The Cult of Sol Invictus

by D.J. Love, Minister, TSN, SBC

(Upgraded 3-4-2002)

The Roman Empire began their official recognition of sun worship during the time of Aurelian when he instituted the cult of “Sol Invictus“. There is virtually no difference between the cult of Sol Invictus and that of Mithraism or for that matter catholicism.

In the year 307 A.D. Emperor Diocletian, a Sun Worshipper, was involved in the dedication of a temple to Mithra, and was responsible for the burning of Holy Scripture (which made it possible for later emperors to formulate Christianity, and thus began the Roman version of the “Universal Christo-pagan Mystery Religion.”) After the rein of Diocletian, the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was an early Christo-pagan (Christian) maintained the title “Pontifus Maximus” the high priest of paganism, and remained a worshipper of Apollo. His coins were inscribed: “SOL INVICTO COMITI“, which is interpreted as “Committed to the Invincible Sun”. During his reign pagan Sun worship was blended with the worship of the True Creator (syncretism), and officially titled “Christianity” by the (less than holy) Roman Empire and its’ official church the (less than holy) catholic (universal) church.

Cybele, the Phrygian goddess, known to her followers as “the mother of god“, was closely related to the worship of Mithra. Just as Mithraism was a man’s religion, the worship of Cybele was practiced by women. The priests of Mithra were known as “Fathers” and the Priestesses of Cybele as “Mothers”. After baptism into the Mysteries of Mithra, the initiate was marked on the forehead. The sign of the cross formed by the elliptic and the celestial equator was one of the signs of Mithra. Sunday (Deis Solis), the day of the Sun, was considered by Mithraist a sacred day of rest. December 25th (the birthday of Mithra) was celebrated as the birth of the Sun, given birth by the “Queen of Heaven” – “Mother of god.” The Mithraists celebrated a mithraic love feast. This feast consisted of loaves of bread decorated with crosses with wine, over which the priest pronounced a mystic formula. Mithra was considered mediator between god and man (does this sound like Jesus?).

Note: In 46 BC, when the Roman “Julian Calendar” was adopted, December 24th was the shortest day of the year. Therefore, December 25th was the first annual day that daylight began to increase. Thus, the origin of the REBIRTH or Annual Birthday of the Invincible SUN.

In accordance with the Roman “Julian calendar,” the “Saturnalia” festival appears to have taken place on or about December 17th; it was preceded by the “Consualia” near December 15th, and followed by the “Opalia” on December 19th. These pagan celebrations typically lasted for at least a week, ending just before the late Roman Imperial Festival for “Sol Invictus” (Invincible Sun) on December 25th.

In 1582 AD. Roman Catholic Pope Gregory the XIII caused the current “Gregorian Calendar” to be adopted, in order to eliminate the solar time shift error introduced by the “Julian Calendar.“

By December 1582 AD the shortest day of the year had shifted 12 days on the Roman “Julian Calendar” to Wednesday, December 12, 1582.

However, the Original December 25th ‘Birth Date’ was retained for all pagan Sun gods by the Roman “Saturnalia” and “Sol Invictus” traditions; which were now called the “Twelve Days Christ Mass.“

On the new Roman Catholic Gregorian calendar the shortest annual day was numerically shifted back 10 days to the 22nd of December, where it remains to this day; while the original order of the days of the week remained unchanged.

Therefore, Wednesday, December 12th, 1582 AD, became Wednesday, December 22nd, 1582 AD, and the True Sabbath Day remained unchanged.

Yahweh, the Only True Yahweh, would never have allowed The True Messiah to be born on or near the December 25th birthday period of the pagan Sun gods; during the time in which virgins were sacrificed, murder was commonplace, and orgies the norm. This would be an entirely unacceptable association.

