR 96-98).

(15) The Secret Service, after learning that a second World Trade Center building had been attacked---which would have meant that terrorists were going after high-value targets---and that still other planes had apparently been hijacked, allowed President Bush to remain at the school in Sarasota, Florida, for another 30 minutes. It thereby revealed its foreknowledge that Bush would not be a target: If these had really been surprise attacks, the agents, fearing that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school, would have hustled Bush away. On the first anniversary of 9/11, the White House started telling a new story, according to which Bush, rather than remaining in the classroom several minutes after Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a second WTC building had been hit, immediately got up and left the room. This lie was told in major newspapers and on MSNBC and ABC television (NPHR 129-31).

(16) Given the fact that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had steel columns running from their basements to their roofs, they simply could not have come down as they did---straight down at virtually free-fall speed---unless these columns had been sliced by means of explosives. Therefore, the official theory, according to which the buildings came down because of fire plus (in the case of the Twin Towers) the impact of the planes, is scientifically impossible (NPHR 12-25).

(17) The destruction of the Twin Towers had many other features---such as the horizontal ejections of steel beams, the melting of steel, and the sulfidation and thinning of steel---that can be explained only in terms of powerful explosives. For example, the fires could not have come within 1000 degrees Fahrenheit of the temperature needed to melt steel (30-36).

(18) Members of the FDNY (Fire Department of New York) provided oral histories shortly after 9/11 in which one fourth of them testified to having witnessed explosions in the Twin Towers. Explosions in the WTC 7 as well as the towers were also reported by city officials, WTC employees, and journalists (NPHR 27-30, 45-48, 51).

(19) Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that day: "we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street . . . , and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse. And it [the South Tower] did collapse before we could actually get out of the building." However, there was no objective basis for expecting the towers to collapse; even the 9/11 Commission admitted that none of the fire chiefs expected them to come down. The FDNY oral histories show that the information that they were going to collapse came from the Office of Emergency Management---Giuliani's own office. How could Giuliani's people have known that the towers were going to come down, unless they knew that the buildings had been laced with explosives? (NPH 40)

(20) NIST, which produced the official reports on the Twin Towers and (recently) WTC 7, has been "fully hijacked from the scientific to the political realm," so that its scientists are little more than "hired guns," a former employee has reported, and the 9/11 Commission was no more independent, being run by Philip Zelikow, who was essentially a member of the Bush White House (NPHR 11, 238-51).

(21) The official story about 9/11 is now rejected by constantly growing numbers of physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence officials (NPHR xi).

Things are going badly for Obama

How do I know? When he makes a slip like this:

Oops! Barack Obama says 'my Muslim faith' in interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos

Here is video of it:



This one slip will be enough to fuel all those "secret muslim" rumors until election day. Of course, if he were a Muslim I would still trust him to run this country over McCain, or, GOD FORBID, Palin!

If you want to know the feeling I get from Palin it is summed up in this picture:

Why is Obama sliding?

Dave Lindorff has an article over at Counterpunch (here) that pretty much hits the nail on the head:

But how can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who goes
from opposing a war to saying he not only supports the idea of keeping troops in
Iraq for another five years—the length of the entire WWII!—but who further says
he won’t rule out attacking Iran, even if that country poses no imminent threat
to the US, simply because it develops nuclear weapons—the same weapons that our
putative friends, Pakistan and India, have? How can I vote for a candidate who
wants to expand the military (by 65,000 troops) instead of shrinking this huge,
bloodsucking parasite of an organization which is costing as much as the rest of
the world spends on its armies?

How can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who
cannot state categorically that he will defend the Constitution by reversing all
of President Bush’s abuses of power and who will not promise to prosecute the
president and members of his administration for any crimes committed while in
office?

Olympic Commentator Bloopers

Enjoy!

Here are the top nine comments made by NBC sports commentators so far
during the Summer Olympics that they would like to take back:

1. Weightlifting commentator: 'This is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her
snatch this morning during her warm up and it was amazing.'

2. Dressage commentator: 'This is really a lovely horse and I speak from
personal experience since I once mounted her mother.'

