http://www.michaelmoore.com/…

Goodbye, GM …by Michael Moore

1. Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices. Within months in Flint in 1942, GM halted all car production and immediately used the assembly lines to build planes, tanks and machine guns. The conversion took no time at all. Everyone pitched in. The fascists were defeated.

We are now in a different kind of war — a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call “cars” may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.

The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn’t give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true — that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.

President Obama, now that he has taken control of GM, needs to convert the factories to new and needed uses immediately.
Read More…

Cliffside Park Police patrol car CP-6 was idling while at a gas station today at around 1:45pm today. I’ve looked around the net and through New Jersey statutes but was unable to find a law prohibiting such an action. As I’ve read that many states outlaw idling at a gas station when fueling up a vehicle due to the potential for the engine to ignite vapors. Especially should they backfire. I was told by someone today that he believed it was illegal for officers on duty to turn off their vehicle but I’ve not been able to substantiate that nor does it seem likely to me. I did not notice any signs instructing the engine to be turned off as you find at many gas stations.

If anyone knows whether New Jersey has such a law and what it is please contact me personally or leave a comment.

I don’t know if it’s actually dangerous and as I said I didn’t see from the road whether or not there was a sign indicating engines needed to be off but knowing New Jersey and how anal the government is (not even allowing people pump their own gas) I wouldn’t be surprised if it was prohibited.  If it is prohibited then the cop should be following the same statutes the rest of us are supposed to. If it’s prohibited but authorities are exempted I think that’s just as unfair as officers being exempt from NJ laws prohibiting non-hands free mobile phone usage while on duty. If it’s not prohibited and not against the station’s rules I would still prefer that the officer stop the engine while refueling. There is no reason to waste fuel given that the tax payers, not the officer, are ultimately paying for that gasoline.

November 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPECIAL TIMES EDITION BLANKETS U.S. CITIES, PROCLAIMS END TO WAR

• PDF: http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf
• For video updates: http://www.nytimes-se.com/video
• Contact: mailto:writers@nytimes-se.com

Early this morning, commuters nationwide were delighted to find out that while they were sleeping, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had come to an end.

If, that is, they happened to read a “special edition” of today’s New York Times.

In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama’s “Yes we REALLY can” speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

“It’s all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,” said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper’s writers. “We’ve got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do. After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven.”

Not all readers reacted favorably. “The thing I disagree with is how they did it,” said Stuart Carlyle, who received a paper in Grand Central Station while commuting to his Wall Street brokerage. “I’m all for freedom of speech, but they should have started their own paper.”

Is Ms. Suttner claiming Carter wasn’t hell? What about LBJ?  I’m not so sure I can be “all for freedom of speech” for individuals who have no desire to extend me freedom of speech (pretty sure they support campaign regulation), or freedom of association (CEO pay, lobbying), or freedom from aggression by the majority (mandatory national healthcare.) The Yes Men are state socialists / anti-big business. They aren’t concerned with individual freedoms. They don’t bother reading history. They likely have little understanding of economics or how these plans of theirs would work in theory or practice. They have an incredibly shallow view of the world and it’s problems, ignore human tendency, and prescribe solutions equally as shallow and ignorant. Their proposed solutions however are far worse then the existing problems.

The one thing I hope comes from acts like this is that the participants get so worked up that when Obama fails to deliver their faith in their all powerful god Government will be diminished. Unlikely, but possible. Maybe if more bridges are built between the anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialists these state socialist types can be more easily convinced.

UPDATE:

Since their servers aren’t very responsive here are the PDFs: Without spreads | With spreads

http://www.fortbendnow.com/…

In the face of $4 per gallon gasoline and predictions the price will rise to $7 by the end of summer, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson) is calling on Congress to explore how the weakened value of the dollar may be contributing to the rise in oil prices.

Paul, whose 14th Congressional District of Texas includes part of the Katy area and much of Cinco Ranch, said he wants Congress to hold hearings on the relationship between the falling value of the dollar and the recent rise of oil prices.

As ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Paul sent a letter earlier this week to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services committee, asking for the hearings.

“The price of oil is currently among the most pressing issues to American workers,” Paul said. “Congress should be examining all factors contributing to the high cost of oil, and monetary policy is one of the key factors in the run-up in price.”

