Friday, April 30, 2010
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=895136127&utm_source=Juggworld&utm_medium=iMGP&utm_campaign=Juggworld-milf-p1
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Pinal County Deputy Shot by illegal during traffic stop (Mattingly) Date: 2010-04-30, 5:08PM MST Reply To This Post Pinal Co. Deputy Shot by Illegal
Pinal County Deputy Shot by illegal during traffic stop (Mattingly)
Date: 2010-04-30, 5:08PM MST
Reply To This Post
Pinal Co. Deputy Shot by Illegal Immigrants During Traffic Stop
Updated: Friday, 30 Apr 2010, 6:00 PM MDT
Published : Friday, 30 Apr 2010, 5:52 PM MDT
CASA GRANDE - A Pinal County sheriff's deputy is hanging for dear life after he's shot by a group of suspected illegal immigrants Friday.
It happened during a traffic stop on the I-8 west of Casa Grande. The deputy stopped a vehicle containing a group of suspected illegal immigrants when he was shot.
He radioed in to report he was shot with an AK-47. His injuries are life-threatening, but authorities have not been able to find him.
Authorities are also searching for the suspects, who fled.
Stay with myfoxphoenix.com as we cover this breaking story.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/pinal-co-deputy-shot-4-30-2010
Date: 2010-04-30, 5:08PM MST
Reply To This Post
Pinal Co. Deputy Shot by Illegal Immigrants During Traffic Stop
Updated: Friday, 30 Apr 2010, 6:00 PM MDT
Published : Friday, 30 Apr 2010, 5:52 PM MDT
CASA GRANDE - A Pinal County sheriff's deputy is hanging for dear life after he's shot by a group of suspected illegal immigrants Friday.
It happened during a traffic stop on the I-8 west of Casa Grande. The deputy stopped a vehicle containing a group of suspected illegal immigrants when he was shot.
He radioed in to report he was shot with an AK-47. His injuries are life-threatening, but authorities have not been able to find him.
Authorities are also searching for the suspects, who fled.
Stay with myfoxphoenix.com as we cover this breaking story.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/pinal-co-deputy-shot-4-30-2010
Arizona can bring Hollywood Liberals to their Knees begging for food - (Ban going to the Hollywood Movies)
Arizona can bring Hollywood Liberals to their Knees begging for food - (Ban going to the Hollywood Movies)
All they have to do is do not see any new movies with any liberals such as George Clooney or just not go all together.
They can kill the Heart of Liberals without firing a shot.
All they have to do is do not see any new movies with any liberals such as George Clooney or just not go all together.
They can kill the Heart of Liberals without firing a shot.
EPIC illegal kills boss with a pickaxe on meth
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-pickax-murder,0,5392489.story
SANTA ANA -- A day laborer who repeatedly hit his boss with a shovel, and then used a pickax to crush his head, was sentenced Friday to 26 years to life in prison.
Ernesto Hernando Avalos, 23, of Santa Ana was convicted in March of the Jan. 27, 2007, death of Woo Sung Park, a 45-year-old Rancho Santa Margarita father who owned a landscaping business, Blue Bird Landscape.
Prosecutors say Park hired Avalos and another man to work at a home in the Shady Canyon neighborhood of Irvine.
After lunchtime, the other worker went to the home's back yard, and saw Park lying motionless on the ground, while Avalos held a shovel, Deputy District Attorney Steve McGreevy said.
Sign up for KTLA 5 Breaking News Email Alerts
A neighbor called police, who responded and ordered Avalos to put down the shovel.
Avalos dropped the shovel, but then picked up a pickax and smashed it in the head of the 45-year-old Rancho Santa Margarita father.
Avalos was arrested after police used a less-lethal weapon on him.
During a police interview, Avalos said he had taken methamphetamine that morning, and that he was angry at Park for stating he was working too slowly, McGreevy said.
During his opening statement, Deputy Public Defender Arthur Phan described Avalos' attack as an act of self-defense.
Avalos, whom was criticized by his boss, feared an attack, the lawyer said.
If convicted, Avalos faces 16 years to life in prison.
SANTA ANA -- A day laborer who repeatedly hit his boss with a shovel, and then used a pickax to crush his head, was sentenced Friday to 26 years to life in prison.
Ernesto Hernando Avalos, 23, of Santa Ana was convicted in March of the Jan. 27, 2007, death of Woo Sung Park, a 45-year-old Rancho Santa Margarita father who owned a landscaping business, Blue Bird Landscape.
Prosecutors say Park hired Avalos and another man to work at a home in the Shady Canyon neighborhood of Irvine.
After lunchtime, the other worker went to the home's back yard, and saw Park lying motionless on the ground, while Avalos held a shovel, Deputy District Attorney Steve McGreevy said.
Sign up for KTLA 5 Breaking News Email Alerts
A neighbor called police, who responded and ordered Avalos to put down the shovel.
Avalos dropped the shovel, but then picked up a pickax and smashed it in the head of the 45-year-old Rancho Santa Margarita father.
Avalos was arrested after police used a less-lethal weapon on him.
During a police interview, Avalos said he had taken methamphetamine that morning, and that he was angry at Park for stating he was working too slowly, McGreevy said.
During his opening statement, Deputy Public Defender Arthur Phan described Avalos' attack as an act of self-defense.
Avalos, whom was criticized by his boss, feared an attack, the lawyer said.
If convicted, Avalos faces 16 years to life in prison.
smb.conf working example
[global]
workgroup = MYGROUP
server string = Samba Server
load printers = yes
log file = /usr/local/samba/var/log.%m
max log size = 50
security = user
socket options = TCP_NODELAY
dns proxy = no
[homes]
comment = Home Directories
browseable = no
writable = yes
[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /usr/spool/samba
browseable = no
guest ok = no
writable = no
printable = yes
workgroup = MYGROUP
server string = Samba Server
load printers = yes
log file = /usr/local/samba/var/log.%m
max log size = 50
security = user
socket options = TCP_NODELAY
dns proxy = no
[homes]
comment = Home Directories
browseable = no
writable = yes
[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /usr/spool/samba
browseable = no
guest ok = no
writable = no
printable = yes
Thursday, April 29, 2010
shared memory solaris 10
http://www.akadia.com/services/ora10_sol10_install.html
Short Guide to install Oracle 10 on SUN Solaris 10
This is a short Guide to install Oracle 10.2.0.3 / 64-Bit Edition
on SUN Solaris 10 (SPARC 64-Bit)
Documentation
Oracle® Database Release Notes
10g Release 2 (10.2) for Solaris Operating System (SPARC 64-Bit)
Oracle® Database Installation Guide
10g Release 2 (10.2) for Solaris Operating System (SPARC 64-Bit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview
For our installation, we used the following ORACLE_HOME and ORACLE_SID, please adjust these parameters for your own environment.
ORACLE_HOME = /opt/oracle/product/9.2.0
ORACLE_SID = QUO1
Check Hardware Requirements
Minimal Memory: 1024 MB
To determine the amount of RAM memory installed on your system, enter the following command.
$ /usr/sbin/prtconf
Minimal Swap Space:
To determine the amount of Swap Space installed on your system, enter the following command.
$ /usr/sbin/swap -s
Between 1024 MB and 2048 MB 1.5 times the size of RAM
Between 2049 MB and 8192 MB Equal to the size of RAM
More than 8192 MB 0.75 times the size of RAM
Minimal Disk Space in /tmp: 400 MB
To determine the amount of disk space available in the /tmp directory, enter the following command:
$ df -h /tmp
Operating System Software Requirements
Use the latest kernel patch from Sun Microsystems (http://sunsolve.sun.com)
- Download the Patch from: http://sunsolve.sun.com
- Read the README File included in the Patch
- Usually the only thing you have to do is:
$ cd
$ ./install_custer
$ cat /var/sadm/install_data/_log
$ showrev -p
- Reboot the system
To determine your current operating system information:
$ uname -a
To determine which operating system patches are installed:
$ showrev -p
To determine which operating system packages are installed:
$ pkginfo -i [package_name]
To determine if your X-windows system is working properly on your local system, but you can redirect the X-windows output to another system.
$ xclock
To determine if you are using the correct system executables:
$ /usr/bin/which make
$ /usr/bin/which ar
$ /usr/bin/which ld
$ /usr/bin/which nm
Each of the four commands above should point to the /usr/ccs/bin directory. If not, add /usr/ccs/bin to the beginning of the PATH environment variable in the current shell.
Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
The JRE shipped with Oracle10 is used by Oracle Java applications such as the Oracle Universal Installer is the only one supported. You should not modify this JRE, unless it is done through a patch provided by Oracle Support Services. The inventory can contain multiple versions of the JRE, each of which can be used by one or more products or releases. The Installer creates the oraInventory directory the first time it is run to keep an inventory of products that it installs on your system as well as other installation information. The location of oraInventory is defined in /var/opt/oracle/oraInst.loc. Products in an ORACLE_HOME access the JRE through a symbolic link in $ORACLE_HOME/JRE to the actual location of a JRE within the inventory. You should not modify the symbolic link.
Check Software Limits
Oracle10 includes native support for files greater than 2 GB. Check your shell to determine whether it will impose a limit.
To check current soft shell limits, enter the following command:
$ ulimit -Sa
To check maximum hard limits, enter the following command:
$ ulimit -Ha
The file (blocks) value should be multiplied by 512 to obtain the maximum file size imposed by the shell. A value of unlimited is the operating system default and is the maximum value of 1 TB.
Setup the Solaris Kernel
In Solaris 10, you are not required to make changes to the /etc/system file to implement the System V TPC. Solaris 10 uses the resource control facility for its implementation.
Parameter Resource Control Recommended Value
noexec_user_stack NA 1
semsys:seminfo_semmni project.max-sem-ids 100
semsys:seminfo_semmsl process.max-sem-nsems 256
shmsys:shminfo_shmmax project.max-shm-memory 4294967295
shmsys:shminfo_shmmni project.max-shm-ids 100
Many kernel parameters have been replaced by so called resource controls in Solaris 10. It is possible to change resource controls using the prctl command. All shared memory and semaphore settings are now handled via resource controls, so any entries regarding shared memory or semaphores (shm & sem) in /etc/system will be ignored.
Here is the procedure we followed to modify the kernel parameters on Solaris 10 / Oracle 10.2.0.3.
Unlike earlier releases of Solaris, most of the system parameters needed to run Oracle are already set properly, so the only one you need is the maximum shared memory parameter. In earlier versions this was called SHMMAX and was set by editing the /etc/system file and rebooting. With Solaris 10 you set this by modifying a «Resource Control Value». You can do this temporarily by using prctl, but that is lost at reboot so you will need to add the command to the oracle user's $HOME/.profile.
The other option is to create a default project for the oracle user.
# projadd -U oracle -K "project.max-shm-memory=(priv,4096MB,deny)" user.oracle
What this does:
Makes a project named "user.oracle" in /etc/project with the user oracle as it's only member.
# cat /etc/project
system:0::::
user.root:1::::
noproject:2::::
default:3::::
group.staff:10::::
user.oracle:100::oracle::project.max-shm-memory=(priv,4294967296,deny)
Because the name was of the form "user.username" it becomes the oracle user's default project.
The value of the maximum shared memory is set to 4GB, you might want to use a larger value here if you have more memory and swap.
No reboot is needed, the user will get the new value
at their next login.
Now you can also modify the max-sem-ids Parameter:
# projmod -s -K "project.max-sem-ids=(priv,256,deny)" user.oracle
Check the Parameters as User oracle
$ prctl -i project user.oracle
project: 100: user.oracle
NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
project.max-contracts
privileged 10.0K - deny -
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-device-locked-memory
privileged 125MB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-port-ids
privileged 8.19K - deny -
system 65.5K max deny -
project.max-shm-memory
privileged 4.00GB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-shm-ids
privileged 128 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-msg-ids
privileged 128 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-sem-ids
privileged 256 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-crypto-memory
privileged 498MB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-tasks
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
project.cpu-shares
privileged 1 - none -
system 65.5K max none -
zone.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
zone.cpu-shares
privileged 1 - none -
Create Unix Group «dba»
$ groupadd -g 400 dba
$ groupdel dba
Create Unix User «oracle»
$ useradd -u 400 -c "Oracle Owner" -d /export/home/oracle \
-g "dba" -m -s /bin/ksh oracle
Setup ORACLE environment ($HOME/.bash_profile) as follows
# Setup ORACLE environment
ORACLE_HOME=/opt/oracle/product/10.2.0; export ORACLE_HOME
ORACLE_SID=QUO1; export ORACLE_SID
TNS_ADMIN=/home/oracle/config/10.2.0 export TNS_ADMIN
ORA_NLS10=${ORACLE_HOME}/nls/data; export ORA_NLS10
CLASSPATH=${CLASSPATH}:${ORACLE_HOME}/jdbc/lib/classes12.zip
ORACLE_TERM=xterm; export ORACLE_TERM
ORACLE_OWNER=oracle; export ORACLE_OWNER
NLS_LANG=AMERICAN_AMERICA.WE8ISO8859P1; export NLS_LANG
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib:${ORACLE_HOME}/lib:${ORACLE_HOME}/lib32; export LD_LIBRARY_PATH
# Set up the search paths
PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sfw/sbin
PATH=$PATH:/usr/bin:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/usr/sadm/bin
PATH=$PATH:/usr/sfw/bin:/usr/X11/bin:/usr/j2se/bin
PATH=$PATH:$ORACLE_HOME/bin
Install Oracle Software
To extract the installation archive files, perform the following steps:
$ gunzip filename.cpio.gz
$ cpio -idcmv < filename.cpio
Check oraInst.loc File
If you used Oracle before on your system, then you must edit the Oracle Inventory File, usually located in:
/var/opt/oracle/oraInst.loc
Install with Installer in interactive mode
Install Oracle 10g with Oracle Installer
$ DISPLAY=:0.0
$ export DISPLAY
$ ./runInstaller
Edit the Database Startup Script /var/opt/oracle/oratab
QUO1:/opt/oracle/product/10.2.0:Y
Create Password File
If the DBA wants to start up an Oracle instance there must be a way for Oracle to authenticate this DBA. That is if he is allowed to do so. Obviously, his password can not be stored in the database, because Oracle can not access the database if the instance has not been started up. Therefore, the authentication of the DBA must happen outside of the database.
The init parameter remote_login_passwordfile specifies if a password file is used to authenticate the DBA or not. If it set either to shared or exclusive a password file will be used.
Default location and file name
The default location for the password file is: $ORACLE_HOME/dbs/orapw$ORACLE_SID
Deleting a password file
If password file authentication is no longer needed, the password file can be deleted and the init parameter remote_login_passwordfile set to none.
Password file state
If a password file is shared or exclusive is also stored in the password file. After its creation, the state is shared. The state can be changed by setting remote_login_passwordfile and starting the database. That is, the database overwrites the state in the password file when it is started up. A password file whose state is shared can only contain SYS.
Creating a password file
Password files are created with the orapwd tool.
$ orapwd file=orapwQUO1 password=manager entries=5 force=y
Create a Symbolic Link from $ORACLE_HOME/dbs to the Password.