3. Paul Hamm, Gymnast: 'I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother
and father.'

4. Boxing Analyst: 'Sure there have been injuries, and even some deaths in
boxing, but none of them really that serious.'

5. Softball announcer: 'If history repeats itself, I should think we can
expect the same thing again.'

6. Basketball analyst: 'He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like
it. In fact you can see it all over their faces.'

7. At the rowing medal ceremony: 'Ah, isn't that nice, the wife of the IOC
president is hugging the cox of the British crew.'

8. Soccer commentator: 'Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like they've got eleven
Dicks on the field.'

9. Tennis commentator: 'One of the reasons Andy is playing so well is that, before the final round, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them... Oh my God, what have I just said?

Watchmen Trailer

I am really looking forward to this movie. I just read the graphic novel for the first time and it was really good. One interesting thing is that the climax of the book features a confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union. A few days later the fighting broke out in Georgia. Now we're sending troops to Georgia. Swell!

Anyway here is the trailer:

Pravda says it all

A quote from Pravda that sums up my feelings and those of a lot of Americans regarding our Resident and Commander-in-Thief:

“President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up? In your
statement on Monday regarding the legitimate actions of the Russian Federation
in Georgia, you failed to mention the war crimes perpetrated by Georgian
military forces, which American advisors support, against Russian and Ossetian
civilians

“President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up? Your faithful
ally, Mikhail Saakashvili, was announcing a ceasefire deal while his troops,
with your advisors, were massing on Ossetia’s border, which they crossed under
cover of night and destroyed Tskhinvali, targeting civilian structures just like
your forces did in Iraq.

“President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up?
Your American transport aircraft gave a ride home to thousands of Georgian
soldiers from Iraq directly into the combat zone.

“President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up? How do you account for the fact that among the
Georgian soldiers fleeing the fighting yesterday you could clearly hear officers
using American English giving orders to “Get back inside” and how do you account
for the fact that there are reports of American soldiers among the Georgian
casualties?

“President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up? Do you
really think anyone gives any importance whatsoever to your words after 8 years
of your criminal and murderous regime and policies? Do you really believe you
have any moral ground whatsoever and do you really imagine there is a single
human being anywhere on this planet who does not stick up his middle finger
every time you appear on a TV screen?

Do you really believe you have the
right to give any opinion or advice after Abu Ghraib? After Guantanamo? After
the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? After the torture by
CIA operatives?

Do you really believe you have any right to make a
statement on any point of international law after your trumped-up charges
against Iraq and the subsequent criminal invasion?

“President Bush,

Why don’t you shut up? Suppose Russia for instance declares that Georgia
has weapons of mass destruction? And that Russia knows where these WMD are,
namely in Tblisi and Poti and north, south, east and west of there? And that it
must be true because there is ‘magnificent foreign intelligenc’ such as
satellite photos of milk powder factories and baby cereals producing chemical
weapons and which are currently being ‘driven around the country in vehicles’?
Suppose Russia declares for instance that ‘Saakashvili stiffed the world’ and it
is ‘time for regime change’?

I found this in the article by Paul Craig Roberts appropriately titled "President Bush, Why Don't You Shut UP?" over at CounterPunch.

Jnana

If you want to know what jnana is, ask him:

Interesting Articles on Gurdjieff

A couple of recent articles on Gurdjieff and his teaching that I have found really interesting:

Gurdjieff and Ecology: The Astral Ecosphere in Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson
by Richard Smoley (formerly of the wonderful magazine, Gnosis)

Gurdjieff as Magus Omissions and Redefinitions of The Work
no author was identified but it was posted by user ccwe at the blog: books, news, reviews

I have also had the good fortune to read Fritz Peters second book about his relationship with Gurdjieff entitled Gurdjieff Remembered. His first book, Boyhood with Gurdjieff, is his account of his adolescent years spent with Gurdjieff at his Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man. His books are fascinating because they give a look at Gurdjieff from the perspective of someone who wasn't really one of his followers and who was not even an adult when they met. The two books have also been combined under the title My Journeys with a Mystic. I highly recommend both books for anyone interested in Gurdjieff. In fact if I were to make a Gurdjieff reading list it would start with Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous and Fritz Peters book's would be next on the list. If you have a taste for more Gurdjieff after that you can dive into his own books.