Paul’s letter pointed out that the price of oil in dollars has risen 39 percent this year. Oil in Euros has only risen 30 percent, resulting in degraded purchasing power of the dollar of at least 80 cents of the increased price of a gallon of gas.

“Neither the Federal Reserve nor the Treasury Department have been willing to take responsibility for the dollar’s slide over the past several years, while American consumers have been forced to pay continually higher prices for gasoline, heating oil and numerous other imported products upon which Americans depend,” Paul noted in his letter. “American consumers cannot afford to allow continued lax Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department’s duties as stewards of the dollar, especially since the dollar is a major factor in the skyrocketing price of oil.”

Besides himself, 16 other Members of Congress signed on to the letter, including ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Spencer Bachus, and Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling.

Hopefully DownsizeDC will get something going on this. If anything this could be an educational tool for those who would be participating. The more congress critters who understand economics, even a little bit, the better.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/…

Ron Paul gave a speech on the House floor today condemning the “virtual war resolution” soon to be considered by the House of Representatives. This bill already has 208 co-sponsors, and will likely be voted on after the 4th of July holiday. A related bill is being worked on in the Senate, with 29 Cosponsors. Many of the cosponsors are Democrats. Who says the Democratic Party is the anti-war party? You can see the video of Dr. Paul speaking out forcefully against this resolution here, sadly to a nearly empty House chamber.

It is time for Americans to join together against this insanity. Please take the time to understand your representative’s position on this resolution, and let him or her know that the American people do not want another war. Below is an unofficial transcript of Dr. Paul’s speech:

Read More…

http://www.forbes.com/…

China’s decision to raise fuel prices is unlikely to have much of an impact on demand, which is the fundamental cause of inflation, Morgan Stanley said in a note.

‘It seems to us that the government is trying to cope with the near-term financial difficulties of refiners and IPPs (independent power producers) rather than trying to depress demand,’ the note said.

The regulator, the National Development and Reform Commission, said last night that it would raise gasoline and diesel prices by 1,000 yuan per ton and jet fuel by 1,500 yuan per ton, effective from today.

The government has also raised electricity tariffs for industrial consumers and announced caps on cap coal prices.

Morgan Stanley (nyse: MS – news – people ) said the price hikes will also add more inflationary pressure to China’s economy, making it less likely that the government will permit more significant power tariff rises in the next few months.

It said that while there will be a temporary improvement in the performance of China’s refiners and independent power producers, the ‘underlying imbalance is not fixed’ and more inflationary pressures are expected.

‘Inflation can only be fixed by controlling demand, not prices,’ Morgan Stanley said.

‘When the regulators focus on pricing control, the imbalance only deepens and earnings visibility becomes worse. Our market de-rating call still holds.’

This is just what I was talking about beetlbumjl. They can’t continue to have artificially low prices without consequences. Of course this retard from Morgan Stanley needs to head back to economics class. Inflation can be controlled by the government… by not printing more money i.e. monetizing debt. What he is really referring to is the increase in prices as a result of higher demand. That’s not “inflation.”

If we look back just a few years we can see that there has been a remarkable shift in the definition. I don’t know of any word which has gone through such a translation without having prior or secondary meanings still listed. My conspiracist sense is tingling.

Regardless, the Chinese government has kicked a bucket of water and is now trying desperately to stop the waves by shaking it. If they allow the natural price of fuel to return that would slow consumption. The demand for energy is likely not going to be reduced but naturally higher prices will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, cheaper energy sources when compared to oil.

Update:

Just on CNN they were talking about this. The mentioned that Saudi Arabia was wanting to talk about strengthening the dollar and the anchor said that “that would likely bring prices down.” Well of course it would. Oil is traded in US dollars. The US dollar is the reserve currency for much of the world. So if the dollar is worth less, in turn leading to other currencies being worth less, then oil will cost more. If the dollar is worth more then less dollars are needed to purchase the same unit of oil. Therefore prices must drop otherwise the value of oil would have to be rising at the same time. The same anchor said that increasing the prices would limit demand. That’s sort of true in that the higher costs may divert people to other means however in the larger view it’s a ridiculous statement. The demand, as in the desire for a energy source, is still the same or increasing. It’s just less consumable because of higher costs.