http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Starting next year, there will be four new pennies to collect, celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.

The obverse (or heads) part of the coin will stay the same, showing the 16th president facing to the right.

But the reverse (tails) part of the coin will show different times in the life of Lincoln, who is widely considered to be one of the country’s greatest leaders for freeing the slaves and saving the Union during the Civil War.

The designs for the new pennies were shown for the first time yesterday near the Lincoln Memorial.

The first new penny will be available Feb. 12, Lincoln’s 200th birthday. It will show a log cabin to honor his birth and childhood in Kentucky.

The others will show his life as a young man in Indiana, his professional life in Illinois and his presidential years in Washington (when the U.S. Capitol was being built).

The other side of the penny will continue to show the likeness of Lincoln designed by Victor David Brennan. It was introduced on the Lincoln penny 100 years ago.

A Lincoln commemorative silver dollar also will be issued next year.

Abraham Lincoln did not really free the slaves. The 13th Amendment did. The Emancipation Proclamation said “all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Only those slaves captured by the North by that point were set free. Maryland and Delaware were both slave states and not on of the supposed rebel states. While not recognized by any other government the Confederate States of America was a separate nation with it’s own government defined by their own (though heavily borrowed from the USA) constitution. Therefore from their perspective the Emancipation Proclamation meant as much as if it had come from England. Lincoln also said this of the Corwin Amendment, “[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” which read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

As for saving the Union… a highly questionable action. Even if ruled unconstitutional there is plenty of evidence that such a claim is incorrect from a legal standpoint. For example: When ratifying the new constitution, Virginia (1788), New York (1788), and Rhode Island (1790) included clauses indicating they were free to leave the new federal government confederation should it become oppressive. It seems obvious that they would not have joined if they believed it was a one way trip. From a moral standpoint its reprehensible. The Declaration of Independence clearly says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Lincoln was in no way a great leader but a statist who put his beliefs in keeping together a union of people who did not wish to be under the same government umbrella above the lives of over 600,000 individuals.

For more information read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln. Many complain his views are one sided but given the works written in excess of Lincoln’s greatness I think that’s excusable. You can also find a decent interview with DiLorenzo on CSPAN’s Q&A at Google video.

http://www.ft.com/…

Morgan Stanley has won the contract to market the prime broadcast spectrum that will become available for sale once all television stations switch from analogue to digital signals in 2012.

The auction, which may raise up to £5bn for the Treasury, will make available up to eight packages of wavelength in a “sweet spot” on the spectrum.

About 128Mhz of spectrum in the sweet spot around 700Mhz will be available.

Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, is expected to begin the process at the end of next year or in early 2010.

The spectrum provides an optimum combination of broadcast range and the ability to carry large amounts of data. It will be of particular interest to mobile telephone companies and those wishing to build wireless networks in urban areas.

Wherever a television signal can be received, the same will apply to mobile phones and laptops.

Morgan Stanley beat several other banks and two marketing companies to the contract, the value of which was not disclosed.

An official at the regulator said that Morgan Stanley’s contact book, allowing it to open direct contact with anyone from US telecoms groups to Asian investors, would be of great value in getting the best price.

In the US last March a similar sale of 52Mhz in the 700Mhz range raised $19.1bn (then £9.8bn). Taking into account the size of the market, this suggests a figure of £4.4bn for the 128Mhz on offer in the UK.

Analysts expect existing telecoms companies to take up most of the spectrum, although Ofcom believes that it can spark wider interest from around the world.

An auction of spectrum in 2000 raised £20bn from mobile phone companies for 3G services.

I’m against government ‘owning’ the radio spectrum anyway but why is it that they are contracting out the auctioning of it? Whether it’s a fix ammount or a percentage of the winning bids the ammount spent is far too much in my opinion. Sure there will be a lot of paperwork when you get down to it the only thing occurring is a transfer of license owner. Why does an organisation like Morgan Stanley need to be involved? I’m sure given the size of the federal government and the FCC itself there is some system which could be arranged without the need of a middle man.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/…

The government is pressing ahead with plans to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a massive central silo for all UK communications data, The Register has learned.

Home Office civil servants are working on plans for the database under the banner of the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP). The team has recently been expanded and a director-level official appointed to run the project, which is not yet official policy in public.

The project has been pushed hard at Whitehall by the intelligence agencies MI6 and GCHQ. One ISP source described their demands as “science fiction”. It’s envisaged that the one-stop-shop database will retain details of all calls, texts, emails, instant messenger conversations and websites accessed in the UK for up to two years.

Others have countered in Communications Data Bill discussions that a central, searchable database will not “maintain capability”, but grant investigators unprecedented power to cross-reference data sources (including location data from mobile phone triangulation), go on “fishing trips”, and infringe privacy.

The Information Commissioner’s Office voiced such opposition when early details of the IMP were reported in May. But according to our sources, public resistance to the überdatabase has so far had no significant impact on policy.

I reported on this in May. Doesn’t look like much has really changed but it seems that there has been some outrage over it. As expected the government doesn’t care what the subjects say and are continuing more or less full steam (as inefficiently as that is).

I think that if I were over in the UK I’d work to start a movement to fill the database. Generate huge amounts of bogus data. Modify email servers to throw in randomly sized file attachments from /dev/urandom into every message sent and the receive end can remove it. Either the government starts filtering everything which would increase necessary cpu power, they’d start dropping messages, or they log lots of completely bogus data. I think each scenario is a win. Push TOR and other anonymous/encrypted forms of communication and you render their efforts mute.