Create the Database
Edit the CREATE DATABASE File initQUO1.ora and create a symbolic-Link from $ORACLE_HOME/dbs to your Location.
$ cd $ORACLE_HOME/dbs
$ ln -s /home/oracle/config/10.2.0/initQUO1.ora initQUO1.ora
$ ls -l
lrwxrwxrwx 1 oracle dba 39 Jun 5 12:55 initQUO1.ora -> /home/oracle/config/10.2.0/initQUO1.ora
lrwxrwxrwx 1 oracle dba 36 Jun 5 12:58 orapwQUO1 -> /home/oracle/config/10.2.0/orapwQUO1
First start the Instance, just to test your initQUO1.ora file for correct syntax and system resources.
$ cd /export/home/oracle/config/10.2.0/
$ sqlplus /nolog
SQL> connect / as sysdba
SQL> startup nomount
SQL> shutdown immediate
Now you can create the Database
SQL> @initQUO1.sql
SQL> @shutdown immediate
SQL> startup
Check the Logfile: initQUO1.log
Start Listener
$ lsnrctl start LSNRQUO1
Automatically Start / Stop the Database
Solaris 10 has introduced the Solaris Service Management Facility to start / stop Services.
Services that are started by traditional rc scripts (referred to as legacy services) will generally continue to work as they always have. They will show up in the output of svcs(1), with an FMRI based on the pathname of their rc script, but they can not be controlled by svcadm(1M). They should be stopped and started by running the rc script directly.
$ svcs | grep oracle
legacy_run 8:27:00 lrc:/etc/rc3_d/S99oracle
To start the Database automatically on Boot-Time, create or use our Startup Scripts oracle which must be installed in /etc/init.d. Create symbolic Links from the Startup Directories.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root S99oracle -> ../init.d/oracle
Install Oracle Options (optional)
You may want to install the following Options:
Oracle JVM
Orcale XML
Oracle Spatial
Oracle Ultra Search
Oracle OLAP
Oracle Data Mining
Example Schemas
cd $ORACLE_HOME/config/10.2.0/addons
./install-addons.bash
Download Scripts for Sun Solaris
These Scripts can be used as Templates. Please note, that some Parameters like ORACLE_HOME, ORACLE_SID and PATH must be adjusted on your own Environment. Besides this, you should check the initSID.ora Parameters for your Database (Size, Archivelog, ...)
Click here for the Download
Short Guide to install Oracle 10 on SUN Solaris 10
This is a short Guide to install Oracle 10.2.0.3 / 64-Bit Edition
on SUN Solaris 10 (SPARC 64-Bit)
Documentation
Oracle® Database Release Notes
10g Release 2 (10.2) for Solaris Operating System (SPARC 64-Bit)
Oracle® Database Installation Guide
10g Release 2 (10.2) for Solaris Operating System (SPARC 64-Bit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview
For our installation, we used the following ORACLE_HOME and ORACLE_SID, please adjust these parameters for your own environment.
ORACLE_HOME = /opt/oracle/product/9.2.0
ORACLE_SID = QUO1
Check Hardware Requirements
Minimal Memory: 1024 MB
To determine the amount of RAM memory installed on your system, enter the following command.
$ /usr/sbin/prtconf
Minimal Swap Space:
To determine the amount of Swap Space installed on your system, enter the following command.
$ /usr/sbin/swap -s
Between 1024 MB and 2048 MB 1.5 times the size of RAM
Between 2049 MB and 8192 MB Equal to the size of RAM
More than 8192 MB 0.75 times the size of RAM
Minimal Disk Space in /tmp: 400 MB
To determine the amount of disk space available in the /tmp directory, enter the following command:
$ df -h /tmp
Operating System Software Requirements
Use the latest kernel patch from Sun Microsystems (http://sunsolve.sun.com)
- Download the Patch from: http://sunsolve.sun.com
- Read the README File included in the Patch
- Usually the only thing you have to do is:
$ cd
$ ./install_custer
$ cat /var/sadm/install_data/
$ showrev -p
- Reboot the system
To determine your current operating system information:
$ uname -a
To determine which operating system patches are installed:
$ showrev -p
To determine which operating system packages are installed:
$ pkginfo -i [package_name]
To determine if your X-windows system is working properly on your local system, but you can redirect the X-windows output to another system.
$ xclock
To determine if you are using the correct system executables:
$ /usr/bin/which make
$ /usr/bin/which ar
$ /usr/bin/which ld
$ /usr/bin/which nm
Each of the four commands above should point to the /usr/ccs/bin directory. If not, add /usr/ccs/bin to the beginning of the PATH environment variable in the current shell.
Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
The JRE shipped with Oracle10 is used by Oracle Java applications such as the Oracle Universal Installer is the only one supported. You should not modify this JRE, unless it is done through a patch provided by Oracle Support Services. The inventory can contain multiple versions of the JRE, each of which can be used by one or more products or releases. The Installer creates the oraInventory directory the first time it is run to keep an inventory of products that it installs on your system as well as other installation information. The location of oraInventory is defined in /var/opt/oracle/oraInst.loc. Products in an ORACLE_HOME access the JRE through a symbolic link in $ORACLE_HOME/JRE to the actual location of a JRE within the inventory. You should not modify the symbolic link.
Check Software Limits
Oracle10 includes native support for files greater than 2 GB. Check your shell to determine whether it will impose a limit.
To check current soft shell limits, enter the following command:
$ ulimit -Sa
To check maximum hard limits, enter the following command:
$ ulimit -Ha
The file (blocks) value should be multiplied by 512 to obtain the maximum file size imposed by the shell. A value of unlimited is the operating system default and is the maximum value of 1 TB.
Setup the Solaris Kernel
In Solaris 10, you are not required to make changes to the /etc/system file to implement the System V TPC. Solaris 10 uses the resource control facility for its implementation.
Parameter Resource Control Recommended Value
noexec_user_stack NA 1
semsys:seminfo_semmni project.max-sem-ids 100
semsys:seminfo_semmsl process.max-sem-nsems 256
shmsys:shminfo_shmmax project.max-shm-memory 4294967295
shmsys:shminfo_shmmni project.max-shm-ids 100
Many kernel parameters have been replaced by so called resource controls in Solaris 10. It is possible to change resource controls using the prctl command. All shared memory and semaphore settings are now handled via resource controls, so any entries regarding shared memory or semaphores (shm & sem) in /etc/system will be ignored.
Here is the procedure we followed to modify the kernel parameters on Solaris 10 / Oracle 10.2.0.3.
Unlike earlier releases of Solaris, most of the system parameters needed to run Oracle are already set properly, so the only one you need is the maximum shared memory parameter. In earlier versions this was called SHMMAX and was set by editing the /etc/system file and rebooting. With Solaris 10 you set this by modifying a «Resource Control Value». You can do this temporarily by using prctl, but that is lost at reboot so you will need to add the command to the oracle user's $HOME/.profile.
The other option is to create a default project for the oracle user.
# projadd -U oracle -K "project.max-shm-memory=(priv,4096MB,deny)" user.oracle
What this does:
Makes a project named "user.oracle" in /etc/project with the user oracle as it's only member.
# cat /etc/project
system:0::::
user.root:1::::
noproject:2::::
default:3::::
group.staff:10::::
user.oracle:100::oracle::project.max-shm-memory=(priv,4294967296,deny)
Because the name was of the form "user.username" it becomes the oracle user's default project.
The value of the maximum shared memory is set to 4GB, you might want to use a larger value here if you have more memory and swap.
No reboot is needed, the user will get the new value
at their next login.
Now you can also modify the max-sem-ids Parameter:
# projmod -s -K "project.max-sem-ids=(priv,256,deny)" user.oracle
Check the Parameters as User oracle
$ prctl -i project user.oracle
project: 100: user.oracle
NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
project.max-contracts
privileged 10.0K - deny -
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-device-locked-memory
privileged 125MB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-port-ids
privileged 8.19K - deny -
system 65.5K max deny -
project.max-shm-memory
privileged 4.00GB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-shm-ids
privileged 128 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-msg-ids
privileged 128 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-sem-ids
privileged 256 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-crypto-memory
privileged 498MB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-tasks
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
project.cpu-shares
privileged 1 - none -
system 65.5K max none -
zone.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
zone.cpu-shares
privileged 1 - none -
Create Unix Group «dba»
$ groupadd -g 400 dba
$ groupdel dba
Create Unix User «oracle»
$ useradd -u 400 -c "Oracle Owner" -d /export/home/oracle \
-g "dba" -m -s /bin/ksh oracle
Setup ORACLE environment ($HOME/.bash_profile) as follows
# Setup ORACLE environment
ORACLE_HOME=/opt/oracle/product/10.2.0; export ORACLE_HOME
ORACLE_SID=QUO1; export ORACLE_SID
TNS_ADMIN=/home/oracle/config/10.2.0 export TNS_ADMIN
ORA_NLS10=${ORACLE_HOME}/nls/data; export ORA_NLS10
CLASSPATH=${CLASSPATH}:${ORACLE_HOME}/jdbc/lib/classes12.zip
ORACLE_TERM=xterm; export ORACLE_TERM
ORACLE_OWNER=oracle; export ORACLE_OWNER
NLS_LANG=AMERICAN_AMERICA.WE8ISO8859P1; export NLS_LANG
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib:${ORACLE_HOME}/lib:${ORACLE_HOME}/lib32; export LD_LIBRARY_PATH
# Set up the search paths
PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/sfw/sbin
PATH=$PATH:/usr/bin:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/usr/sadm/bin
PATH=$PATH:/usr/sfw/bin:/usr/X11/bin:/usr/j2se/bin
PATH=$PATH:$ORACLE_HOME/bin
Install Oracle Software
To extract the installation archive files, perform the following steps:
$ gunzip filename.cpio.gz
$ cpio -idcmv < filename.cpio
Check oraInst.loc File
If you used Oracle before on your system, then you must edit the Oracle Inventory File, usually located in:
/var/opt/oracle/oraInst.loc
Install with Installer in interactive mode
Install Oracle 10g with Oracle Installer
$ DISPLAY=
$ export DISPLAY
$ ./runInstaller
Edit the Database Startup Script /var/opt/oracle/oratab
QUO1:/opt/oracle/product/10.2.0:Y
Create Password File
If the DBA wants to start up an Oracle instance there must be a way for Oracle to authenticate this DBA. That is if he is allowed to do so. Obviously, his password can not be stored in the database, because Oracle can not access the database if the instance has not been started up. Therefore, the authentication of the DBA must happen outside of the database.
The init parameter remote_login_passwordfile specifies if a password file is used to authenticate the DBA or not. If it set either to shared or exclusive a password file will be used.
Default location and file name
The default location for the password file is: $ORACLE_HOME/dbs/orapw$ORACLE_SID
Deleting a password file
If password file authentication is no longer needed, the password file can be deleted and the init parameter remote_login_passwordfile set to none.
Password file state
If a password file is shared or exclusive is also stored in the password file. After its creation, the state is shared. The state can be changed by setting remote_login_passwordfile and starting the database. That is, the database overwrites the state in the password file when it is started up. A password file whose state is shared can only contain SYS.
Creating a password file
Password files are created with the orapwd tool.
$ orapwd file=orapwQUO1 password=manager entries=5 force=y
Create a Symbolic Link from $ORACLE_HOME/dbs to the Password.
Create the Database
Edit the CREATE DATABASE File initQUO1.ora and create a symbolic-Link from $ORACLE_HOME/dbs to your Location.
$ cd $ORACLE_HOME/dbs
$ ln -s /home/oracle/config/10.2.0/initQUO1.ora initQUO1.ora
$ ls -l
lrwxrwxrwx 1 oracle dba 39 Jun 5 12:55 initQUO1.ora -> /home/oracle/config/10.2.0/initQUO1.ora
lrwxrwxrwx 1 oracle dba 36 Jun 5 12:58 orapwQUO1 -> /home/oracle/config/10.2.0/orapwQUO1
First start the Instance, just to test your initQUO1.ora file for correct syntax and system resources.
$ cd /export/home/oracle/config/10.2.0/
$ sqlplus /nolog
SQL> connect / as sysdba
SQL> startup nomount
SQL> shutdown immediate
Now you can create the Database
SQL> @initQUO1.sql
SQL> @shutdown immediate
SQL> startup
Check the Logfile: initQUO1.log
Start Listener
$ lsnrctl start LSNRQUO1
Automatically Start / Stop the Database
Solaris 10 has introduced the Solaris Service Management Facility to start / stop Services.
Services that are started by traditional rc scripts (referred to as legacy services) will generally continue to work as they always have. They will show up in the output of svcs(1), with an FMRI based on the pathname of their rc script, but they can not be controlled by svcadm(1M). They should be stopped and started by running the rc script directly.
$ svcs | grep oracle
legacy_run 8:27:00 lrc:/etc/rc3_d/S99oracle
To start the Database automatically on Boot-Time, create or use our Startup Scripts oracle which must be installed in /etc/init.d. Create symbolic Links from the Startup Directories.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root S99oracle -> ../init.d/oracle
Install Oracle Options (optional)
You may want to install the following Options:
Oracle JVM
Orcale XML
Oracle Spatial
Oracle Ultra Search
Oracle OLAP
Oracle Data Mining
Example Schemas
cd $ORACLE_HOME/config/10.2.0/addons
./install-addons.bash
Download Scripts for Sun Solaris
These Scripts can be used as Templates. Please note, that some Parameters like ORACLE_HOME, ORACLE_SID and PATH must be adjusted on your own Environment. Besides this, you should check the initSID.ora Parameters for your Database (Size, Archivelog, ...)
