PSAs and an Economic Hit Man ... (WD draft)

 .. talk about ugly Americans? (Spit! Spit!)

“... A former employee of an international consulting firm denounces the American global empire and its ‘corporatocracy.’”

What’s this all about? The book was published last fall [Aus-lish: Autumn; meant is circa Sep'04], but only now shows up as a best-seller? It only recently was brought to my attention by a website fan who knows I’ve long argued that the International Monetary Fund and its sister organization, the World Bank, constitute an “Evil Empire.” The two “international financial institutions” (IFI’s) were founded in 1945 during the genesis of the United Nations as “do-good” enterprises ...

Over the years, the process has been corrupted, with both the IMF and World Bank becoming controlled by the multinational corporations and their banks. When President Nixon went off the gold standard in 1971, the IMF’s reason for existence evaporated, ...

['Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' reviewed by Jude Wanniski]

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.

[Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions] [quoted by Wanniski]

(Need any more? Read the linked item; or better yet: buy the book.)

-=*=-

It's a matter of equity[1], aka fairness.

Q: Who owns any mineral resources?

A: In Aus, the Federal government 'looks after' them, "For all of us!" This means that they manage mineral resources; issuing prospecting 'licences,' development 'permits,' setting any 'royalties' and (one would hope) seeing to it that a fair share of any profit to be had flowed back to the 'real owners,' i.e. we the sheople®.

Q: How is it working?

A: Problematic; that is to say, that information is scarce, i.e. very hard to come by. (I wonder what that?)

The first time I got any inkling that there may be a problem in this area was when Bass Straight oil was first being developed; we heard of the concept possibly now referred-to as WPP, world parity pricing. If I understand this correctly, it means that if oil could be produced below world prices, the companies could jack-up what they sold it for to the higher level. As well as this nice little 'fiddle,' they were 'cut' a deal allowing the companies to claw-back all their up-front costs before they had to declare any profit, and an 'internal' interest rate of, say, two or three times the 'market rate' was allowed in working out those up-front costs (including all 'overheads;' now you might begin to understand why people commute to oil-rigs by helicopter.) In a word, the oil-drillers turned harvesters were given 'a very easy ride.' Too easy; someone objected and so applied a 'resource-rent' tax. More on that later perhaps; but note the priority given to recovery of up-front costs - just like a PSA!

The next inkling was hearing about some new coal-mine (QLD I think; onya Joe!), where the only income (apart from wages) we the sheople via the government would get would come from the profit (if any!) from the government-owned railway ferrying the coal to a port - possibly the same 'deal' i.e. 'profit if any' on the port facilities. (Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey." - then riddle me this: Why complain about port facilities? If it's a government operation, why is there a bottle neck? Who is holding what up; who is holding the purse-strings, eh?) Getting back on track;

Q: What's about royalties?

A: On that particular coal-mine, looks like zero.

Finally (for here) it's not 'just' that coal-mine; the last thing I heard was that the McArthur River mine pays we, the sheople zero royalties. That mine was started in the time of Keating; there was a Lib/CP 'state' mob in. Same 'deal' there; recovery of up-front costs, getting boring. But for us, we the sheople, a bit expensive? Looks like we'll end up owning empty holes with not much more - if any more - than the wages paid to the mine workers in recompense.

There is one other way for us to get some money out'a the miners' vice-like clutches; namely tax. Note, however, that again, any tax is payable after all expenses etc, and is nominally 30%. Funny about that 'nominally,' I heard somewhere that the actual rate was closer to 5%? Also, whadda 'bout off-shore companies (like BHP-Billiton), or now Murdoch, for that matter? I mean, they wouldn't go off-shore unless there was some benefit - to them...

In case of any lingering doubt (as to the morality of 'big-oil,' say), see a 'snip' below from the 'Bolivia' thread[2]. And the damage the US does is not restricted to the 3rd world[3].