JK Rowling's Harvard Commencement Address

The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination

Harvard University Commencement Address

By JK Rowling, Harvard Gazette Online (2008)

Really a great speech. I found it courtesy of Catherine Austin Fitts' blog at Solari.com

There is YouTube video of it in two parts that you can see below:

Another Communique

Just after my previous post I read this quote from the Sufi poet Hafez:

Just sit there right now.

Don't do a thing.

Just rest.

For your separation from God is the hardest work in the world.

This is from a very good Sufi blog: Inspirations and Creative Thoughts

Inner Vision Calls

I had been getting urges to pick up a certain book in my library for several days. The book is called "Wild Awakening" by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche. It is a book that I have never read (I own quite a few of these) and I actually had very little desire to read it. The urging kept coming back and last night it hit me out of the blue and I knew I had to look at it. I opened it up to p. 174 and read the following:

That is the complete realization of Mahamudra mind and of enlightenment. From the point of view of Essence Mahamudra, it is really quite simple. Ultimately speaking, there is nothing on which to meditate because ordinary mind is stainless, luminous emptiness from the beginning. With the blessings of the lineage master, the student awakens to that realization. That is Essence Mahamudra.

Interesting the similarity with the realization and teaching of Adyashanti which has effected me greatly in recent weeks.

As Above, So Below

Great stuff courtesy of Reality Carnival, via Strange Attractor.

Of course the title is drawn from the Emerald Tables of Hermes Trismegistos.

This should all come as no surprise to anyone familiar with self-similarity in complex systems or to students of the cosmology of Gurdjieff.

Adyashanti - True Meditation

True Meditation

True meditation has no direction, goals, or method. All methods aim at achieving a certain state of mind. All states are limited, impermanent and conditioned. Fascination with states leads only to bondage and dependency. True meditation is abidance as primordial consciousness.
True meditation appears in consciousness spontaneously when awareness is not fixated on objects of perception. When you first start to meditate, you notice that awareness is always focused on some object: on thoughts, bodily sensations, emotions, memories, sounds, etc. This is because the mind is conditioned to focus and contract upon objects. Then the mind compulsively interprets what it is aware of (the object) in a mechanical and distorted way. It begins to draw conclusions and make assumptions according to past conditioning.

In true meditation all objects are left to their natural functioning. This means that no effort should be made to manipulate or suppress any object of awareness. In true meditation the emphasis is on being awareness; not on being aware of objects, but on resting as primordial awareness itself. Primordial awareness (consciousness) is the source in which all objects arise and subside.

As you gently relax into awareness, into listening, the mind's compulsive contraction around objects will fade. Silence of being will come more clearly into consciousness as a welcoming to rest and abide. An attitude of open receptivity, free of any goal or anticipation, will facilitate the presence of silence and stillness to be revealed as your natural condition.

Silence and stillness are not states and therefore cannot be produced or created. Silence is the non-state in which all states arise and subside. Silence, stillness and awareness are not states and can never be perceived in their totality as objects. Silence is itself the eternal witness without form or attributes.

As you rest more profoundly as the witness, all objects take on their natural functionality, and awareness becomes free of the mind's compulsive contractions and identifications. It returns to its natural non-state of Presence.

The simple yet profound question "Who Am I?" can then reveal one's self not to be the endless tyranny of the ego-personality, but objectless Freedom of Being -- Primordial Consciousness in which all states and all objects come and go as manifestations of the Eternal Unborn Self that YOU ARE.

© 1999 Adyashanti. All rights reserved.

Stove Gallery - Albuquerque

Well, my friends down at the Stove Gallery in Albuquerque are hard at work changing the world. I found a couple of good articles about their work online, here and here. They also have their own home page (which needs some search engine optimization). I have also added a link to them in my links section. If you are ever in Albuquerque be sure to stop by and tell them John sent you.