Click here for the Download
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
using blastwave to install perl modules on solaris 10
http://www.blastwave.org/jir/blastwave.fam
1 Ignore the gpg shit as it gets installed later
2 Do put the stuff in the PATH
3 Then to get perl and Date::Manip
/opt/csw/bin/pkgutil --install pm_datemanip
1 Ignore the gpg shit as it gets installed later
2 Do put the stuff in the PATH
3 Then to get perl and Date::Manip
/opt/csw/bin/pkgutil --install pm_datemanip
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
solaris nic speed script
#!/bin/sh
# $Id: speed_duplex,v 1.4 2007/07/10 16:04:42 hutch Exp $
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin
# Print column header information
echo "Interface\tSpeed\t\tDuplex"
echo "---------\t-----\t\t------"
# Determine the speed and duplex for each live NIC on the system
for INTERFACE in `netstat -i | egrep -v "^Name|^lo0" \
| awk '{ print $1 }' | cut -d: -f1 | sort | uniq`
do
# Only gather information for active interfaces
# Note: "ce" interfaces can be "UP" in "ifconfig" but have link down
ifconfig $INTERFACE | grep "^$INTERFACE:.* /dev/null 2>&1 || continue
# Skip "cip" ATM interfaces
echo $INTERFACE | grep "^cip" > /dev/null 2>&1 && continue
# "ce" interfaces
if [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^ce[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
kstat > /dev/null 2>&1
if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
echo "The \"kstat\" command failed for interface $INTERFACE."
continue
fi
# Determine the ce interface number
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | cut -c 3-`
DUPLEX=`kstat ce:$INSTANCE | grep link_duplex | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$DUPLEX" in
0) DUPLEX="link down" ;;
1) DUPLEX="half" ;;
2) DUPLEX="full" ;;
esac
SPEED=`kstat ce:$INSTANCE | grep link_speed | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$SPEED" in
0) SPEED="link down" ;;
10) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
# "dmfe" interfaces
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^dmfe[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
# Only the root user should run "ndd"
if [ "`id | cut -c1-5`" != "uid=0" ] ; then
echo "You must be the root user to determine \
${INTERFACE_TYPE}${INSTANCE} speed and duplex information."
continue
fi
DUPLEX=`ndd /dev/${INTERFACE} link_mode`
case "$DUPLEX" in
0) DUPLEX="half" ;;
1) DUPLEX="full" ;;
esac
SPEED=`ndd /dev/${INTERFACE} link_speed`
case "$SPEED" in
10) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
# "bge" and "iprb" interfaces
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^iprb[0-9]+|bge[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
kstat > /dev/null 2>&1
if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
DUPLEX="The \"kstat\" command failed for interface $INTERFACE."
continue
fi
# Determine the bge|iprb interface number
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | tr -d '[a-z]'`
INTERFACE=`echo $INTERFACE | tr -d '[0-9]'`
DUPLEX=`kstat $INTERFACE:$INSTANCE | grep duplex | awk '{ print $2 }'`
SPEED=`kstat $INTERFACE:$INSTANCE | grep ifspeed | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$SPEED" in
10000000) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100000000) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000000000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^e1000g[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | cut -c7-`
# The duplex for e1000g devices can only be found with "dladm"
DUPLEX=`dladm show-dev $INTERFACE | awk '{ print $NF }'`
SPEED=`kstat e1000g:$INSTANCE | grep ifspeed | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$SPEED" in
10000000) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100000000) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000000000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
# le interfaces are always 10 Mbit half-duplex
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^le[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
DUPLEX="half"
SPEED="10 Mbit/s"
# All other interfaces
else
INTERFACE_TYPE=`echo $INTERFACE | sed -e "s/[0-9]*$//"`
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | sed -e "s/^[a-z]*//"`
# Only the root user should run "ndd"
if [ "`id | cut -c1-5`" != "uid=0" ] ; then
echo "You must be the root user to determine \
${INTERFACE_TYPE}${INSTANCE} speed and duplex information."
continue
fi
ndd -set /dev/$INTERFACE_TYPE instance $INSTANCE
SPEED=`ndd -get /dev/$INTERFACE_TYPE link_speed`
case "$SPEED" in
0) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
1) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
DUPLEX=`ndd -get /dev/$INTERFACE_TYPE link_mode`
case "$DUPLEX" in
0) DUPLEX="half" ;;
1) DUPLEX="full" ;;
*) DUPLEX="" ;;
esac
fi
echo "$INTERFACE\t\t$SPEED\t$DUPLEX"
done
# $Id: speed_duplex,v 1.4 2007/07/10 16:04:42 hutch Exp $
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin
# Print column header information
echo "Interface\tSpeed\t\tDuplex"
echo "---------\t-----\t\t------"
# Determine the speed and duplex for each live NIC on the system
for INTERFACE in `netstat -i | egrep -v "^Name|^lo0" \
| awk '{ print $1 }' | cut -d: -f1 | sort | uniq`
do
# Only gather information for active interfaces
# Note: "ce" interfaces can be "UP" in "ifconfig" but have link down
ifconfig $INTERFACE | grep "^$INTERFACE:.*
# Skip "cip" ATM interfaces
echo $INTERFACE | grep "^cip" > /dev/null 2>&1 && continue
# "ce" interfaces
if [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^ce[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
kstat > /dev/null 2>&1
if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
echo "The \"kstat\" command failed for interface $INTERFACE."
continue
fi
# Determine the ce interface number
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | cut -c 3-`
DUPLEX=`kstat ce:$INSTANCE | grep link_duplex | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$DUPLEX" in
0) DUPLEX="link down" ;;
1) DUPLEX="half" ;;
2) DUPLEX="full" ;;
esac
SPEED=`kstat ce:$INSTANCE | grep link_speed | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$SPEED" in
0) SPEED="link down" ;;
10) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
# "dmfe" interfaces
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^dmfe[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
# Only the root user should run "ndd"
if [ "`id | cut -c1-5`" != "uid=0" ] ; then
echo "You must be the root user to determine \
${INTERFACE_TYPE}${INSTANCE} speed and duplex information."
continue
fi
DUPLEX=`ndd /dev/${INTERFACE} link_mode`
case "$DUPLEX" in
0) DUPLEX="half" ;;
1) DUPLEX="full" ;;
esac
SPEED=`ndd /dev/${INTERFACE} link_speed`
case "$SPEED" in
10) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
# "bge" and "iprb" interfaces
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^iprb[0-9]+|bge[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
kstat > /dev/null 2>&1
if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
DUPLEX="The \"kstat\" command failed for interface $INTERFACE."
continue
fi
# Determine the bge|iprb interface number
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | tr -d '[a-z]'`
INTERFACE=`echo $INTERFACE | tr -d '[0-9]'`
DUPLEX=`kstat $INTERFACE:$INSTANCE | grep duplex | awk '{ print $2 }'`
SPEED=`kstat $INTERFACE:$INSTANCE | grep ifspeed | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$SPEED" in
10000000) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100000000) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000000000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^e1000g[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | cut -c7-`
# The duplex for e1000g devices can only be found with "dladm"
DUPLEX=`dladm show-dev $INTERFACE | awk '{ print $NF }'`
SPEED=`kstat e1000g:$INSTANCE | grep ifspeed | awk '{ print $2 }'`
case "$SPEED" in
10000000) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
100000000) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000000000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
# le interfaces are always 10 Mbit half-duplex
elif [ "`echo $INTERFACE | awk '/^le[0-9]+/ { print }'`" ] ; then
DUPLEX="half"
SPEED="10 Mbit/s"
# All other interfaces
else
INTERFACE_TYPE=`echo $INTERFACE | sed -e "s/[0-9]*$//"`
INSTANCE=`echo $INTERFACE | sed -e "s/^[a-z]*//"`
# Only the root user should run "ndd"
if [ "`id | cut -c1-5`" != "uid=0" ] ; then
echo "You must be the root user to determine \
${INTERFACE_TYPE}${INSTANCE} speed and duplex information."
continue
fi
ndd -set /dev/$INTERFACE_TYPE instance $INSTANCE
SPEED=`ndd -get /dev/$INTERFACE_TYPE link_speed`
case "$SPEED" in
0) SPEED="10 Mbit/s" ;;
1) SPEED="100 Mbit/s" ;;
1000) SPEED="1 Gbit/s" ;;
esac
DUPLEX=`ndd -get /dev/$INTERFACE_TYPE link_mode`
case "$DUPLEX" in
0) DUPLEX="half" ;;
1) DUPLEX="full" ;;
*) DUPLEX="" ;;
esac
fi
echo "$INTERFACE\t\t$SPEED\t$DUPLEX"
done
Socialism vs Corporatism by ron paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul665.html
Socialism vs Corporatism
by Ron Paul
Recently by Ron Paul: Against Anti-Civilian Sanctions
Listen to Ron Paul. Click the play button below.
Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
See the Ron Paul File
April 27, 2010
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Socialism vs Corporatism
by Ron Paul
Recently by Ron Paul: Against Anti-Civilian Sanctions
Listen to Ron Paul. Click the play button below.
Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
See the Ron Paul File
April 27, 2010
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Myths About Capitalism
April 21, 2010
Myths About Capitalism
By John Stossel
I won 19 Emmy Awards by reporting a myth: that business constantly rips us off -- that capitalism is mostly cruel and unfair.
I know that's a myth now. So I was glad to see the publication of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" by Michael Medved.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Michael Medved
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," Medved recently told me. "It's the golden rule in action."
Medved used to write about the movies, so he's familiar with the businessman as villain. I'll play a clip from the movie "Syriana," in which an oil tycoon makes this ridiculous speech:
"Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street."
"What's interesting," Medved commented, "is that in the old days, Hollywood would have businesspeople who were very positive: George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character, is a banker in 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
No longer. Today's movie capitalists are criminals or playboys. Apparently, Hollywood writers think it's plausible that CEOs have lots of time to sip cocktails and chase women.
"In school, we all studied a book called "The Theory of the Leisure Class," which ... indicted the leisure class and these people who were out there exploiting other people and really had nothing to do except sit on their yachts and go to their swimming pools and their vacations."
In real life, that's nonsense.
"The higher up on the income scale you go, the less leisure time you have. You make money in this country by working hard."
Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.
"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."
Myth No. 3: Government is more fair and reliable than business.
"Remember the last time you went into Starbucks, and then remember the last time you went into the DMV to get your license," Medved said. "Where did you get better treated? And it's not because the barista is some kind of idealist or humanitarian. She wants a tip. She wants you to come back to the Starbucks ... ."
But the left doesn't get it.
"This is the suspicion of the profit motive -- the idea that if somebody is selflessly serving me, they're going to treat me better than somebody who wants to make a buck," Medved said. But "(i)f you think about it in your own life, if somebody is benefiting from his interaction with you ... it's a far more reliable kind of interaction than someone who comes and says I'm in this only for you."
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Myths About Capitalism
By John Stossel
I won 19 Emmy Awards by reporting a myth: that business constantly rips us off -- that capitalism is mostly cruel and unfair.
I know that's a myth now. So I was glad to see the publication of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" by Michael Medved.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Michael Medved
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," Medved recently told me. "It's the golden rule in action."
Medved used to write about the movies, so he's familiar with the businessman as villain. I'll play a clip from the movie "Syriana," in which an oil tycoon makes this ridiculous speech:
"Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street."
"What's interesting," Medved commented, "is that in the old days, Hollywood would have businesspeople who were very positive: George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character, is a banker in 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
No longer. Today's movie capitalists are criminals or playboys. Apparently, Hollywood writers think it's plausible that CEOs have lots of time to sip cocktails and chase women.
"In school, we all studied a book called "The Theory of the Leisure Class," which ... indicted the leisure class and these people who were out there exploiting other people and really had nothing to do except sit on their yachts and go to their swimming pools and their vacations."
In real life, that's nonsense.
"The higher up on the income scale you go, the less leisure time you have. You make money in this country by working hard."
Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.
"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."
Myth No. 3: Government is more fair and reliable than business.
"Remember the last time you went into Starbucks, and then remember the last time you went into the DMV to get your license," Medved said. "Where did you get better treated? And it's not because the barista is some kind of idealist or humanitarian. She wants a tip. She wants you to come back to the Starbucks ... ."
But the left doesn't get it.
"This is the suspicion of the profit motive -- the idea that if somebody is selflessly serving me, they're going to treat me better than somebody who wants to make a buck," Medved said. But "(i)f you think about it in your own life, if somebody is benefiting from his interaction with you ... it's a far more reliable kind of interaction than someone who comes and says I'm in this only for you."
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
What Am I?
April 7, 2010
What Am I?
By John Stossel
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
economy John Stossel
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.
"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...
"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."
Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.
"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."
This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.
Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.
"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"
I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.
What Am I?
By John Stossel
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
economy John Stossel
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.
"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...
"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."
Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.
"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."
This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.
Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.
"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"
I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Entitlement Rip-Off
Entitlement Rip-Off
By John Stossel
Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.
These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Medicare Congress
USD Bernie Madoff
[+] More
But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.
Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.
So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.
This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.
Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.
Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, points out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys -- not to mention a new medical entitlement -- the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.
Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.
As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."
Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.
The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.
The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.
De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."
Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
By John Stossel
Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.
These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Medicare Congress
USD Bernie Madoff
[+] More
But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.
Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.
So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.
This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.
Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.
Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, points out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys -- not to mention a new medical entitlement -- the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.
Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.
As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."
Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.
The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.
The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.
De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."
Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
What We Know That Isn't So
What We Know That Isn't So
By John Stossel
Much government interference with our peaceful pursuits is based on junk science and junk economics. Politicians know a lot of stuff that isn't so. So do reporters.
Let me count some of the ways.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Obama energy
Congress now spends your money on a host of intrusive new programs designed to make America "energy independent." President Obama recently announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.
I smiled when I heard. Finally, even Democrats woke up to the benefits of nuclear power. But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight:
"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."
Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' -- you've got a Democratic speech about energy."
All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.
I thought the only reason that nuclear didn't pay for itself is the burden of excessive regulations and objections from silly environmentalists. Apply for permission to build a plant, and their cumbersome lawsuits impose ruinously expensive delays.
Again, Taylor set me straight. He says the nuclear industry itself is comfortable with today's level of regulation. The big problem today is not environmental rules, but simply the huge cost. The same high costs, he says, are found in countries that have long been friendly to nuclear power.
He also notes that when the Department of Energy proposed offering to guarantee 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, the big investment banks told the department that even 80 percent loan guarantees wouldn't be enough. They needed 100 percent guarantees, or they wouldn't make the loans.
"To me that's a market verdict that you're supposed to respect. ... We need to leave these (matters) to markets. And in the marketplace, investors will not spend a single red dime on nuclear power because it's too expensive. ... It's not Jane Fonda or Greenpeace that killed nuclear power. It's Wall Street investment banks who've looked at the bottom line."
He's convinced me. Then he moved on to more Republican candy: the claim that drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska would dramatically lower oil prices and move us toward energy "independence."
Taylor says such drilling would do neither. Yes, it would create wealth. New offshore fields might produce a million barrels of oil per day. While that would be good, the benefits are oversold. "We consume 15 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 5. We'd go to 6." Nice, but no game-changer.
Of course, subsidizing wind and solar makes even less sense. Taylor calls them 12th-century technologies. They require lots of land to produce forms of energy that are hard to store and hard to move, and are too variable throughout the year. Even if we covered most of America with wind farms, there's no guarantee that they'd produce energy when we need it.
Other junk science abounds: banning plastic shopping bags, as 10 cities have done, is pointless. Plastic bags take up a tiny fraction of landfills. When supermarkets are stopped from handing plastic out, people looking to dispose garbage buy more big, black plastic bags.
Banning incandescent bulbs, as Congress has done starting in 2012, is also pointless. The ban will have only the tiniest effect on America's energy use. In addition, fluorescent bulbs often use as much power as incandescent bulbs because people leave them on longer.
People are ignorant enough about science that it's easy for politicians to scare them into supporting absurd regulations. I recently went to Times Square and asked if people would sign a petition demanding a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide," a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands. Most everyone signed.
They were embarrassed when they realized that dihydrogen monoxide is ... H2O. They eagerly endorsed a ban on water.
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
By John Stossel
Much government interference with our peaceful pursuits is based on junk science and junk economics. Politicians know a lot of stuff that isn't so. So do reporters.
Let me count some of the ways.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Obama energy
Congress now spends your money on a host of intrusive new programs designed to make America "energy independent." President Obama recently announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.
I smiled when I heard. Finally, even Democrats woke up to the benefits of nuclear power. But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight:
"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."
Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' -- you've got a Democratic speech about energy."
All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.