-=*=-

To cut a long story short here, it looks like mining, be it coal, ore or oil, is quite a dirty business - in more ways than one. Although McArthur River is Xstrata (nominally Swiss), the principles are the same. We see "Hit Man" describes the US way of business, I call it "The Harvard Business School of Sharks." Anyone wishing to swim with these sharks (Xstrata, say) has to look and do just like all the other sharks.

Whether the sharp practices I've here described (I've done PSAs elsewhere; same principles), the question comes back to equity, aka fairness; do you think we the sheople are getting a good deal? And that's with our so-called 'friends,' how about the hapless Iraqis, with the US Jack-boot brutally on their necks, hmmm?

-=*end*=-

PS I date the descent of the US from the awful A-bombing of the hapless Japanese civilians (this marks the onset of the US nukular blackmail), but Blum takes the date back into the 19thC. (And even before that, of course, the original land rip-off.) I see that the US has spiralled downwards into immorality, as it has soared into riches. Looks like they've done it all on purpose:

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to "be liked" or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts[my emphasis]. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

[George Kennan, Head of the US State Department Policy Planning Staff]

My comment: Daaarlings; is this really what they meant, when they trumpeted "Truth, justice and the American way!?"

Ref(s):

[1] equity n. (pl. -ies) 1 fairness. 2 principles of justice used to correct or supplement the law. 3 a value of the shares issued by a company. b (in pl.) stocks and shares not bearing fixed interest. [Latin aequitas: related to *equal]

My comment on the definition: Haw!

[2] Who Owns Bolivia's Oil and Gas?

...widely supported by Bolivians, who see the so-called privatizations (or 'capitalizations') under former President Gonzalo 'Goni' Sanchez de Lozada as a rip-off: Bolivia received only 18% of the proceeds! Bolivians wonder why investments of some $3 billion should entitle foreign investors to 82% of the country’s vast gas reserves, now estimated to be worth $250 billion.

[Joseph E Stiglitz]

[3] World Bank, IMF & the US$

The petrodollar era had worked to the American financial elite's advantage, but at a horrendous cost to the people of the Third World and to those of the former Soviet Union as well. Living standards declined in all of these countries as IMF 'structural adjustment' policies opened markets to the predatory process of globalization led by US-based multinationals seeking cheap labor and raw materials. The people of the US suffered also, as America's manufacturing base was 'hollowed out' through outsourcing. While a quarter-century previously 60% of the world's export goods had carried a 'Made in USA' label, now American companies were interested primarily in 'branding' products made in China or Central America. Jobs for US workers were consequently down-sized.

[The Endangered US Dollar]

bigotry Mk2_1678 Submitted on May 29, 2007 - 12:27pm.

 Subtitle: I speak only for myself; I report: you decide.

-=*=-

I see that someone (deliberately unnamed; "I don't want trouble!") used this: "proselitising [sic®] atheists". In the first case; spelling: it's proselytizing[1].

I believe - ooops! See believe[2] and belief[0] - I'll start again. IMHO, the expression 'proselytizing atheists' is technically incorrect.

I cannot, of course, speak for Dawkins (only for myself, see my subtitle), but again IMHO, I believe (Haw! - Balance of probabilities), that not only is there no g*d, but that such a concept is an impossibility according to physics as we know it (i.e. the conservation laws, which have never been shown to be violated); the only possibility - also by definition - is that any g*d[3] is supernatural[4], as would be any related 'soul[5]' concept. At this point the argument goes 'circular,' so we must 'JOOTS.' (Jump out of the system.)

But, my point: IMHO, I do not "not believe" in some g*d construct; I have no 'belief' whatsoever related to any g*d (aka a toadal® absence of belief), I merely say: based on 'the balance of probabilities,' a) there is no evidence - but stronger, b) there can be no evidence, and c) there is no requirement to add unnecessary complication (on the 'keep it simple, stupid' principle) - and so I conclude, that as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a g*d construct. (Except, of course, in the minds of believers; once again we must 'JOOTS.')