So they gots to go.  Such is the case in East Harlem.  From Shagya blog:

From London’s Grosvenor Square you can’t see East Harlem, but you can buy it. For £250 million, 47 buildings, and 1,137 homes at a time. That, at least, was supposed to be the deal for UK-based investment bank Dawnay Day Group when it reached across the ocean last March and snatched up entire blocks of this historic neighborhood of low-income immigrants ­ one of the last such communities left in Dawnay Day Group’s plan follows the typical logic of displacement for “development,” a logic well known both to real estate profiteers and to the poor people they displace.

Here is the full blog post.  It’s nice to see people fighting back.  Here’s a radical thought, if a family is making use of a scarce resource such as an apartment and the landlord is not and cannot use the apartment for its primary purpose then the family possesses the apartment.  It sickens me to see things under-utilized because people with capital choose to sit on them.  Let the property rights fracas ensue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/…

The Oasis guitarist said it was a “pity scumbags are taking over our streets”, and claimed video games were partly to blame for violence.

He said: “In my day, status was trying to be somebody, do you know what I mean, not trying to kill somebody?”

The star said knife crime was a problem across the UK, not just in London.

The 41-year-old added: “I was up in Liverpool for a week a couple of weeks ago and even on the news there it’s every single night.

“I don’t even know what Cameron or Gordon Brown are going to do about it. I was watching a documentary on Panorama and another one about kids carrying knives and violence.

“One of the lads, a little lad, made a telling comment.

“The guy said, ‘Do you not think there’s anything better for you in life?’

“And he said, ‘Yeah, there probably is but I’ve never known anything else’.”

Gallagher also revealed that he and partner Sarah McDonald were worried about their children growing up and said they talked about knife crime in bed at night.

“People say it’s through violent video games and I guess that’s got something to do with it.

“If kids are sitting up all night smoking super skunk [cannabis] and they come so desensitised to crime because they’re playing these video games, it’s really, really scary.”

Eighteen teenagers have been murdered in London so far this year.

In response, the capital’s Metropolitan police force have set up a task force of 75 officers, dedicated to fighting knife crime.

My theory? The warfare/welfare state is sucking the responsibility and drive out of these kids and they have nothing to strive for. That is what is leading to the increase in knife crime. That and the ban on guns probably doesn’t help as it makes it easier likely to get a knife to commit your violent crime then a gun. At least for the lower end crime. I’m not claiming guns aren’t still relatively easy to get. In any case… if videogames and pot made kids want to stab people… the USA would have several million of them running around.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…

The National Health Service is providing dying cancer patients with drugs that are five times less effective than those available privately and is refusing to treat them if they try to buy medicines themselves.

One drug for kidney cancer, routinely available through public health systems in most European countries but not to British patients, can reduce the size of tumours in 31% of patients, compared with just 6% of those prescribed the standard NHS drug.

The growing row over “co-payments” has prompted the government to reconsider the ban. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has promised a “fundamental rethink” of the policy.

Research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology found that kidney patients taking the new drug Sutent lived six months longer than those prescribed alpha interferon, the NHS treatment.

The failure of the NHS to make more effective drugs available to cancer patients has been condemned as “unethical” by leading doctors.

A woman with bowel cancer is fighting for the right to pay for a drug that could extend her life long enough for her to spend Christmas with her grandchildren.

Sheila Norrington, 59, a former NHS medical secretary from Maidstone, Kent, has been told by doctors that if she buys the drug Erbitux, which the health service will not pay for, she will lose her state-funded cancer care. Erbitux is the only drug capable of treating her advanced bowel cancer.

Norrington’s husband, Goff, 61, a former sales manager, said: “We have been told that if we pay for it ourselves we will be thrown off the NHS completely and we will need to pay for everything privately. We are devastated. This is not going to cure my wife, but if it keeps her alive a little bit longer, then we would pay for it.”

The couple say that although they could pay for a few cycles of the drug, which costs about £3,000 a month, they could not pay for all Norrington’s care, including scans, blood tests and consultations.

Goff Norrington added: “We have two young granddaughters and this could make the difference between sitting round the table with them at Christmas or not. We think it is deplorable that patients can get this drug almost anywhere in Europe but we cannot get it in the UK.”

A spokesman for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust said: “We are governed by Department of Health policy on this issue.”

A poll for The Sunday Times shows strong support for allowing co-payment in the National Health Service, with 89% saying that people who buy additional cancer drugs should continue to get free NHS treatment.

Only 5% think allowing co-payment would create a two-tier NHS. Until now this has been the position taken by Alan Johnson, the health secretary.

Ministers had feared that allowing co-payment would upset less well-off patients, but the YouGov poll of nearly 1,800 people shows strong backing across the social spectrum and supporters of all three main parties.

Lee over at MooreWatch.com I think said it all: “This, of course, begs the question.  If compassionate free government healthcare can’t provide, y’know, actual healthcare to patients, and they are forced to paying massive amounts of money to buy their own treatments, maybe the solution to the problem is less free government healthcare and more private sector solutions.”

When will these people realize that the government can not negate scarcity? The only thing that can bring more and better healthcare to the masses is an increase in their wealth and the only way to do that is capital accumulation through free market capitalism.