I thought the only reason that nuclear didn't pay for itself is the burden of excessive regulations and objections from silly environmentalists. Apply for permission to build a plant, and their cumbersome lawsuits impose ruinously expensive delays.
Again, Taylor set me straight. He says the nuclear industry itself is comfortable with today's level of regulation. The big problem today is not environmental rules, but simply the huge cost. The same high costs, he says, are found in countries that have long been friendly to nuclear power.
He also notes that when the Department of Energy proposed offering to guarantee 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, the big investment banks told the department that even 80 percent loan guarantees wouldn't be enough. They needed 100 percent guarantees, or they wouldn't make the loans.
"To me that's a market verdict that you're supposed to respect. ... We need to leave these (matters) to markets. And in the marketplace, investors will not spend a single red dime on nuclear power because it's too expensive. ... It's not Jane Fonda or Greenpeace that killed nuclear power. It's Wall Street investment banks who've looked at the bottom line."
He's convinced me. Then he moved on to more Republican candy: the claim that drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska would dramatically lower oil prices and move us toward energy "independence."
Taylor says such drilling would do neither. Yes, it would create wealth. New offshore fields might produce a million barrels of oil per day. While that would be good, the benefits are oversold. "We consume 15 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 5. We'd go to 6." Nice, but no game-changer.
Of course, subsidizing wind and solar makes even less sense. Taylor calls them 12th-century technologies. They require lots of land to produce forms of energy that are hard to store and hard to move, and are too variable throughout the year. Even if we covered most of America with wind farms, there's no guarantee that they'd produce energy when we need it.
Other junk science abounds: banning plastic shopping bags, as 10 cities have done, is pointless. Plastic bags take up a tiny fraction of landfills. When supermarkets are stopped from handing plastic out, people looking to dispose garbage buy more big, black plastic bags.
Banning incandescent bulbs, as Congress has done starting in 2012, is also pointless. The ban will have only the tiniest effect on America's energy use. In addition, fluorescent bulbs often use as much power as incandescent bulbs because people leave them on longer.
People are ignorant enough about science that it's easy for politicians to scare them into supporting absurd regulations. I recently went to Times Square and asked if people would sign a petition demanding a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide," a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands. Most everyone signed.
They were embarrassed when they realized that dihydrogen monoxide is ... H2O. They eagerly endorsed a ban on water.
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Myths About Capitalism
April 21, 2010
Myths About Capitalism
By John Stossel
I won 19 Emmy Awards by reporting a myth: that business constantly rips us off -- that capitalism is mostly cruel and unfair.
I know that's a myth now. So I was glad to see the publication of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" by Michael Medved.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Michael Medved
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," Medved recently told me. "It's the golden rule in action."
Medved used to write about the movies, so he's familiar with the businessman as villain. I'll play a clip from the movie "Syriana," in which an oil tycoon makes this ridiculous speech:
"Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street."
"What's interesting," Medved commented, "is that in the old days, Hollywood would have businesspeople who were very positive: George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character, is a banker in 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
No longer. Today's movie capitalists are criminals or playboys. Apparently, Hollywood writers think it's plausible that CEOs have lots of time to sip cocktails and chase women.
"In school, we all studied a book called "The Theory of the Leisure Class," which ... indicted the leisure class and these people who were out there exploiting other people and really had nothing to do except sit on their yachts and go to their swimming pools and their vacations."
In real life, that's nonsense.
"The higher up on the income scale you go, the less leisure time you have. You make money in this country by working hard."
Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.
"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."
Myth No. 3: Government is more fair and reliable than business.
"Remember the last time you went into Starbucks, and then remember the last time you went into the DMV to get your license," Medved said. "Where did you get better treated? And it's not because the barista is some kind of idealist or humanitarian. She wants a tip. She wants you to come back to the Starbucks ... ."
But the left doesn't get it.
"This is the suspicion of the profit motive -- the idea that if somebody is selflessly serving me, they're going to treat me better than somebody who wants to make a buck," Medved said. But "(i)f you think about it in your own life, if somebody is benefiting from his interaction with you ... it's a far more reliable kind of interaction than someone who comes and says I'm in this only for you."
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Myths About Capitalism
By John Stossel
I won 19 Emmy Awards by reporting a myth: that business constantly rips us off -- that capitalism is mostly cruel and unfair.
I know that's a myth now. So I was glad to see the publication of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" by Michael Medved.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
Michael Medved
"You can only make a profit in this country by giving people a product or a service that they want," Medved recently told me. "It's the golden rule in action."
Medved used to write about the movies, so he's familiar with the businessman as villain. I'll play a clip from the movie "Syriana," in which an oil tycoon makes this ridiculous speech:
"Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street."
"What's interesting," Medved commented, "is that in the old days, Hollywood would have businesspeople who were very positive: George Bailey, the Jimmy Stewart character, is a banker in 'It's a Wonderful Life.'"
No longer. Today's movie capitalists are criminals or playboys. Apparently, Hollywood writers think it's plausible that CEOs have lots of time to sip cocktails and chase women.
"In school, we all studied a book called "The Theory of the Leisure Class," which ... indicted the leisure class and these people who were out there exploiting other people and really had nothing to do except sit on their yachts and go to their swimming pools and their vacations."
In real life, that's nonsense.
"The higher up on the income scale you go, the less leisure time you have. You make money in this country by working hard."
Medved's second myth is that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This is the old zero-sum fallacy, which ignores that when two people engage in free exchange, both gain -- or they wouldn't have traded. It's what I call the double thank-you phenomenon. I understand why politicians and lawyers believe it: It's true in their world. But it's not true in business.
"If you believe that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty, and you're an idiot," said Medved. "One of the things that I hate is this term 'obscene profits.' There are no obscene profits ... . (The current economic downturn shows) "that when the rich get poorer ... everybody gets poorer."
Myth No. 3: Government is more fair and reliable than business.
"Remember the last time you went into Starbucks, and then remember the last time you went into the DMV to get your license," Medved said. "Where did you get better treated? And it's not because the barista is some kind of idealist or humanitarian. She wants a tip. She wants you to come back to the Starbucks ... ."
But the left doesn't get it.
"This is the suspicion of the profit motive -- the idea that if somebody is selflessly serving me, they're going to treat me better than somebody who wants to make a buck," Medved said. But "(i)f you think about it in your own life, if somebody is benefiting from his interaction with you ... it's a far more reliable kind of interaction than someone who comes and says I'm in this only for you."
Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.
"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies -- the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Lower and Simplify Taxes!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/14/lower_and_simplify_taxes_105158.html
April 14, 2010
Lower and Simplify Taxes!
By John Stossel
It's that joyous time of year: income tax time. So I spend time with my accountant. I don't want to see him, but I must. I could not do what he's doing. The tax code has grown so complex that today most Americans hire someone to do their taxes.
For the money I pay my accountant, I could get a hundred massages. I could buy a fancy motorcycle. I could take a cruise ship to Venice and back.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
economy
Better yet, I could do some good in the world. I could pay for two Habitat for Humanity homes or help three kids escape government schools by paying their tuition at a good Catholic school.
What a shame that I pay my accountant instead.
How'd we get to this point? U.S taxes were once simple! The government funded itself on tariffs and excise taxes. It didn't violate our privacy by asking us how much we made or how many dependents we have.
But in 1913, the politicians decided they needed an income tax.
At first, they took little money: just 1 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $50,000. Those were big incomes -- adjusted for inflation, $50,000 is $1.1 million today. The top bracket paid 6 percent, but that only applied to people who earned at least $11 million. Anyone who made less than $400,000 paid no income tax.
But leave the amounts aside. The increase in complexity is just as evil.
In 1913, the first tax form and instructions totaled four simple pages. Today's 1040, with instructions, totals 176 pages. How did this happen? Because politicians win votes by giving gifts to favored groups.
Pandering legislators applaud themselves for offering tax credits to special interests. The favored groups cheer their tax breaks, but the result is that everyone else pays more, and everyone must spend more time deciphering the rules.
And with every credit, the tax code gets more complicated. The code is now 3,784,745 words long, not counting the 2009 and 2010 changes. It will get worse in the future.
Americans spend more than 7 billion hours trying to comply, according to a forthcoming study from the National Taxpayer Union (NTU).
"That is the equivalent of 3.7 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round without any vacation. That's more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies," writes David Keating in the NTU study.
"Counting time and money for individual taxpayers, the compliance burden would total an incredible $103 billion for individual taxpayers alone."
That doesn't include the time spent doing state and local forms, or more important: the burden of "tax minimization strategies" on the economy.
And we haven't even mentioned the corporate income tax. But don't worry. The IRS stands ready to assist the bewildered. "If a taxpayer needs help beyond the basic form," Keating writes, "the IRS now lists 1,909 publications, forms, and instructions for download (some are duplicates in different languages) from its Web site -- up from the 1,770 NTU logged last year." Thanks a lot, IRS.
This is insane. How dare a government that supposedly serves the people impose on us this way? Politicians who pass these tax laws aren't our representatives. They're our rulers! They increase the tax burden and its complexity, and then demand we pay them homage to get exemptions for little pieces of our lives.
What are we to do? Some people say scrap the income tax for the Fair Tax, a national sales tax. Others want a flat income tax of, maybe, 17 percent. One form; no deductions.
There's always danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax: We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax -- or worse, a value-added tax -- would replace the income tax then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great that they must retain the income tax, too.
Let's not take our eye off the ball: lower and much simpler taxes.
April 14, 2010
Lower and Simplify Taxes!
By John Stossel
It's that joyous time of year: income tax time. So I spend time with my accountant. I don't want to see him, but I must. I could not do what he's doing. The tax code has grown so complex that today most Americans hire someone to do their taxes.
For the money I pay my accountant, I could get a hundred massages. I could buy a fancy motorcycle. I could take a cruise ship to Venice and back.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
John Stossel RealClearPolitics
economy
Better yet, I could do some good in the world. I could pay for two Habitat for Humanity homes or help three kids escape government schools by paying their tuition at a good Catholic school.
What a shame that I pay my accountant instead.
How'd we get to this point? U.S taxes were once simple! The government funded itself on tariffs and excise taxes. It didn't violate our privacy by asking us how much we made or how many dependents we have.
But in 1913, the politicians decided they needed an income tax.
At first, they took little money: just 1 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $50,000. Those were big incomes -- adjusted for inflation, $50,000 is $1.1 million today. The top bracket paid 6 percent, but that only applied to people who earned at least $11 million. Anyone who made less than $400,000 paid no income tax.
But leave the amounts aside. The increase in complexity is just as evil.
In 1913, the first tax form and instructions totaled four simple pages. Today's 1040, with instructions, totals 176 pages. How did this happen? Because politicians win votes by giving gifts to favored groups.
Pandering legislators applaud themselves for offering tax credits to special interests. The favored groups cheer their tax breaks, but the result is that everyone else pays more, and everyone must spend more time deciphering the rules.
And with every credit, the tax code gets more complicated. The code is now 3,784,745 words long, not counting the 2009 and 2010 changes. It will get worse in the future.
Americans spend more than 7 billion hours trying to comply, according to a forthcoming study from the National Taxpayer Union (NTU).
"That is the equivalent of 3.7 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round without any vacation. That's more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies," writes David Keating in the NTU study.
"Counting time and money for individual taxpayers, the compliance burden would total an incredible $103 billion for individual taxpayers alone."
That doesn't include the time spent doing state and local forms, or more important: the burden of "tax minimization strategies" on the economy.
And we haven't even mentioned the corporate income tax. But don't worry. The IRS stands ready to assist the bewildered. "If a taxpayer needs help beyond the basic form," Keating writes, "the IRS now lists 1,909 publications, forms, and instructions for download (some are duplicates in different languages) from its Web site -- up from the 1,770 NTU logged last year." Thanks a lot, IRS.
This is insane. How dare a government that supposedly serves the people impose on us this way? Politicians who pass these tax laws aren't our representatives. They're our rulers! They increase the tax burden and its complexity, and then demand we pay them homage to get exemptions for little pieces of our lives.
What are we to do? Some people say scrap the income tax for the Fair Tax, a national sales tax. Others want a flat income tax of, maybe, 17 percent. One form; no deductions.
There's always danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax: We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax -- or worse, a value-added tax -- would replace the income tax then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great that they must retain the income tax, too.
Let's not take our eye off the ball: lower and much simpler taxes.
kick out all illegals, and rescind biz license from any who hire, charge foriegn power plane ticket plus expenses
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Pressure-Mounting-Legalize-Immigrants/2010/04/26/id/356848
boot illegals, obama shows true stripes! AZ
Arizona Immigration Conflict Heats up
Monday, 26 Apr 2010 01:16 PM
Article Font Size
The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.
More protests were planned Monday after thousands gathered this weekend to demonstrate against a bill that will make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.
Opponents say the law will lead to rampant racial profiling and turn Arizona into a police state with provisions that require police to question people about their immigrant status if they suspect they are here illegally. Day laborers can be arrested for soliciting work if they are in the U.S. illegally, and police departments can be sued if they don't carry out the law.
But supporters of the law, set to take effect in late July or August, say it is necessary to protect Arizonans from a litany of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill on Friday, argues Arizona must act because the federal government has failed to stop the steady stream of illegal immigrants and drugs that move through Arizona from Mexico. She is scheduled to speak about the issue Monday at a Tucson hotel.
The law has revved up the national debate, drawing the attention of the Obama administration and Congress. Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal.
The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500.
Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.
Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva asked the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it's "pretty disappointing" that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities.
"It's outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers," Pearce said Sunday.
Grijalva and civil rights activists promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply with the law. Police said the protests Sunday were peaceful and there were no clashes.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called on Obama to live up to a campaign promise to pass immigration reform. Gutierrez is one of the nation's loudest voices calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States.
"Our message today is: 'Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,'" he said. "We need you to support us today."
The law has drawn support from many in Arizona who are fed up with the many problems brought on by illegal immigration.
"If I go to another foreign country, if I go to Mexico, I have to have papers," said Bill Baker, 60, who took time off work at a downtown Phoenix restaurant to sell umbrellas and Mexican and American flags to the largely Hispanic crowd of protesters. "So I don't feel there's anything particularly harsh about the law."
Supporters have dismissed concerns about profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Brewer has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is in the U.S. illegally.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The March 27 shooting death of rancher Rob Krentz on his property in southeastern Arizona brought illegal immigration and border security into greater focus in the state. Authorities believe Krentz was killed by an illegal border crosser.
Monday, 26 Apr 2010 01:16 PM
Article Font Size
The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.
More protests were planned Monday after thousands gathered this weekend to demonstrate against a bill that will make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.
Opponents say the law will lead to rampant racial profiling and turn Arizona into a police state with provisions that require police to question people about their immigrant status if they suspect they are here illegally. Day laborers can be arrested for soliciting work if they are in the U.S. illegally, and police departments can be sued if they don't carry out the law.
But supporters of the law, set to take effect in late July or August, say it is necessary to protect Arizonans from a litany of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill on Friday, argues Arizona must act because the federal government has failed to stop the steady stream of illegal immigrants and drugs that move through Arizona from Mexico. She is scheduled to speak about the issue Monday at a Tucson hotel.