I know this gets complicated; SBNTS (sorry but not too sorry); and incidentally I've just discovered that denying the existence of some xxx is considered as yyy by some zzzs. (Interesting when one 'neutralises' the language, eh? Here, 'yyy' is blasphemy.) I'm not happy with my dictionary's atheism[6a,b] definition; I want to say that atheism is "a toadal absence of belief in any g*d construct."

-=*=-

Long story short (part 1): IMHO. 'believers' as a class form a hopeless case; there is no point in attempting to alienate them from their belief. Point here: no conversion of belief is sought (by me). So, in addition to 'proselytizing atheists' being technically incorrect, the task is to argue that any attempt at promulgating the (IMHO!) utterly baseless 'g*d/immortal soul' meme should be postponed to well after any human child can a) fairly evaluate all the nuances, and b) not be bulls**tted by the pernicious death threat.

I believe [Haw the 3rd] there's a concept of 'informed consent?'

-=*=-

Part 2: It's the war, stupid!

(Think you knew that was coming? Well, surprise! I'm not talking here about 'murder for oil' aka war after our money (yet), I wanna pursue the war after our minds first; Ta ra! The propaganda war.)

Our 'prime monster' can hardly open his mouth without issuing some form of fear/threat. In 2001 it was 'queue jumping' asylum seekers who would bring disease and or Islam and or Jihad, you name it. Then comes this:

Certainly, the Howard Government was too tough on asylum seekers circa 2001, but many of these issues have been resolved.

[Gerard Henderson/Amnesty, from the practical truth]

'Scuse? Resolved? How? IMHO, propaganda. Amnesty criticised our prime monster, Henderson comes bashing back. Who pays him, I wonder?

MARGARET SOMERVILLE: They could, but the point is that whether you want to give them the right to have that family. That's the only argument I've got against same-sex marriage, that it gives same sex couples a right, but it simultaneously takes away the right of children to have a mother and a father, to know who their biological parents are and to be reared by them.

[7.30/Prof Somerville discusses the ethics of medical breakthroughs]

Phew! How many (propaganda!) bombs did she just throw? I've not heard of this one before; that same-sex marriage must imply some right to raise a family, and the idea of "know ... their biological parents" seems to be a toadal furphy (although 'fashionable, trendy.') My 7.30-attention was piqued by a prior exposure to this so-called 'ethicist' in an item I saw yesterday:

We should stop automatically associating having liberal values with being open minded and having conservative values with being closed minded.

[Margaret Somerville/Fundamentalism, religious or secular, gets us nowhere]

Astounding! But there's more, much more. So much, that I'm not gunna quote anymore; I've given the links... Oh, alright; just one more:

Richard Dawkins' basic presumption is that there is no God and, therefore, that those who believe there is must prove it. But the equally valid basic presumption is that there is a God and those who don't believe that must prove it. Because both are tenable basic presumptions, both must be accommodated in a secular society.

[ibid.]

IMHO, there's at least two things wrong with this; a) although as said, I cannot speak for Dawkins (only for myself), I am under the impression that it is an accepted principle that science can neither prove nor disprove any 'g*d delusion,' so this whole 'proof paragraph,' as in 'proselytizing atheists' discusses an invalid concept. Then b) I think Somerville is a propagandist arguing for some role for religion in society ('accommodated'), which would conflict with the necessary separation of church and state. Again IMHO, religion would be best ignored, and its promulgation to minors prevented. My opinion. And whatever it is that Somerville is selling, I'm not buying.

-=*=-

Fundamentalism has no 'two sides,' atheism is not the opposite of belief but the absence of belief. Fundamentalism is the extreme form of religion, and religious belief itself is irrational (by definition). Religion is being used (yeah, by both 'sides') but for almost no good purpose (I can't think of any). The Anglo(Christian)CoW® is deploying religion as a propaganda tool against us, we the sheople®, to inveigle our compliance with the malfeasances of TWOT (a manufactured crisis, see 'murder for oil), just as the mostly oil-owning 'towel-heads' employ religion as a tool, i.e. suicide bombers, say - in an attempt to fend off the murdering CoW occupier/thieves (See Perkins' "Dying to win.")