An Old Dream

I had mentioned in a previous post that a lot had been happening for me "spiritually" lately. I won't go into much detail but what is happening now makes me think of a dream I had a long time ago. It was one of those dreams that was so vivid and meaningful that it sticks with you and becomes part of the story of your life.

The dream itself was no more than an image. In the dream a grey robed and hooded figure stood half leaning back against a long wooden table. His face, if it was there at all, left no trace in memory. The table he was leaning on was covered with stacks and stacks of mostly very large, hard bound books. The room itself was small and rustic. Stacks of books similar to those on the table crowded every corner of the small room. The only other remarkable feature about the room was a fireplace in which a fire was blazing. The fireplace was to the left of the table and was clearly visible despite the large stacks of books.

In his right hand the hooded figure held a book upright and open facing me. Across both pages was inscribed a single word: JNANA. With his left hand he pointed to the book.

Who is Jed McKenna?

I don't know for certain but my best bet is that Jed McKenna is another name for the teacher known as Adyashanti. Either that or Jed McKenna is Adyashanti's evil twin brother. Anyway even though the works of Jed McKenna are fictional the similarities in their teachings, their realizations, and their lives are difficult to miss. I highly recommend both teachers. The great thing about Adya is that even if he is not Jed McKenna he sure fills in a lot of the blanks. Here is a taste of Adya:

Some reading . . .

Well it has been an interesting few months, to put it mildly. A lot of things happening in my life on the spiritual and personal fronts.

I just finished reading two books my wife bought me for my birthday. The first was Into the Wild. I had previously seen the movie which I enjoyed. The book added some more depth to the story. The real mystery in my mind was whether, if he had lived, Christopher McCandless would have been able to enter into a more mature relationship with his parents and thus with the rest of society. I say with the rest of society because so much of how he dealt with others was a result of his relationship with his parents. He left home mainly to escape what he saw as their stultifying and dead-end existence. But I guess that is the way most young people see their parents as they hold down jobs and do all the mundane things necessary to live in the world and to provide for their children the best way they know how.

The other thing that struck me was that he was ready to walk out of the wilderness, and quite possibly begin mending those relationships. But due to various, mostly accidental, events he died alone in the wilderness. He had run so far away from home and when it seemed he was finally able to begin his emotional return he died. It is a tragic and ironic story.

* * **

The other book she bought me was The Last American Man. I can't remember the author at the moment (Elizabeth . .. ?) and I don't have the book in front of me. The book itself is the story of Eustace Conway, a modern mountain man and the founder of the Turtle Island Presevere. His life story is fascinating and filled with amazing adventures and reminded me in many ways of Tom Brown, Jr. I have to wonder if those two have ever met. I enjoyed reading it so much that I stayed up way too light last night to finish it.

It is an interesting book because it is written by a woman and she does recount his amazing adventures but she also paints an honest portrait of a man who is so driven and consumed by his sense of personal destiny that he has difficulty maintaining personal relationships. His life is consumed by his work, and though he desires a family deeply it seems he is unable to compromise his life and work even an iota to achieve that desire. If he didn't want a family it would be different, but the fact that he wants one and wants one so badly is very sad. When I finished the book I said a little prayer for him that he would find what he was looking for.

The book is well written and insightful. The author is an admirer but also a woman. As with most women she has a deeper understanding of relationships in her pinky finger than he has in his whole body. Her insight into his childhood, and particularly the influence of his father is illuminating. In the end you see a person both amazingly accomplished and sadly inept. A person who knows that there is something wrong with him and even has an idea where the problem lies, but hasn't a clue how to fix it. I can certainly sympathize with him there.

AVP 2 -- Movie Rules

Well, I saw some of Alien vs. Predator 2 this weekend. It was truly an awful movie. Of course I knew this even before the god awful ending. You might be wondering how. Well, I'll tell you. This movie violated one of my cardinal rules for determining how good a movie is. I call it the "Go! Go! Go!" Rule.