The law has revved up the national debate, drawing the attention of the Obama administration and Congress. Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal.
The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500.
Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.
Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva asked the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it's "pretty disappointing" that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities.
"It's outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers," Pearce said Sunday.
Grijalva and civil rights activists promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply with the law. Police said the protests Sunday were peaceful and there were no clashes.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called on Obama to live up to a campaign promise to pass immigration reform. Gutierrez is one of the nation's loudest voices calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States.
"Our message today is: 'Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,'" he said. "We need you to support us today."
The law has drawn support from many in Arizona who are fed up with the many problems brought on by illegal immigration.
"If I go to another foreign country, if I go to Mexico, I have to have papers," said Bill Baker, 60, who took time off work at a downtown Phoenix restaurant to sell umbrellas and Mexican and American flags to the largely Hispanic crowd of protesters. "So I don't feel there's anything particularly harsh about the law."
Supporters have dismissed concerns about profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Brewer has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is in the U.S. illegally.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The March 27 shooting death of rancher Rob Krentz on his property in southeastern Arizona brought illegal immigration and border security into greater focus in the state. Authorities believe Krentz was killed by an illegal border crosser.
boot illegals! go AZ! end the fed! end obama care! end deficits! cut gov spending!
Arizona Immigration Conflict Heats up
Monday, 26 Apr 2010 01:16 PM
Article Font Size
The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.
More protests were planned Monday after thousands gathered this weekend to demonstrate against a bill that will make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.
Opponents say the law will lead to rampant racial profiling and turn Arizona into a police state with provisions that require police to question people about their immigrant status if they suspect they are here illegally. Day laborers can be arrested for soliciting work if they are in the U.S. illegally, and police departments can be sued if they don't carry out the law.
But supporters of the law, set to take effect in late July or August, say it is necessary to protect Arizonans from a litany of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill on Friday, argues Arizona must act because the federal government has failed to stop the steady stream of illegal immigrants and drugs that move through Arizona from Mexico. She is scheduled to speak about the issue Monday at a Tucson hotel.
The law has revved up the national debate, drawing the attention of the Obama administration and Congress. Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal.
The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500.
Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.
Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva asked the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it's "pretty disappointing" that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities.
"It's outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers," Pearce said Sunday.
Grijalva and civil rights activists promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply with the law. Police said the protests Sunday were peaceful and there were no clashes.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called on Obama to live up to a campaign promise to pass immigration reform. Gutierrez is one of the nation's loudest voices calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States.
"Our message today is: 'Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,'" he said. "We need you to support us today."
The law has drawn support from many in Arizona who are fed up with the many problems brought on by illegal immigration.
"If I go to another foreign country, if I go to Mexico, I have to have papers," said Bill Baker, 60, who took time off work at a downtown Phoenix restaurant to sell umbrellas and Mexican and American flags to the largely Hispanic crowd of protesters. "So I don't feel there's anything particularly harsh about the law."
Supporters have dismissed concerns about profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Brewer has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is in the U.S. illegally.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The March 27 shooting death of rancher Rob Krentz on his property in southeastern Arizona brought illegal immigration and border security into greater focus in the state. Authorities believe Krentz was killed by an illegal border crosser.
Monday, 26 Apr 2010 01:16 PM
Article Font Size
The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.
More protests were planned Monday after thousands gathered this weekend to demonstrate against a bill that will make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.
Opponents say the law will lead to rampant racial profiling and turn Arizona into a police state with provisions that require police to question people about their immigrant status if they suspect they are here illegally. Day laborers can be arrested for soliciting work if they are in the U.S. illegally, and police departments can be sued if they don't carry out the law.
But supporters of the law, set to take effect in late July or August, say it is necessary to protect Arizonans from a litany of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill on Friday, argues Arizona must act because the federal government has failed to stop the steady stream of illegal immigrants and drugs that move through Arizona from Mexico. She is scheduled to speak about the issue Monday at a Tucson hotel.
The law has revved up the national debate, drawing the attention of the Obama administration and Congress. Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal.
The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500.
Arizona officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers. Opponents said the federal government can block the law by refusing to accept them.
Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva asked the federal government not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, said it's "pretty disappointing" that opponents would call on the federal government to refuse to cooperate with Arizona authorities.
"It's outrageous that these people continue to support law breakers over law keepers," Pearce said Sunday.
Grijalva and civil rights activists promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply with the law. Police said the protests Sunday were peaceful and there were no clashes.
"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.
U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., called on Obama to live up to a campaign promise to pass immigration reform. Gutierrez is one of the nation's loudest voices calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States.
"Our message today is: 'Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,'" he said. "We need you to support us today."
The law has drawn support from many in Arizona who are fed up with the many problems brought on by illegal immigration.
"If I go to another foreign country, if I go to Mexico, I have to have papers," said Bill Baker, 60, who took time off work at a downtown Phoenix restaurant to sell umbrellas and Mexican and American flags to the largely Hispanic crowd of protesters. "So I don't feel there's anything particularly harsh about the law."
Supporters have dismissed concerns about profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Brewer has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is in the U.S. illegally.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The March 27 shooting death of rancher Rob Krentz on his property in southeastern Arizona brought illegal immigration and border security into greater focus in the state. Authorities believe Krentz was killed by an illegal border crosser.
poll: republicans trusted more on economy
http://newsmax.com/Headline/gop-economy-recession-poll/2010/04/26/id/356890
awesome joke by obama advisor jones jews mad!
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/jones-joke-jewish-video/2010/04/26/id/356911
"A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around for a few days in the desert, lost, out of food, no water. He looked on the horizon and he saw what looked like a little shack, and he walked toward that shack and as he got to it, turned out that it was a shack, a store, a little store owned by a Jewish merchant. And the Taliban warrior went up to him and said, 'I need water, get me some water.' And the merchant said, 'I'm sorry, I don't have any water, but would you like to buy a tie? We have a nice sale of ties today.'
"Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a stream of language that I can't repeat about Israel, about Jewish people, about the man himself, about his family -- and just saying 'I need water, you try to sell me ties, you people don't get it.'
"And passively, the merchant stood there until this Taliban was through with his diatribe and said, 'Well, I'm sorry but I don't have water for you and I forgive you for all of the insults you've levied against me, my family, my country, but I will help you out. If you go over that hill and walk about two miles there's a restaurant there, and they have all the water you'll need.'
"And the Taliban, instead of saying thanks, still muttering under his breath, disappears over the hill -- only to come back about an hour later and walking up to the merchant and says, 'Your brother tells me I need a tie in order to get into the restaurant.'"
"A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around for a few days in the desert, lost, out of food, no water. He looked on the horizon and he saw what looked like a little shack, and he walked toward that shack and as he got to it, turned out that it was a shack, a store, a little store owned by a Jewish merchant. And the Taliban warrior went up to him and said, 'I need water, get me some water.' And the merchant said, 'I'm sorry, I don't have any water, but would you like to buy a tie? We have a nice sale of ties today.'
"Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a stream of language that I can't repeat about Israel, about Jewish people, about the man himself, about his family -- and just saying 'I need water, you try to sell me ties, you people don't get it.'
"And passively, the merchant stood there until this Taliban was through with his diatribe and said, 'Well, I'm sorry but I don't have water for you and I forgive you for all of the insults you've levied against me, my family, my country, but I will help you out. If you go over that hill and walk about two miles there's a restaurant there, and they have all the water you'll need.'
"And the Taliban, instead of saying thanks, still muttering under his breath, disappears over the hill -- only to come back about an hour later and walking up to the merchant and says, 'Your brother tells me I need a tie in order to get into the restaurant.'"
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
White kids getting tortured at black/mexican schools. (OC ) Date: 2010-04-24, 3:29AM PDT Reply To This Post I spoke to my sister earlier today and I
White kids getting tortured at black/mexican schools. (OC )
Date: 2010-04-24, 3:29AM PDT
Reply To This Post
I spoke to my sister earlier today and I was asking her how my nephews were doing. My oldest nephew is in junior high, a 7th grader, and one of the few white kids at his junior high in San Bernardino. The school is mostly mexicans, then its blacks. My sister said they torture the white kids at school. My nephew is very smart, and has received many math awards and has very high state API test score in all subjects. There are many horrible stories my nephew tells. He said, the mexican kids like to go up to the few white kids and punch them in the arm, or in the back and run away. At lunch the black kids go up to the white kids in groups of 10 and say, give me your money. My nephew came home from school with a big bruise on his arm one day and my sister asked him what happened and he said some mexican kid ran up to him punched him in his arm and ran off. My nephew has been in one fight there, when he was sitting at a table at lunch by himself, a mexican kid ran up to him and punched him in the back of his head and said "mamone" whatever the fuck that means. And my nephew couldnt take it no more and got up and fought the mexican kid in front of everyone. He made the mexican kids nose bleed, and believe it or not, they stopped messing with him from that day on.
He said they harass the few asian kids there too. The mexican kids would follow the asian kids around in groups of 10-15 and say "idiot", "retard", "stupid". My nephew's only friend at school is a vietnamese boy named Tommy. Tommy is also very smart. He told me that one day Tommy got into a fight with another mexican kid there whom kept messing with him, and the mexican security guard to break up the fight, yanked Tommy's arm so hard that he had to wear an arm brace for 2 weeks. The security guard didnt touch the mexican kid at all. Tommys parents tried to sue the school, but had no grounds to do so for some reason. I also feel bad for tommy.
Unless you're black or mexican, dont raise your children in the Inland Empire. Dont bring kids into this world and have them put up with monsters like this. Childhood is the precurosor of what you will be like as an adult. Go to college, get a good paying job, and move into a nice area. Then have kids.
Date: 2010-04-24, 3:29AM PDT
Reply To This Post
I spoke to my sister earlier today and I was asking her how my nephews were doing. My oldest nephew is in junior high, a 7th grader, and one of the few white kids at his junior high in San Bernardino. The school is mostly mexicans, then its blacks. My sister said they torture the white kids at school. My nephew is very smart, and has received many math awards and has very high state API test score in all subjects. There are many horrible stories my nephew tells. He said, the mexican kids like to go up to the few white kids and punch them in the arm, or in the back and run away. At lunch the black kids go up to the white kids in groups of 10 and say, give me your money. My nephew came home from school with a big bruise on his arm one day and my sister asked him what happened and he said some mexican kid ran up to him punched him in his arm and ran off. My nephew has been in one fight there, when he was sitting at a table at lunch by himself, a mexican kid ran up to him and punched him in the back of his head and said "mamone" whatever the fuck that means. And my nephew couldnt take it no more and got up and fought the mexican kid in front of everyone. He made the mexican kids nose bleed, and believe it or not, they stopped messing with him from that day on.
He said they harass the few asian kids there too. The mexican kids would follow the asian kids around in groups of 10-15 and say "idiot", "retard", "stupid". My nephew's only friend at school is a vietnamese boy named Tommy. Tommy is also very smart. He told me that one day Tommy got into a fight with another mexican kid there whom kept messing with him, and the mexican security guard to break up the fight, yanked Tommy's arm so hard that he had to wear an arm brace for 2 weeks. The security guard didnt touch the mexican kid at all. Tommys parents tried to sue the school, but had no grounds to do so for some reason. I also feel bad for tommy.
Unless you're black or mexican, dont raise your children in the Inland Empire. Dont bring kids into this world and have them put up with monsters like this. Childhood is the precurosor of what you will be like as an adult. Go to college, get a good paying job, and move into a nice area. Then have kids.
Friday, April 23, 2010
capitalists remember welfare is bigger than you dream we would riot if all in light
Schwarzenegger, Villaraigosa back plans to rein in pension costs
They say public employees’ retirement packages are more generous than taxpayers can afford.
April 21, 2010|By Evan Halper and Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Sacramento and Los Angeles —
Warning that retirement benefits for public employees are escalating out of control, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Wednesday that they supported controversial plans to rein in the costs.
Advertisement
Ads by Google
* CA Disability ClaimGet Your Social Security Benefits Now. Get Info & Free Evaluation! www.BinderAndBinder.com
* IRA Retirement AnalysisFree Retirement Calculators Learn how to build portfolio today. www.SCMinvest.com
The mayor and the governor, appearing at separate events, said the retirement packages — which allow some public employees to stop working at age 50 with a pension nearly equal to their entire salary — are more generous than taxpayers can afford.
"The single biggest threat to our fiscal health and California's future is our public pension system," Schwarzenegger said at a Capitol news conference, declaring the growing costs a "crisis."
"Here in Sacramento, pension reform must be our No. 1 priority," he said.
Earlier in the day, Villaraigosa declared in Los Angeles that the city's "pension system is no longer sustainable.''
Retirement benefit costs will consume 19% of the city's general fund budget in the coming fiscal year, he said.
The mayor and the governor are advocating plans to give newly hired government workers less generous retirement packages than those currently offered. The city and the state are legally prohibited from taking existing benefits away from people already on the government payroll or receiving a pension.
Schwarzenegger said he was supporting legislation proposed by California Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta that would raise the retirement age for new state workers and decrease the size of their pension payments.
Prison guards, California Highway Patrol officers and state firefighters would see the age at which they could start collecting a pension rise to 57 from 50. The amount the pensions of such public safety workers increases for each year of service would be reduced 10%.
The proposal also calls for a jump in the age at which many other state workers could start collecting a pension, to 65 from 55.
"I refuse to pass this crisis onto the next governor or the next Legislature," Schwarzenegger said.
The political viability of the Hollingsworth bill remains in doubt, however. Schwarzenegger has pushed to scale back pension benefits for much of his time in office without success.
Meantime, state pension system officials have said the administration has exaggerated the size of the problem by citing studies that don't take into account investment profits that are likely to offset the cost to taxpayers.
They say public employees’ retirement packages are more generous than taxpayers can afford.
April 21, 2010|By Evan Halper and Phil Willon, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Sacramento and Los Angeles —
Warning that retirement benefits for public employees are escalating out of control, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Wednesday that they supported controversial plans to rein in the costs.
Advertisement
Ads by Google
* CA Disability ClaimGet Your Social Security Benefits Now. Get Info & Free Evaluation! www.BinderAndBinder.com
* IRA Retirement AnalysisFree Retirement Calculators Learn how to build portfolio today. www.SCMinvest.com
The mayor and the governor, appearing at separate events, said the retirement packages — which allow some public employees to stop working at age 50 with a pension nearly equal to their entire salary — are more generous than taxpayers can afford.
"The single biggest threat to our fiscal health and California's future is our public pension system," Schwarzenegger said at a Capitol news conference, declaring the growing costs a "crisis."
"Here in Sacramento, pension reform must be our No. 1 priority," he said.
Earlier in the day, Villaraigosa declared in Los Angeles that the city's "pension system is no longer sustainable.''
Retirement benefit costs will consume 19% of the city's general fund budget in the coming fiscal year, he said.
The mayor and the governor are advocating plans to give newly hired government workers less generous retirement packages than those currently offered. The city and the state are legally prohibited from taking existing benefits away from people already on the government payroll or receiving a pension.