-=*end*=-

PS This topic is 'Morality without a God.' Each and everyone of B, B & H claims various degrees of religious association, yet all are involved in deeply immoral acts, up to and including mass-murder for spoil. Morality exists, and can be present with or without religion; I claim it could be, should be toadally independent. Saying "Can't legislate morality!" is a full-strength cop-out; within a very short period I formalised my own morality (see the chezPhil morality; here a summary: leave each other alone, do no harm!) - almost all one would ever need as a basis for a fair society. What we drastically need is the rule of (fair!) law, what we are living through (and sooo many dying through) is a total travesty; a completely immoral and lawless nightmare.

Ref(s):

[0] From my 'faith, hope and charity_1678,' 'belief:'

... With sooo many words in the English language, it's too bad that we're stuck with this awkward dichotomy; a) 'belief' in some 'g*d' (i.e. on zero evidence, aka 'faith') and b) 'belief' in some thing based on 'hard-data' someone has adjudicated (aka science), or as a slightly inferior 'balance of probabilities' (aka best fit to partial evidence). In summary, the same word 'belief,' used both with and without evidence. Silly, really. If I use 'belief' on my own behalf, it is exclusively in the evidence-based sense.

[1] proselytize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) (also absol.) convert or seek to convert from one belief etc. to another. [POD]

[2] believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith.  believable adj. believer n. [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] g*d n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. [ibid. - '*' mine.]

[4] supernatural —adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. —n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc.  supernaturally adv. [ibid.]

[5] soul n. 1 spiritual or immaterial part of a person, often regarded as immortal. 2 moral, emotional, or intellectual nature of a person.

[6a] atheism n. belief that there is no God.  atheist n. atheistic adj. [Greek a- not, theos god] [ibid.]

[6b] atheism noun [mass noun] the theory or belief that God does not exist.

DERIVATIVES

atheist noun

atheistic adjective

atheistical adjective.

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’. [Oxford Pop-up]

fisking Mr M0rrella's last sta... err, post_1891

Submitted by phil kendall on May 24, 2007 - 5:59pm

 Subtitle: how oleaginously deceitful can one supposed foreign contractor be?

It is called having standards. Incoherent political rambling, mixed with poor attempts at sarcastic wittisms, do not take away from your attempted deception. Most people (on being caught) would accept it, and learn from it. It would seem you are not most people. I suggest you read the link carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair.

[Standards/Pau1 M0rrella on May 23, 2007 - 3:58pm]

1) "It is called having standards"; innuendo: as in "You don't!" - eh?

2) "Incoherent political rambling"; proof please, example and explanation; or is this "only in your (however mistaken) opinion?"

3) "mixed with poor attempts at sarcastic wittisms" Ooops! Spelling: "wittisms"; no spell checker, Pau1? Or just careless? Too arrogant, perhaps? Then "poor attempts", again in whose opinion? "I never joke about my work, 007!" - but having a sensayuma helps, and can be a bit'a fun, when discussing what is otherwise a truly dreadful topic.

4) "Most people (on being caught) would accept it" - 'Scuse me? This is called assuming one's own argument; usually one is required to prove some allegation before one constructs further slights based upon any such.

(Note: I have my suspicions about Mr M0rrella; this tends to confirm them. How about, he came here a) to challenge the 'oil-theft' proposition, b) with the ill-formed prejudice that it's wrong (IMHO, of course it's not, it's the coming theft itself that's wrong) then c) to hand out a few smacks. Fits, eh?)

5) Then the gratuitous link to the Jayson Blair affair ...

This is a bewdy; a real bloody-bottler, mate!

Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976, Columbia, Maryland) is an American former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories.

[wiki/Jayson Blair]

(Not just by-the-way, I neither plagiarize nor fabricate. This is another false allegation from Pau1 - amongst the many - which must be, according to my interpretation of WD guidelines, either justified (IMHO can't be) or withdrawn. Hmmm?)

But prey [sic] tell, just what's so good about this Jayson Blair ref?

