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.lewrockwell.com/…

Venezuela’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez, knows a fellow leftist when he sees one:

Chavez, who calls capitalism an evil and ex-Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor, ridiculed Bush for his plan for the federal government to take equity in American banks despite the U.S. right-wing’s criticism of Venezuelan nationalizations.”Bush is to the left of me now,” Chavez told an audience of international intellectuals debating the benefits of socialism. “Comrade Bush announced he will buy shares in private banks.”

It’s pretty hard to argue with ol’ Hugo’s observations. (Link via Drudge.)

I don’t know that he’s left of Chavez… but he’s trying.

http://www.reuters.com/…

The New York Times, quoting unnamed government officials, said Treasury was considering taking ownership stakes in many U.S. banks. A Treasury spokesperson could not be reached for comment on the story.

Sure… why not. These people like Barney Frank and Charles Schumer have no problems pushing the government closer and closer to some Nazi / fascist / Soviet communist amalgamation. The police state of the right and the economic totalitarianism of the left. Either these guys are so blinded by their position of power they don’t see this lockstep toward Amero-fascism or they are Manchurian candidates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTfNzYM.5Wfk&refer=home

Iceland’s government seized control of Kaupthing Bank hf, the nation’s biggest bank, completing the takeover of a banking industry that has collapsed under the weight of its foreign debt.

Iceland is guaranteeing Kaupthing’s domestic deposits and taking control of banks in an attempt to provide a “functioning domestic banking system,” the country’s Financial Supervisory Authority said in a statement on its Web site today.

The banks are saddled with about $61 billion of debt, 12 times the size of the economy, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Twelve times? Sounds huge but I’ve nothing to compare it to.

http://www.bloomberg.com/…

American International Group Inc., the insurer taken over by the government, may access $37.8 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in addition to the $85 billion loan that helped it stave off bankruptcy.

AIG can swap as much as $37.8 billion of its “investment- grade, fixed-income securities” for cash to “replenish liquidity” at the New York-based insurer, the Fed said late yesterday in a statement. AIG spokesman Nicholas Ashooh said the assets were held mainly in U.S. life insurance subsidiaries and declined to say how much of the new program has been used.

“You’re in for a dime, you’re in for a dollar on this one,” said David Havens, a credit analyst at UBS AG. “The core problem is liquidity as opposed to solvency, though as the businesses deteriorate and adverse economic conditions take hold, solvency will also become more of an issue.”

The problem is liquidity as opposed to solvency? Sounds familiar. Sorry gentlemen but not having the liquidity to pay for one’s debts is insolvency:

A business may be cash flow insolvent but balance sheet solvent if it holds illiquid assets, particularly against short term debt. Conversely, a business can have negative net assets showing on their balance sheet but still be cash flow solvent if ongoing revenue is able to meet debt obligations, and thus avoid default – for instance, if it holds long term debt.

Not surprising given his support previous of Service Nation and general expansion of national service. I bet he still refers to much of that as voluntarism. Offering young adults money for education for performing an act is not voluntarism.

http://money.cnn.com/…

“This is the first time in the history of United States that anything has been done by Congress to curtail excessive CEO compensation,” said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass, on Sunday. “It’s not everything we’d like, but it’s a very good beginning.”

“A very good beginning.”? They regulate the hell out of the corporations which they help artificially inflate by supporting the Federal Reserve System. Effectively controlling a significant portion of their business. Now they are nationalizing components of them or creating sweetheart deals for their friends in other firms by taking over a failing company instead of letting them work through bankruptcy. Allowing the likes of Citi Group and JP Morgan Chase to purchase assets deemed nearly worthless by the FDIC. Now Frank is bragging about how they have a foot in the door to controlling salaries of CEOs. If that’s the beginning the end is little better than complete state socialism/communism or the more likely fascism.

Is he ignorant or malicious? I hope the former. Perhaps than he could be convinced to read F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.