Schwarzenegger said he was supporting legislation proposed by California Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta that would raise the retirement age for new state workers and decrease the size of their pension payments.
Prison guards, California Highway Patrol officers and state firefighters would see the age at which they could start collecting a pension rise to 57 from 50. The amount the pensions of such public safety workers increases for each year of service would be reduced 10%.
The proposal also calls for a jump in the age at which many other state workers could start collecting a pension, to 65 from 55.
"I refuse to pass this crisis onto the next governor or the next Legislature," Schwarzenegger said.
The political viability of the Hollingsworth bill remains in doubt, however. Schwarzenegger has pushed to scale back pension benefits for much of his time in office without success.
Meantime, state pension system officials have said the administration has exaggerated the size of the problem by citing studies that don't take into account investment profits that are likely to offset the cost to taxpayers.
cops beat students
http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/14/two-cops-suspended-in-maryland-beating-incident-fbi-investigating/
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
hamilton's curse
http://mises.org/daily/4270
Central Banking as an Engine of Corruption
Mises Daily: Friday, April 16, 2010 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Much has been written about the famous debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton over the constitutionality of America's first central bank, the Bank of the United States (BUS). This was where Jefferson, as secretary of state, enunciated his "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution, making his case to President George Washington that since a central bank was not one of the powers specifically delegated by the states to the central government, and since the idea was explicitly rejected by the constitutional convention, a central bank is unconstitutional.
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton notoriously responded by inventing the notion of "implied" as opposed to enumerated powers of the Constitution.
George Washington signed legislation creating the BUS not because of the strength of Hamilton's argument but because of a shady political deal. The nation's capital was being relocated from New York to Virginia, and Washington wanted the border of the new District of Columbia to abut his property at Mount Vernon. In return for a redrawing of the district's border, Washington signed the Federalist's legislation creating the BUS.
America's first central bank was borne of a corrupt political deal, but that particular act of political corruption pales in comparison to what Hamilton and the Federalists really had in mind. As Murray Rothbard wrote in The Mystery of Banking (p. 192), Hamilton and his political compatriots, especially defense contractor/Philadelphia congressman Robert Morris, wanted
to reimpose in the new United States a system of mercantilism and big government similar to that in Great Britain, against which the colonists had rebelled. The object was to have a strong central government, particularly a strong president or king as chief executive, built up by high taxes and heavy public debt.
An especially important part of what Rothbard called "the Morris scheme" was "to organize and head a central bank, to provide cheap credit and expanded money for himself and his allies."
Hamilton was Morris's Machiavellian string puller in the Washington administration. As explained by Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers (1980 Penguin Books edition, p. 171),
with devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system. In carrying out his scheme … Hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.
What Adair is talking about here is how Hamilton went about nationalizing the old government debt. New government bonds were issued and the old debt was to be cashed out at face value. This plan "immediately became public knowledge in New York City," wrote John Steele Gordon in Hamilton's Blessing (p. 25), "but news of it spread only slowly, via horseback and sailing vessel, to the rest of the country." Thus, a tremendous arbitrage opportunity was created for the New York/Philadelphia political insiders like Robert Morris and his business associates. This was the first instance in US history of political insider trading.
The political insiders, including many members of Congress, immediately swung into action to purchase as many of the old government bonds as they could from unsuspecting Revolutionary War veterans for as little as 2 percent of par value. As historian Claude Bowers described the scene in his book, Jefferson and Hamilton,
expresses with very large sums of money on their way to North Carolina for purposes of speculation … splashed and bumped over wretched winter roads…. Two fast-sailing vessels, chartered by a member of Congress … were ploughing the waters southward on a similar mission. (p. 47)
Among the men who became instant millionaires were "leading members of Congress who knew that provision for the redemption of the paper [at face value] had been made," wrote Bowers (p. 48).
Upon observing this caper, Hamilton's political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, came to understand that Hamilton was intentionally creating a system of institutionalized corruption in order to buy the political support in Congress for his party's big-government mercantilist/imperialist agenda — the very kind of political system the colonists had waged war against. In a February 4, 1818, essay (in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, pp. 661–696), written long after Hamilton's death in 1804, Jefferson recalled what Hamilton was up to: "Hamilton's financial system had two objects. 1st as a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding & inquiry. 2ndly, as a machine for the corruption of the legislature" (emphasis added).
With regard to the latter "object," Jefferson explained that Hamilton
avowed the opinion that man could be governed by one of two motives only, force or interest: force he observed, in this country, was out of the question [note: this was pre-Lincoln]; and the interests therefore of the members [of Congress] must be laid hold of, to keep the legislature in unison with the executive. And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not without effect.… Some members [of Congress] were found sordid enough to bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal, rather than public good.
Jefferson then described the very same scene mentioned above in the quote from Claude Bowers:
The base scramble began. Couriers & relay horses by land, and swift sailing pilot boats by sea, were flying in all directions. Active partners & agents were associated & employed in every state, town and country neighborhood, and this paper was bought up at 5 and even as low as 2% in the pound, before the holder knew that Congress had already provided for its redemption at par. Immence sums were thus filched from the poor and ignorant.
"Men thus enriched by the dexterity of a leader [Hamilton]," Jefferson wrote, "would follow of course the chief who was leading them to fortune, and thus become the zealous instruments of all his [political] enterprises."
But the political power created by such graft was only temporary, said Jefferson. "It would be lost with the loss [i.e., retirement or death] of the individual members [of Congress] whom it had enriched." Therefore, Jefferson reasoned, "Some engine of influence more permanent must be contrived." This permanent engine of corruption, said Jefferson, "was the Bank of the U.S." A central bank, once established, would be very difficult to destroy, and would inevitably become a permanent source of financing for political bribery and manipulation. How prescient.
Jefferson concluded that "Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption," with a central bank being the financial centerpiece of the corrupt regime. He arrived at this conclusion based on observing Hamilton's behavior as Treasury Secretary, as well as a personal conversation involving himself, Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, President John Adams, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph in 1791, the year the BUS came into being.
$26 $15
Jefferson recalled how President John Adams said of the British constitution, "purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man." To which Hamilton objected,
Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, & it would become an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.
Hamilton was "so bewitched & perverted by the British example," wrote Jefferson, "as to be under thoro' conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation" (p. 671). Hamilton viewed "his" bank, the Bank of the United States, as being absolutely essential to his Americanized version of "the most perfect government which ever existed."
Central Banking as an Engine of Corruption
Mises Daily: Friday, April 16, 2010 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Much has been written about the famous debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton over the constitutionality of America's first central bank, the Bank of the United States (BUS). This was where Jefferson, as secretary of state, enunciated his "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution, making his case to President George Washington that since a central bank was not one of the powers specifically delegated by the states to the central government, and since the idea was explicitly rejected by the constitutional convention, a central bank is unconstitutional.
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton notoriously responded by inventing the notion of "implied" as opposed to enumerated powers of the Constitution.
George Washington signed legislation creating the BUS not because of the strength of Hamilton's argument but because of a shady political deal. The nation's capital was being relocated from New York to Virginia, and Washington wanted the border of the new District of Columbia to abut his property at Mount Vernon. In return for a redrawing of the district's border, Washington signed the Federalist's legislation creating the BUS.
America's first central bank was borne of a corrupt political deal, but that particular act of political corruption pales in comparison to what Hamilton and the Federalists really had in mind. As Murray Rothbard wrote in The Mystery of Banking (p. 192), Hamilton and his political compatriots, especially defense contractor/Philadelphia congressman Robert Morris, wanted
to reimpose in the new United States a system of mercantilism and big government similar to that in Great Britain, against which the colonists had rebelled. The object was to have a strong central government, particularly a strong president or king as chief executive, built up by high taxes and heavy public debt.
An especially important part of what Rothbard called "the Morris scheme" was "to organize and head a central bank, to provide cheap credit and expanded money for himself and his allies."
Hamilton was Morris's Machiavellian string puller in the Washington administration. As explained by Douglas Adair, an editor of The Federalist Papers (1980 Penguin Books edition, p. 171),
with devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system. In carrying out his scheme … Hamilton transformed every financial transaction of the Treasury Department into an orgy of speculation and graft in which selected senators, congressmen, and certain of their richer constituents throughout the nation participated.
What Adair is talking about here is how Hamilton went about nationalizing the old government debt. New government bonds were issued and the old debt was to be cashed out at face value. This plan "immediately became public knowledge in New York City," wrote John Steele Gordon in Hamilton's Blessing (p. 25), "but news of it spread only slowly, via horseback and sailing vessel, to the rest of the country." Thus, a tremendous arbitrage opportunity was created for the New York/Philadelphia political insiders like Robert Morris and his business associates. This was the first instance in US history of political insider trading.
The political insiders, including many members of Congress, immediately swung into action to purchase as many of the old government bonds as they could from unsuspecting Revolutionary War veterans for as little as 2 percent of par value. As historian Claude Bowers described the scene in his book, Jefferson and Hamilton,
expresses with very large sums of money on their way to North Carolina for purposes of speculation … splashed and bumped over wretched winter roads…. Two fast-sailing vessels, chartered by a member of Congress … were ploughing the waters southward on a similar mission. (p. 47)
Among the men who became instant millionaires were "leading members of Congress who knew that provision for the redemption of the paper [at face value] had been made," wrote Bowers (p. 48).
Upon observing this caper, Hamilton's political nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, came to understand that Hamilton was intentionally creating a system of institutionalized corruption in order to buy the political support in Congress for his party's big-government mercantilist/imperialist agenda — the very kind of political system the colonists had waged war against. In a February 4, 1818, essay (in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, pp. 661–696), written long after Hamilton's death in 1804, Jefferson recalled what Hamilton was up to: "Hamilton's financial system had two objects. 1st as a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding & inquiry. 2ndly, as a machine for the corruption of the legislature" (emphasis added).
With regard to the latter "object," Jefferson explained that Hamilton
avowed the opinion that man could be governed by one of two motives only, force or interest: force he observed, in this country, was out of the question [note: this was pre-Lincoln]; and the interests therefore of the members [of Congress] must be laid hold of, to keep the legislature in unison with the executive. And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not without effect.… Some members [of Congress] were found sordid enough to bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal, rather than public good.
Jefferson then described the very same scene mentioned above in the quote from Claude Bowers:
The base scramble began. Couriers & relay horses by land, and swift sailing pilot boats by sea, were flying in all directions. Active partners & agents were associated & employed in every state, town and country neighborhood, and this paper was bought up at 5 and even as low as 2% in the pound, before the holder knew that Congress had already provided for its redemption at par. Immence sums were thus filched from the poor and ignorant.
"Men thus enriched by the dexterity of a leader [Hamilton]," Jefferson wrote, "would follow of course the chief who was leading them to fortune, and thus become the zealous instruments of all his [political] enterprises."
But the political power created by such graft was only temporary, said Jefferson. "It would be lost with the loss [i.e., retirement or death] of the individual members [of Congress] whom it had enriched." Therefore, Jefferson reasoned, "Some engine of influence more permanent must be contrived." This permanent engine of corruption, said Jefferson, "was the Bank of the U.S." A central bank, once established, would be very difficult to destroy, and would inevitably become a permanent source of financing for political bribery and manipulation. How prescient.
Jefferson concluded that "Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption," with a central bank being the financial centerpiece of the corrupt regime. He arrived at this conclusion based on observing Hamilton's behavior as Treasury Secretary, as well as a personal conversation involving himself, Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, President John Adams, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph in 1791, the year the BUS came into being.
$26 $15
Jefferson recalled how President John Adams said of the British constitution, "purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man." To which Hamilton objected,
Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, & it would become an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.
Hamilton was "so bewitched & perverted by the British example," wrote Jefferson, "as to be under thoro' conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation" (p. 671). Hamilton viewed "his" bank, the Bank of the United States, as being absolutely essential to his Americanized version of "the most perfect government which ever existed."
Saturday, April 17, 2010
kick out barbara boxer
California Now Rough Terrain for Sen. Boxer
Saturday, 17 Apr 2010 09:01 AM
Article Font Size
A Democrat and a woman, Helen Sargent is the kind of voter that Sen. Barbara Boxer needs this year in her drive for a fourth term in Washington.
So, what does Sargent think of taxes and the U.S. debt? Too high.
President Barack Obama, Boxer's fellow Democrat? Very disappointing.
The Democratic Party? Needs new faces.
Boxer "has been there too long," says Sargent, a 65-year-old travel agent from a leafy Los Angeles suburb that Boxer carried by a mere 56 votes in 2004. "All politicians have a shelf life."
Those are troubling words for Boxer, who won in a 20-point landslide six years ago, but now faces the fight of her political career. The nation's economic woes — particularly intense in hard-hit California — and a difficult electoral year for Democrats have created a rough challenge for the 69-year-old liberal lawmaker.
In a clear sign of her difficulties, President Barack Obama heads to Los Angeles on Monday to help raise money for Boxer, who is running about even with several potential Republican challengers, an alarming sign in the Democratic-leaning state.
The proceeds from twin fundraisers will be split between Boxer and the Democratic National Committee; ticket prices range from $100 for a reception to $17,600 for dinner with the president.
Voter frustration and outright anger is widespread in California, where the 12.6 percent unemployment rate tops the national average, home foreclosures have hit record highs and a budget crunch has led to deep cuts in the state's college system.
In another Democratic-leaning state — Massachusetts — Republican Scott Brown captured Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in January.
"The times are working against the kind of politician Barbara Boxer is," said Mark DiCamillo of the independent Field Poll. Liberals are associated with the growth of government and "that is really counter to the prevailing mood in the public."
Boxer will share a stage with a president whose popularity outshines her own in California, even as his standing in national polls has fallen. Democrats also are quick to point out that the economy is slowly improving and Republicans are tangled up in a messy and expensive primary that could leave the nominee wounded and broke. Boxer faces only token opposition in the June 8 primary.
Westlake Village, about 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, is the kind of swing-voting community where statewide elections are often won or lost in California. Republicans hold an edge in registration here but Obama carried the city in 2008, as did Boxer in 2004.
Boxer is as beloved by her party's left wing as she is despised by conservatives.
Her Republican rivals — state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, businesswoman Carly Fiorina and former Rep. Tom Campbell — have pilloried her relentlessly. Fiorina's campaign calls Boxer "the Bully of the Senate" and has depicted her in an ad as a floating hot air balloon casting ominous shadows over the state.
Random interviews with voters underscore Boxer's problems.
Sitting outside the library Thursday, Lillian FitzGerald Burns had some advice for those who think the nation is in a rut. "Change," she said, "takes time." But asked about Boxer, the sprightly 82-year-old independent said her patience is running out.
Boxer "hasn't made a significant contribution to the efforts to unscramble the problems that we inherited," says FitzGerald Burns, who voted for Obama in 2008. Asked to name any issue that she associates with the senator's work in Washington, she paused and stared blankly.
"I can't."
Polls aside, Boxer comes to the race with built-in advantages.
Democrats hold a registration edge of 2.3 million in a state with 17 million voters; Boxer captured nearly 7 million votes in 2004. The last Republican to carry the state in a presidential election was George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago. Democrats control the Legislature, hold an edge in the congressional delegation and have held both U.S. Senate seats since the 1990s.