Well, daaarlings, for any of those who've been away some other-where (or had their heads stuck up some dark place 'where the Sun don't shine') for the last four years or so, we've had an illegal invasion now become a brutal occupation - all premised on lies, and the 'secret plan' to steal Iraq's oil. (It had to be kept secret; because it's so glaringly obvious, the only way that they could hide it is in plain sight, all the while denying it: "Wot, me steal oil? Don't be so ridiculous! That must be one'a those nutty-wutty conspiracy theories!" (Could come from Cheney, say - or Rumsfeld. Haw! Try "9." say. There's a lot, just like the dkos. Ever heard of pushing s**t uphill with a pointed stick?))

The proof of oil-theft will be seen when it happens; and the oil law being foist by the US on the Iraqi puppet government is a concrete step in that direction. Again the challenge to any and all: just prove it ain't 'murder for oil!'

Ridiculous indeed, but "What else is new," I hear you mutter?

Just this: it was the NYT, with Judith Miller 'leading the charge,' along with the other big "Paper of Record," the WP (this is neither to forget nor minimise the efforts in deception contributed by 'Faux News,' say, or the sordid and venal MSM as a whole), but it was the NYT which acted as one'a the primary conduits and amplifiers of the neoCon-associated undemocratic 'putsch' which shovelled all those utter BS-lies at us, to send us off to that murdering war. (Possibly millions now dead!)

High praise, perhaps; but only in a cack-handed sort'a way of course, for me to be bracketed with that lot.

Only problem for Pau1, though, is that - as my record quite clearly shows - I act as a seeker of truth; by citing articles and inviting comparison with what we actually see happening out in the real world, I act to counter that dreadful, filthy and lying pushed paradigm propaganda. Harrrumpf!

Finally, and also not just by-the-way, I have asked: "May I enquire, as to your purpose 'in here,' Pau1?" This is not in any way frivolous; it is a WD guideline: "2. Disclose affiliations which you think could reasonably be perceived to affect what you write." (Ooops!) So how about it again, Pau1?

Oh please, don't rush off, lemme have a 'nother go? Pretty please?

-=*end*=-

PS Although Mr M0rrella may have nefarious motives (coming to a definitive conclusion is not helped by the utter paucity of real info provided by him, see his œuvre), it's not to say that we don't need the input from people of his ilk:

You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.

[George Monbiot/Too much at stake to let climate-change sceptics bluff the world]

(The article itself is worth a look.)

If we consider the oil-theft sceptics' proposition: that the illegal US invasion now brutal occupation of Iraq ain't about 'murdering oil-theft' - then we need to see an until-now, as far as I'm aware, non-existent proof. To which Pau1 M0rrella has not contributed even the slightest bit, Oh no; not a single solitary skerrick thereof. But thereby hangs his tale.

Ref(s):

[1] innuendo n. (pl. -es or -s) allusive remark or hint, usu. disparaging or with a double meaning. [Latin, = by nodding at: related to *in-2, nuo nod] [POD]

slander by innuendo_1891

Submitted by phil kendall on May 24, 2007 - 9:25am

 Subtitle: "Outside, matey!"

-=*=-

Of course, I could completely ignore Pau1 M0rrella's apparently vicious slurs, but there's a principle involved; so now is as good a time as any to 'make a stand.' (Q: What's 20cm long with an arrow stuck through it? A: Custer's last ...)

The other day Jenny Hume wrote:

Phil Kendall has issue with what he sees as moral relativism. But it is interesting, is it not, that when non believers want to justify their atheism, ...

When I raised objection to her associating my name with "non believers want to justify", Jenny said any relatedness between the sentence containing my name and the word 'justify' was accidental - i.e. not meant; her words:

Phil Kendall, Oh for heaven's sake calm down. Scurrilous, allegation, undermining your work, proproganda, pushing a barrow. Spare me the dramatics. But if we want to talk about barrows, your own gets a pretty good go around here.

Yeah, right Jenny, I believe you; thousands wouldn't. Note the lack of attention to detail ("proproganda"), the overall haughty tone, then the attempt to lay the red herring: "But if we want to talk about barrows, your own gets a pretty good go around here."