This rule is simple. Any movie in which a line of dialogue consists entirely of a character shouting "Go! Go! Go!" is generally a bad movie. This movie contained that gem of screenwriting not once but twice. Thus confirming its place in my heart as a BAD movie.

Google Reader Update

Well it turns out that Google Reader does allow you to share more than just your shared items. In Google Reader you have another option to "Star" stories. Starred stories also have their own RSS feed which you can make public.

In addition you can sort your feeds using various tags (folders). You can then share these folders as well. Each shared folder will have its own RSS feed. Sharing folders does not give you the ability to self-select the stories but it is one more way to aggregate a bunch of news feeds together.

To share your starred items or tagged folders just go to Settings in Reader and then to the Tags tab. Beside each folder (including Starred Items) there is a little broadcast/rss icon. Just click on that and then click the View Public Page link that will appear next to the icon. This will bring up the public web page which will then have a link to its RSS feed along the right hand side of the window.

Interview with a Banker

This interview was first published in Punch magazine on April 3, 1957. I first read it in the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. This book opened my eyes to the way "money" really works. The interview stuck with me as well because it is not only extremely enlightening but is really funny as well.

Here is the interview. The person answering the questions is, of course, a banker:

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned byimplication in references to reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts. Thatis the money that they have made.

Q: Out of customers?
A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they madethat too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven't got it?
A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually $500,000 or thereabouts. This is calledLiabilities.

Q: But if they've got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn't theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is reallylent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can't really say that.

Q: But you've just said it. If I put $100.00 into my account the bank isliable to have to pay it back, so it's Liabilities. But they go and lend itto someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets.It's the same $100.00, isn't it?
A: Yes, But...

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn't it, that banks haven't really anymoney at all?
A: Theoretically....

Q: Never mind theoretically. And if they haven't any money, where do theyget their Reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts?
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100.00 to someone they charge himinterest.

Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half per cent.That's their profit.

Q: Why isn't it my profit? Isn't it my money?
A: It's the theory of banking practice that......

Q: When I lend them my $100.00 why don't I charge them interest?
A: You do.

Q: You don't say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say half a per cent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course, I'm going to draw it out again. If I hadn't wanted todraw it out again I could have buried it in the garden, couldn't I?
A: They wouldn't like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it's a Liability. Wouldn't they beglad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?
A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they'll let you have someone else's money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too...and they've let me have it?
A: You're being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I'm being acute. What if everyone wanted their money at once?
A: It's the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on is not having to meet their commitments?
A: I wouldn't say that.

Q: Naturally. Well, if there's nothing else you think you can tell me...?
A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account.

Q: Just one last question.
A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn't I do better to go off and open up a bank?

Jack Johnson

A little music from one of my favorites. I will always be grateful to my brother Mike for getting me his first album. Here is one of my favorite songs of his:

And here is Jack Johnson doing another one of my favorites with his friend (and fellow great musician) Ben Harper:

THE FAMILY (and more)

NOT THAT ONE!

Well we've been hearing for awhile about Obama's pastor and all those nasty-nasty, verboten, things he said about Our Homeland the US of A. What you might not have been hearing about are Hilary Clinton's associations with the Christian power cult known as The Family. I just learned about this recently and find it very disturbing. I had no illusions that Hilary was anything more than a closet right winger but this article on her relationship with the Family disturbed me more than a little bit. Harper's magazine also did an exellent piece on The Family a couple of years back. You can find it here.

And then of course we have John McCain who it seems actively sought and received the support of the televangelist Jon Hagee. This is even scarier than the Family because he is one of the Christian types that wants to fulfill (his version of) Bible prophecy by kicking off World War III in the middle east. Unfortunately you can see him almost any time you want on TV.

Here's a taste of Hagee from last year's AIPAC conference:

I also read an interesting blog post on the emerging political philosophy of Pan-Eurasianism (aka Neo-Eurasianism). Think of it as the counter point to PNAC's Pax Americana. It seems that this philosophy may be informing the actions of Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders.

Ideas have consequences.