Boxer's campaign has $8.7 million in the bank, far more than any potential rival.
But like many incumbents, Boxer is paying a price. The mortgage crisis turned new developments into ghost towns, and the state's unemployment rate hit a modern record in March. The number of residents fleeing the state has outstripped those coming in, and illegal immigration remains an unresolved problem.
There is a budding tea party movement eager to shake up Washington, and voter surveys suggest those voters tilt Republican. An independent Field Poll last month found Boxer running about even with DeVore, Fiorina and Campbell.
More troubling: More than half the state's independents, the swing voters, have an unfavorable opinion of the senator.
Boxer "is part of the political system that wants to grow the government," says John Millrany, 71, a semi-retired public relations executive and political independent who once was a Democratic Party volunteer.
"I think the government is growing too large," he said outside the library. "The entitlements and the taxes are bound to go up."
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Saturday, 17 Apr 2010 09:01 AM
Article Font Size
A Democrat and a woman, Helen Sargent is the kind of voter that Sen. Barbara Boxer needs this year in her drive for a fourth term in Washington.
So, what does Sargent think of taxes and the U.S. debt? Too high.
President Barack Obama, Boxer's fellow Democrat? Very disappointing.
The Democratic Party? Needs new faces.
Boxer "has been there too long," says Sargent, a 65-year-old travel agent from a leafy Los Angeles suburb that Boxer carried by a mere 56 votes in 2004. "All politicians have a shelf life."
Those are troubling words for Boxer, who won in a 20-point landslide six years ago, but now faces the fight of her political career. The nation's economic woes — particularly intense in hard-hit California — and a difficult electoral year for Democrats have created a rough challenge for the 69-year-old liberal lawmaker.
In a clear sign of her difficulties, President Barack Obama heads to Los Angeles on Monday to help raise money for Boxer, who is running about even with several potential Republican challengers, an alarming sign in the Democratic-leaning state.
The proceeds from twin fundraisers will be split between Boxer and the Democratic National Committee; ticket prices range from $100 for a reception to $17,600 for dinner with the president.
Voter frustration and outright anger is widespread in California, where the 12.6 percent unemployment rate tops the national average, home foreclosures have hit record highs and a budget crunch has led to deep cuts in the state's college system.
In another Democratic-leaning state — Massachusetts — Republican Scott Brown captured Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in January.
"The times are working against the kind of politician Barbara Boxer is," said Mark DiCamillo of the independent Field Poll. Liberals are associated with the growth of government and "that is really counter to the prevailing mood in the public."
Boxer will share a stage with a president whose popularity outshines her own in California, even as his standing in national polls has fallen. Democrats also are quick to point out that the economy is slowly improving and Republicans are tangled up in a messy and expensive primary that could leave the nominee wounded and broke. Boxer faces only token opposition in the June 8 primary.
Westlake Village, about 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, is the kind of swing-voting community where statewide elections are often won or lost in California. Republicans hold an edge in registration here but Obama carried the city in 2008, as did Boxer in 2004.
Boxer is as beloved by her party's left wing as she is despised by conservatives.
Her Republican rivals — state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, businesswoman Carly Fiorina and former Rep. Tom Campbell — have pilloried her relentlessly. Fiorina's campaign calls Boxer "the Bully of the Senate" and has depicted her in an ad as a floating hot air balloon casting ominous shadows over the state.
Random interviews with voters underscore Boxer's problems.
Sitting outside the library Thursday, Lillian FitzGerald Burns had some advice for those who think the nation is in a rut. "Change," she said, "takes time." But asked about Boxer, the sprightly 82-year-old independent said her patience is running out.
Boxer "hasn't made a significant contribution to the efforts to unscramble the problems that we inherited," says FitzGerald Burns, who voted for Obama in 2008. Asked to name any issue that she associates with the senator's work in Washington, she paused and stared blankly.
"I can't."
Polls aside, Boxer comes to the race with built-in advantages.
Democrats hold a registration edge of 2.3 million in a state with 17 million voters; Boxer captured nearly 7 million votes in 2004. The last Republican to carry the state in a presidential election was George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago. Democrats control the Legislature, hold an edge in the congressional delegation and have held both U.S. Senate seats since the 1990s.
Boxer's campaign has $8.7 million in the bank, far more than any potential rival.
But like many incumbents, Boxer is paying a price. The mortgage crisis turned new developments into ghost towns, and the state's unemployment rate hit a modern record in March. The number of residents fleeing the state has outstripped those coming in, and illegal immigration remains an unresolved problem.
There is a budding tea party movement eager to shake up Washington, and voter surveys suggest those voters tilt Republican. An independent Field Poll last month found Boxer running about even with DeVore, Fiorina and Campbell.
More troubling: More than half the state's independents, the swing voters, have an unfavorable opinion of the senator.
Boxer "is part of the political system that wants to grow the government," says John Millrany, 71, a semi-retired public relations executive and political independent who once was a Democratic Party volunteer.
"I think the government is growing too large," he said outside the library. "The entitlements and the taxes are bound to go up."
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
S.E. Cupp: Liberal Media Can't Deal with 'Pretty, Conservative Women'
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/cupp-conservatives-media-women/2010/04/16/id/356010
S.E. Cupp: Liberal Media Can't Deal with 'Pretty, Conservative Women'
Friday, 16 Apr 2010 07:49 PM
Article Font Size
By: Jim Meyers
Commentator S.E. Cupp tells Newsmax that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann come under constant attack because the liberal media can’t deal with “pretty, conservative women” who espouse traditional values.
Cupp also says Barack Obama has followed a “black liberation theology” that she calls an “extreme version of Christianity,” and describes why Christianity is under assault from the mainstream media.
Cupp is co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She has been published in the New York Daily News, Human Events, American Spectator, Townhall, and elsewhere, and is also a regular commentator on Fox News and a Newsmax contributor.
Her latest book is “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Cupp was asked why former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been such a lightning rod for the liberal media.
Story continues below
“I think for many reasons,” she says. “One, the liberal media always have a difficult time dealing with pretty, conservative women. They just don’t know what to make of it. She can’t be that smart because she’s too pretty. She can’t be galvanizing because she’s too dumb.
“Two, they’re frustrated by the fact that this is a self-made woman. They spent eight years telling us that George W. Bush was this nepotism experiment gone wrong. Well, here’s a woman who came from nothing, who worked her way up to become a successful wife and mother, had an amazing political career — the first female governor of Alaska and the youngest.
“This is unequivocally an accomplished woman, and the right kind of accomplished woman if you ask the liberal media — the kind that did it on her own. That bothers them because they really dislike her policies.”
Commenting on why conservative women like Palin and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann draw such vicious comments from the left, Cupp remarks: “I think it takes a lot of courage in today’s day and age to stand up as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have and say look, I believe there’s a traditional role for the family. I believe in traditional values. I’m a proud Christian.
“That is an act of courage today, sadly. And I think the liberal media wants to position a Bachmann or a Palin as somehow backwards or lost in time, unsophisticated, a relic.
“Conservatism rightly resists the changing tide, the changing social mores. The whole idea of conservatism is to preserve what we think is good. So these flag bearers like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, women no less, I think are really throwing mud in the eye of the liberals who would rather see them locked up in some museum.”
Cupp maintains in her book “Losing Our Religion” that the mainstream media in America are openly hostile toward Christianity. She explains why:
“I think the media is socially secular and increasingly so, and I think the judgment and the morality inherent in Christianity or any religious system is really threatening to a secularist movement like the media. If the media can go on unjudged, I think that makes them fairly happy.”
The evidence for this anti-Christian bias “is everywhere,” Cupp maintains.
“I knew what I was getting into when I started researching this book, but I did not know the scope and scale until I really got into it. It’s not just The New York Times and CNN and MSNBC, places you’d expect. It’s on the blogosphere. It’s online. It’s the Huffington Post. It’s Salon.com. It’s USA Today. It’s radio. It’s everywhere. You really have to look hard not to find it.”
The “worst offenders” include be Salon.com, Cupp says. “CNN is pretty bad. The New York Times is pretty bad only because of the clout and influence that paper has. You would expect them to be a bit more responsible. MSNBC is terrible. Some of the talking heads there like Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews — these guys really have it out for Christianity.”
Asked why Cupp, as an atheist, would write a book so strongly defending Christianity, she said: “I am an atheist but I’m not one of those militant atheists. I simply don’t believe. I envy the faithful. I’ve always defended religious freedom. I’m grateful for mine and I’m grateful for everyone else’s.
“I defend especially Christianity in this country because it seems to be under attack, and I’m bothered by the idea that the media has taken a side in this fight. I’m really bothered as a writer, as a member of the press, that the Fourth Estate has become so openly hostile to 80 percent of the country. This is a huge majority. And 90 percent of the country believes in God.
“To go after a majority like this means they’re really not a representative media. They don’t deserve to be called mainstream.”
Cupp has said Barack Obama has an “affinity for radical Marxist theology.” Asked to elaborate, she says: “If you look at some of his own testimony about his religious education, whether in his book or his speeches, he discusses at length his decision to follow black liberation theology, the kind of Christianity espoused by Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright and a number of other well-known pastors around the country.
“Obama describes it as not particularly a Christ-driven move on his part but as sort of a recognition of the black social causes of the time. That’s what really drove him into Christianity. When you actually read about it, it’s far more radical than the Pentecostalism of Sarah Palin or the Baptism of a Mike Huckabee. Yet those folks are constantly painted by the liberal media as being fanatical and fringe.
“If anyone bothered to look at Obama’s black liberation theology, they would have no choice but to recognize that it’s an incredibly radical — and I would even say extreme — version of Christianity.”
S.E. Cupp: Liberal Media Can't Deal with 'Pretty, Conservative Women'
Friday, 16 Apr 2010 07:49 PM
Article Font Size
By: Jim Meyers
Commentator S.E. Cupp tells Newsmax that Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann come under constant attack because the liberal media can’t deal with “pretty, conservative women” who espouse traditional values.
Cupp also says Barack Obama has followed a “black liberation theology” that she calls an “extreme version of Christianity,” and describes why Christianity is under assault from the mainstream media.
Cupp is co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She has been published in the New York Daily News, Human Events, American Spectator, Townhall, and elsewhere, and is also a regular commentator on Fox News and a Newsmax contributor.
Her latest book is “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Cupp was asked why former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been such a lightning rod for the liberal media.
Story continues below
“I think for many reasons,” she says. “One, the liberal media always have a difficult time dealing with pretty, conservative women. They just don’t know what to make of it. She can’t be that smart because she’s too pretty. She can’t be galvanizing because she’s too dumb.
“Two, they’re frustrated by the fact that this is a self-made woman. They spent eight years telling us that George W. Bush was this nepotism experiment gone wrong. Well, here’s a woman who came from nothing, who worked her way up to become a successful wife and mother, had an amazing political career — the first female governor of Alaska and the youngest.
“This is unequivocally an accomplished woman, and the right kind of accomplished woman if you ask the liberal media — the kind that did it on her own. That bothers them because they really dislike her policies.”
Commenting on why conservative women like Palin and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann draw such vicious comments from the left, Cupp remarks: “I think it takes a lot of courage in today’s day and age to stand up as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have and say look, I believe there’s a traditional role for the family. I believe in traditional values. I’m a proud Christian.
“That is an act of courage today, sadly. And I think the liberal media wants to position a Bachmann or a Palin as somehow backwards or lost in time, unsophisticated, a relic.
“Conservatism rightly resists the changing tide, the changing social mores. The whole idea of conservatism is to preserve what we think is good. So these flag bearers like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, women no less, I think are really throwing mud in the eye of the liberals who would rather see them locked up in some museum.”
Cupp maintains in her book “Losing Our Religion” that the mainstream media in America are openly hostile toward Christianity. She explains why:
“I think the media is socially secular and increasingly so, and I think the judgment and the morality inherent in Christianity or any religious system is really threatening to a secularist movement like the media. If the media can go on unjudged, I think that makes them fairly happy.”
The evidence for this anti-Christian bias “is everywhere,” Cupp maintains.
“I knew what I was getting into when I started researching this book, but I did not know the scope and scale until I really got into it. It’s not just The New York Times and CNN and MSNBC, places you’d expect. It’s on the blogosphere. It’s online. It’s the Huffington Post. It’s Salon.com. It’s USA Today. It’s radio. It’s everywhere. You really have to look hard not to find it.”
The “worst offenders” include be Salon.com, Cupp says. “CNN is pretty bad. The New York Times is pretty bad only because of the clout and influence that paper has. You would expect them to be a bit more responsible. MSNBC is terrible. Some of the talking heads there like Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews — these guys really have it out for Christianity.”
Asked why Cupp, as an atheist, would write a book so strongly defending Christianity, she said: “I am an atheist but I’m not one of those militant atheists. I simply don’t believe. I envy the faithful. I’ve always defended religious freedom. I’m grateful for mine and I’m grateful for everyone else’s.
“I defend especially Christianity in this country because it seems to be under attack, and I’m bothered by the idea that the media has taken a side in this fight. I’m really bothered as a writer, as a member of the press, that the Fourth Estate has become so openly hostile to 80 percent of the country. This is a huge majority. And 90 percent of the country believes in God.
“To go after a majority like this means they’re really not a representative media. They don’t deserve to be called mainstream.”
Cupp has said Barack Obama has an “affinity for radical Marxist theology.” Asked to elaborate, she says: “If you look at some of his own testimony about his religious education, whether in his book or his speeches, he discusses at length his decision to follow black liberation theology, the kind of Christianity espoused by Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright and a number of other well-known pastors around the country.
“Obama describes it as not particularly a Christ-driven move on his part but as sort of a recognition of the black social causes of the time. That’s what really drove him into Christianity. When you actually read about it, it’s far more radical than the Pentecostalism of Sarah Palin or the Baptism of a Mike Huckabee. Yet those folks are constantly painted by the liberal media as being fanatical and fringe.
“If anyone bothered to look at Obama’s black liberation theology, they would have no choice but to recognize that it’s an incredibly radical — and I would even say extreme — version of Christianity.”
Economist David Malpass Joins Republicans Challenging Gillibrand
http://newsmax.com/Politics/US-NY-Senate/2010/04/14/id/355720
Economist Joins Republicans Challenging Gillibrand
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010 01:52 PM
Article Font Size
Economist David Malpass, an economist who has never held public office, announced Wednesday he would seek the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, saying she was an "unelected occupant" of the seat who had failed to protect the state's taxpayers.
"She's chosen at every step to spend to spend New Yorkers' hard-earned taxes without setting any limits or boundaries," Malpass said, referring to Gillibrand's vote in favor of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and the $787 billion stimulus plan enacted last year.
Malpass, a former treasury official under President Ronald Reagan, made the announcement on the steps of City Hall with Steve Forbes, the multimillionaire publisher and former GOP presidential candidate, at his side. Forbes said Malpass was well versed in areas of economic policy that most Washington politicians consider boring.
"If he had been in charge, we wouldn't have had this financial crisis," Forbes said.