I've said it before in this exchange but it's always worth a repeat: this is an opinion forum, as opposed to a Darlinghurst courtroom.

I have the highest regard for WD - after all, daaarlings, why else would I contribute here?

Then: whatever I say is either a report of what I've seen somewhere; in the (venal!) MSM in particular or the blogosphere in general (I'd never qualify for membership in a typing pool, however much I'd like to be surrounded by lovelies - ooops! Married...) - so pretty-well anything I relay to this forum is 'copy_n_pasted' from some source, or is my own 'single digit' opinion.

So. Any person, either in our wide-brown or anywhere else, is welcome - encouraged - to challenge anything I report - after all, I am a declared seeker of truth; my opinions are my own but may be contested in fair discussion.

Note that after Jenny's tirade, she then deliberately closed discussion on any possibly more important themes in my post; Jenny: "I do not intend to engage further on this issue with you Phil." And so she avoids, amongst other themes, my assertion: "In this sense, the attempted recruitment of minors [into some religion using fear of death, say] is exactly as Dawkins charged: child abuse."

-=*=-

Now we come back to Pau1 M0rrella.

What's your problem, Pau1?

You asked a question, I and two others posted in response, discussing various aspects of the theme as it developed, and posing questions to you in return. The entire 'package' to-date can be seen (should open in a new 'window') here: Doing the Pau1 M0rrella 'oleaginous twist.'

I formally take exception to your remarks, Mr M0rrella, specifically these two (among your more general slurs): a) that [I] "might like to start by telling some" and b) [any] "attempted deception."

Note that as well as zero substantive responses to requests for more detail on his allegations (say: "the theories are in fact mutually exclusive"), Mr M0rrella now makes toadally® undocumented (as IMHO unfounded), allegations directed at me.

Kindly justify your slanders[1]; chapter and verse, Mr M0rrella, or totally withdraw them - plus a public apology. No 'please' required.

It's your word against my reports, Mr M0rrella, you have made the allegations, time to put up or shut up; prove your (IHMO filthy, slimy) allegations, or it's "Outside, matey!" Well, of course it's a joke (pacifist). There's nothing one can actually do about such scurrilousness except expose it to the light of reason, fairness and decency.

-=*end*=-

PS Does it matter? Should I care? Well, obviously. Those who defend the current 'pushed paradigm' do so for reasons of their own; I've suggested either a) ideology (IMHO of the blind and mistaken type) or b) there's 'something it it for them;' better said, as in the case of the MSM, say: venality and corruption. In plain Aussie-English, (b) could be paraphrased as "Of course they're on the take, mate!"

I have directly challenged various people 'in here,' two come immediately to mind. Both Will Howard and Ian MacDougall have been asked to prove it ain't 'murder for oil,' both point-blank refused. In addition, in more general terms, I've posed my 'domestic siege' analogy; why was it necessary to completely destroy Iraq to depose Saddam, and continue the horrendous destruction, including now perhaps millions of hapless dead Iraqis, looong after Saddam was deposed and eventually lynched? Now we have Mr M0rrella showing up, demanding that I prove that the US intends oil-theft (Haw! What else?) I have put up various reports, see the record. Mr M0rrella has refused all (reasonable!) requests for detail. As Faux-News might put it: I report, dear readers, you decide. Tip: "Follow the money!"

PPS So, let's have it please: as I said to Pau1 above, "time to put up or shut up;" a specific invitation to all, to challenge any report in all of my posts.

PPPS Why this from Mr M0rrella, why now? Could it be that I've been just that bit too effective in my reporting? Hmmm...

PPPPS The final question; the biggie: do we (the sheople of our great and lovely wide-brown) really wish to live in a world dominated by lies, cheating, theft and mass-murder? Truly - apart from you'n yours, natch: in a world without love?

Ref(s):

[1] slander —n. 1 false and damaging utterance about a person. 2 uttering of this. —v. utter slander about.  slanderous adj. [French esclandre: related to *scandal] [POD]