Gillibrand, a former U.S. House member from upstate New York, was appointed by Gov. David Paterson to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat last year after Obama named Clinton to be secretary of state. Since then, Gillibrand has run an aggressive campaign to win the seat in a special election this fall despite polling showing she is not well known to voters and could be vulnerable to a challenge.
So far, the collection of Republicans vying to compete against her is fairly thin. Malpass, a political newcomer largely unknown to the state's voters, joins former Rep. Joe DioGuardi and former Long Island lawmaker Bruce Blakeman in the field. The primary is Sept. 14.
Several better-known Republicans have decided to skip the race, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Gov. George Pataki, who announced this week he would not be a candidate.
Gillibrand also escaped a potential primary challenge when former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford, now a New York City investment executive, actively explored a bid but ultimately decided not to get in the race.
Malpass advised Giuliani during his 2008 presidential campaign. He told reporters he has about $1 million in the bank and would have sufficient resources to compete against Gillibrand. A tenacious fundraiser, she had more than $5 million in the bank as the end of 2009.
Economist Joins Republicans Challenging Gillibrand
Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010 01:52 PM
Article Font Size
Economist David Malpass, an economist who has never held public office, announced Wednesday he would seek the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, saying she was an "unelected occupant" of the seat who had failed to protect the state's taxpayers.
"She's chosen at every step to spend to spend New Yorkers' hard-earned taxes without setting any limits or boundaries," Malpass said, referring to Gillibrand's vote in favor of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and the $787 billion stimulus plan enacted last year.
Malpass, a former treasury official under President Ronald Reagan, made the announcement on the steps of City Hall with Steve Forbes, the multimillionaire publisher and former GOP presidential candidate, at his side. Forbes said Malpass was well versed in areas of economic policy that most Washington politicians consider boring.
"If he had been in charge, we wouldn't have had this financial crisis," Forbes said.
Gillibrand, a former U.S. House member from upstate New York, was appointed by Gov. David Paterson to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat last year after Obama named Clinton to be secretary of state. Since then, Gillibrand has run an aggressive campaign to win the seat in a special election this fall despite polling showing she is not well known to voters and could be vulnerable to a challenge.
So far, the collection of Republicans vying to compete against her is fairly thin. Malpass, a political newcomer largely unknown to the state's voters, joins former Rep. Joe DioGuardi and former Long Island lawmaker Bruce Blakeman in the field. The primary is Sept. 14.
Several better-known Republicans have decided to skip the race, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Gov. George Pataki, who announced this week he would not be a candidate.
Gillibrand also escaped a potential primary challenge when former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford, now a New York City investment executive, actively explored a bid but ultimately decided not to get in the race.
Malpass advised Giuliani during his 2008 presidential campaign. He told reporters he has about $1 million in the bank and would have sufficient resources to compete against Gillibrand. A tenacious fundraiser, she had more than $5 million in the bank as the end of 2009.
foxchip to gavino
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:26 AM, foxchip wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:33 am, gavino wrote:
> http://technoninja.blogspot.com/2009/10/i7-intel-sickness-but-s40-is-...
>
> is the s40 really like 10 times the speed of an intel chip?
>
> how can this be? Intel has what billions?
Have you ever given Intel money by purchasing one of their
processors? ;-)
I have noticed that more and more people are now calling you a
troll for asking the same questions over and over and over
and insulting the people who answer them by ignoring what they
say and asking the same question again. You rule as our
resident clueless troll.
c18 does not just run at a max of 700mhz, it represents 80%
of the dynamic execution of Forth programs as one cycle
5-bit opcodes that operate at several times the speed of
memory and make programs very small. Because there is not
an instruction pipeline or cache timing is simple, and
consistent. Code triggered by an external event can run
a few hundred picoseconds after an event. Cost and power
consumption and speed are all records and Forth programming
is easier than on complex machines.
SEA24 had 24 c18
SEA40 had 40 c18
GA4 has 4 c18
GA32 has 32 c18
GA40 has 40 c18
GA144 has 144 c18
duh
GA4 is the low end, low cost, low power uw to about 40mw,
with a total of 2.8B maximum forth opcodes per second,
and <$.10 manufacture cost
GA144 costs about $2 to manufacture and has 144x 700
Mhz processors for a total maximum throughput of 100,800
forth mips. so far SEA40, ga32, 40, and 144 have been
put in the same packages for testing.
You have asked before and been told before. I don't
know why you ignore answers to your questions unless
it is the obvious answer that you are just trolling.
How is it possible that Intel chips have some numbers
that are lower? Pentium has varying models with different
numbers of transistors. This computer has a Pentium M
with 400,000,000 transistors. That is roughly the same
as 20,000 c18 or one Pentium core. Yield is low when
you need all of 400,000,000 transistors to work or you
have to throw away the silicon. Manufacture cost is
high, and so are prices. The highest prices are for
high end Pentium chips: you can buy 5000 of them
for $3000 each if you have $15,000,000.00 plus tax handy.
A Pentium core is really something like 20 pentium core
connected inside using pipelining so it looks like one
Pentium core that can internally do 20 cycles of an opcode
and make it look like it took one cycle where thoughput
is concerned. This is one way a pentium uses parallelism,
in its pipelined core, it is part of why they are so big.
Then add on-chip cache, and instruction branch prediction
etc. and backwards compatibility with many generations of
previous chips to a processor and it gets REALLY BIG.
c18 needs none of that because it just does simple Forth.
c18 has 64 words of ram and rom each on each core. That's
not much. Most processors in the world are like that and
cost ~$.10. People make many billions of them a year. But
most of them are very slow, about 10k Forth instructions
per second, and very small, less than 100 bytes of memory.
c18 is unusual in that as small cores go it is still very
small and very low power and VERY fast, 700M vs 10K...
This helps keep c18 very small and cheap so that they cost
about a penny each to manufacture and packages typically
add a half a cent per pin. On the other hand Pentium have
hundreds of much more expensive pins, thousands of times
more silicon, and of course a power supply thousands of
times bigger and a heat sink etc.
But Pentium are designed to pull heavy loads at high speed.
They can address 64 gigabytes of RAM! 64 GIG VS 64 WORDS.
Of course only Anton actually has 64GB of ram on his PC.
Pentium is terrible for realtime. Sure this machine has a
2GHz Pentium but at any time it can stall for hundreds of
cycles after a cache miss or pipeline stall. The average
speed is 2 billion instructions per second but because
realtime performance is unpredictable one must assume that
occasionally a function will take 100 times as long as it
takes on the average (see Koopman's paper back in Embedded
Systems journal years ago). This is why a 2GHz Pentium
can only process a couple hundred thousand realtime events
per second. Despite running at 2GHz it might take a ms
or more to get around to processing a realtime event on a
pin.
c18 has no interrupts at all. the idea instead is to
dedicate a c18 to an event such as a change on a pin
so that processing can being in 100ps instead of
1,000,000,000ps like on a Pentium.
Pentium and c18 based computers are about as different
as computers can be.
GA4 characterizes a c18 based computer well, designed
for apps where you want an <$.10 processor. Pentium
are for PCs costing $500 to $20000
Chuck Moore's company licensed multiprocessing and clocking
patents to Intel and AMD. Now they make multicore processors.
But when core cost $20-$1000 to manufacture and are BIG
they can only fit a few on a chip. But they are using the
state of the art fab while Chuck's c18 designs have been
done in .18u or .13u like Intel was using a decade ago.
So if you level that playing field then a GA144 would cost
about what a GA4 does and you could get about 20 cores for
a penny. But those kind of fabs cost billions of dollars and
forth chips are not so well funded.
Now a c18 can go in package where some of them have enough
pins to connect to an external memory. You only need a few
pins for flash, more for ram or dram. On the haypress creek
board there are 9 SEA40 each with 32MW of DRAM on the back
of the board.
Maximum density for .18u is a little less than what you
see on the SEA40 wafers. You could think of a wafer as
a BIG chip, bigger than Pentium but costing about the
same because it uses older .18u fabrication and has a
much higher yield since ever 20k transistors without a
bad transistor is a working core instead of needing
hundreds of millions of perfect transistors per core.
This has all been explained a dozen times, more like a
hundred times, in c.l.f. People really wonder why
you ask the same questions over and over.
Just trolling I guess.
You know that Pentium have to be backwards compatible
with thirty years of Intel chips, that they need to
address huge amounts of memory, that they need giant
packages with hundreds or thousands of pins, that
they need large caches and power supplies and heat
sinks. You know why they are big and expensive and
why they are fast at what they do.
They are like a super freighter. They can carry 100,000,000
tons of stuff and are pretty fast but need many miles to
speed up, slow down, or make a turn. Pentium are like
a freight train too.
c18 is like a racing motorcycle. ultralightweight, doesn't
carry much, but can make turns at speed and stop and start
very quickly.
Really a Pentium to a c18 comparison is like a freight
train to 20,000 dirt bikes. If I need to haul 10,000
refrigerators across the country a freight train would
be better than 20,000 dirty bikes. But to move 20,000
people in 20,000 different directions as fast as
possible a freight train would not do very well.
I guess it must be fun for you to troll.
On Oct 27, 12:33 am, gavino
> http://technoninja.blogspot.com/2009/10/i7-intel-sickness-but-s40-is-...
>
> is the s40 really like 10 times the speed of an intel chip?
>
> how can this be? Intel has what billions?
Have you ever given Intel money by purchasing one of their
processors? ;-)
I have noticed that more and more people are now calling you a
troll for asking the same questions over and over and over
and insulting the people who answer them by ignoring what they
say and asking the same question again. You rule as our
resident clueless troll.
c18 does not just run at a max of 700mhz, it represents 80%
of the dynamic execution of Forth programs as one cycle
5-bit opcodes that operate at several times the speed of
memory and make programs very small. Because there is not
an instruction pipeline or cache timing is simple, and
consistent. Code triggered by an external event can run
a few hundred picoseconds after an event. Cost and power
consumption and speed are all records and Forth programming
is easier than on complex machines.
SEA24 had 24 c18
SEA40 had 40 c18
GA4 has 4 c18
GA32 has 32 c18
GA40 has 40 c18
GA144 has 144 c18
duh
GA4 is the low end, low cost, low power uw to about 40mw,
with a total of 2.8B maximum forth opcodes per second,
and <$.10 manufacture cost
GA144 costs about $2 to manufacture and has 144x 700
Mhz processors for a total maximum throughput of 100,800
forth mips. so far SEA40, ga32, 40, and 144 have been
put in the same packages for testing.
You have asked before and been told before. I don't
know why you ignore answers to your questions unless
it is the obvious answer that you are just trolling.
How is it possible that Intel chips have some numbers
that are lower? Pentium has varying models with different
numbers of transistors. This computer has a Pentium M
with 400,000,000 transistors. That is roughly the same
as 20,000 c18 or one Pentium core. Yield is low when
you need all of 400,000,000 transistors to work or you
have to throw away the silicon. Manufacture cost is
high, and so are prices. The highest prices are for
high end Pentium chips: you can buy 5000 of them
for $3000 each if you have $15,000,000.00 plus tax handy.
A Pentium core is really something like 20 pentium core
connected inside using pipelining so it looks like one
Pentium core that can internally do 20 cycles of an opcode
and make it look like it took one cycle where thoughput
is concerned. This is one way a pentium uses parallelism,
in its pipelined core, it is part of why they are so big.
Then add on-chip cache, and instruction branch prediction
etc. and backwards compatibility with many generations of
previous chips to a processor and it gets REALLY BIG.
c18 needs none of that because it just does simple Forth.
c18 has 64 words of ram and rom each on each core. That's
not much. Most processors in the world are like that and
cost ~$.10. People make many billions of them a year. But
most of them are very slow, about 10k Forth instructions
per second, and very small, less than 100 bytes of memory.
c18 is unusual in that as small cores go it is still very
small and very low power and VERY fast, 700M vs 10K...
This helps keep c18 very small and cheap so that they cost
about a penny each to manufacture and packages typically
add a half a cent per pin. On the other hand Pentium have
hundreds of much more expensive pins, thousands of times
more silicon, and of course a power supply thousands of
times bigger and a heat sink etc.
But Pentium are designed to pull heavy loads at high speed.
They can address 64 gigabytes of RAM! 64 GIG VS 64 WORDS.
Of course only Anton actually has 64GB of ram on his PC.
Pentium is terrible for realtime. Sure this machine has a
2GHz Pentium but at any time it can stall for hundreds of
cycles after a cache miss or pipeline stall. The average
speed is 2 billion instructions per second but because
realtime performance is unpredictable one must assume that
occasionally a function will take 100 times as long as it
takes on the average (see Koopman's paper back in Embedded
Systems journal years ago). This is why a 2GHz Pentium
can only process a couple hundred thousand realtime events
per second. Despite running at 2GHz it might take a ms
or more to get around to processing a realtime event on a
pin.
c18 has no interrupts at all. the idea instead is to
dedicate a c18 to an event such as a change on a pin
so that processing can being in 100ps instead of
1,000,000,000ps like on a Pentium.
Pentium and c18 based computers are about as different
as computers can be.
GA4 characterizes a c18 based computer well, designed
for apps where you want an <$.10 processor. Pentium
are for PCs costing $500 to $20000
Chuck Moore's company licensed multiprocessing and clocking
patents to Intel and AMD. Now they make multicore processors.
But when core cost $20-$1000 to manufacture and are BIG
they can only fit a few on a chip. But they are using the
state of the art fab while Chuck's c18 designs have been
done in .18u or .13u like Intel was using a decade ago.
So if you level that playing field then a GA144 would cost
about what a GA4 does and you could get about 20 cores for
a penny. But those kind of fabs cost billions of dollars and
forth chips are not so well funded.
Now a c18 can go in package where some of them have enough
pins to connect to an external memory. You only need a few
pins for flash, more for ram or dram. On the haypress creek
board there are 9 SEA40 each with 32MW of DRAM on the back
of the board.
Maximum density for .18u is a little less than what you
see on the SEA40 wafers. You could think of a wafer as
a BIG chip, bigger than Pentium but costing about the
same because it uses older .18u fabrication and has a
much higher yield since ever 20k transistors without a
bad transistor is a working core instead of needing
hundreds of millions of perfect transistors per core.
This has all been explained a dozen times, more like a
hundred times, in c.l.f. People really wonder why
you ask the same questions over and over.
Just trolling I guess.
You know that Pentium have to be backwards compatible
with thirty years of Intel chips, that they need to
address huge amounts of memory, that they need giant
packages with hundreds or thousands of pins, that
they need large caches and power supplies and heat
sinks. You know why they are big and expensive and
why they are fast at what they do.
They are like a super freighter. They can carry 100,000,000
tons of stuff and are pretty fast but need many miles to
speed up, slow down, or make a turn. Pentium are like
a freight train too.
c18 is like a racing motorcycle. ultralightweight, doesn't
carry much, but can make turns at speed and stop and start
very quickly.
Really a Pentium to a c18 comparison is like a freight
train to 20,000 dirt bikes. If I need to haul 10,000
refrigerators across the country a freight train would
be better than 20,000 dirty bikes. But to move 20,000
people in 20,000 different directions as fast as
possible a freight train would not do very well.
I guess it must be fun for you to troll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