Mithraists, also, believed in eternal life in heaven, and in the torture of the wicked after death. Many of these beliefs and rituals were exclusive to Mithraism and up until the fourth century were not an official part of the Christo-pagan faith. In the 4th century, through confusion and deliberate manipulation by the Roman Empire and its’ official universal (catholic) church, rituals of “Sun Worship” were legitimized, under the guise of the “Authority of the Church” (Yahweh Never Granted Any Such Authority) to be “Christian” in nature. There is no Biblical support for the inclusion of Mithraic rituals (pagan Worship) into the worship of the Yahweh of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Only Duty of the True Church is one of Obedience To The Authority of Yahweh. It is a Satanic scheme of deception to disguise the transgression of Yahweh’s laws under the title of “Christianity” (Christo-pagan syncretism). This same system, characterized by the shrouding of truth in secrecy and the manipulation of the truth in order to achieve its ends, has been working for two millennia to perfect the Christo-pagan religion of Christianity. The mystery of iniquity is at work and it only takes a little leaven to leaven the whole lump. The next step is the actual forced taking of the “Mark of the Beast,” however, millions have already taken the “Mark of the Beast” voluntarily.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Massachusetts-based First Amendment rights lawyer Marc Randazza is defending a controversial parody website which satirizes American political commentator Glenn Beck. The website was created in September by a man from Florida named Isaac Eiland-Hall, and it asserts Beck uses questionable tactics “to spread lies and misinformation”.

Glenn Beck in 2009
Image: Mark87.

The website created by Eiland-Hall is located at the domain name “www.GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com”. Its premise is derived from a joke statement made by Gilbert Gottfried about fellow comedian Bob Saget. The joke was first applied to Beck on the Internet discussion community Fark. It then became popular on Internet social media sites including Reddit and Digg, and was the subject of a Google bomb, a technique where individuals link phrases in order to artificially change Google search results.

Eiland-Hall saw the discussion on Fark, and created a website about it. The website asserts it does not believe the rumors to be true, and states: “But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.” In an interview with Ars Technica, he said the website was “using Beck’s tactics against him”. The website was created on September 1, and by September 3 attorneys for Beck’s company Mercury Radio Arts took action. Beck’s lawyers sent letters to the domain name registrar where they referred to the domain name itself as “defamatory”, but they failed to get the site removed.

	Even an imbecile would look at this Web site and know that it’s a parody.
—Marc Randazza, attorney for the website

Beck filed a formal complaint with the Switzerland-based agency of the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization. Beck alleged that the website’s usage is libelous, bad faith, and could befuddle potential consumers. Beck’s complaint was filed under the process called the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The policy allows trademark owners to begin an administrative action by complaining that a certain domain registration is in “bad faith”. A lawyer for Beck declined to provide a comment to the Boston Herald, however a source told the newspaper that Beck’s complaint with the site is primarily a “trademark issue”.

Randazza established an attorney-client relationship with Eiland-Hall after his client received threatening letters from attorneys representing Beck. He then sent an email to Beck’s attorneys, and pointed out inconsistencies between their client’s recent actions and his prior public statements in support of the First Amendment. Randazza wrote a reply to the World Intellectual Property Organization, and contends that the website is “protected political speech”, because it is “satirical political humor”. Randazza stated that “Even an imbecile would look at this Web site and know that it’s a parody.” In his legal brief, Randazza compared the website to other Internet memes, such as “All your base are belong to us” and video parodies of the German film Downfall.

	It’s not often that I would recommend reading a World Intellectual Property Organization legal brief for its entertainment value, but today is going to be an exception.
—Andy Carvin, National Public Radio

“We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s very rhetorical style,” wrote Randazza in the brief. The brief also commented on Beck’s style of reporting, and pointed out a controversial statement made by Beck when he interviewed a Muslim member of the United States Congress. Beck said to Representative Keith Ellison: “I like Muslims, I’ve been to mosques. … And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” According to the Citizen Media Law Project, the website’s joke premise takes advantage of “a perceived similarity between Beck’s rhetorical style and the Gottfried routine”.

Public interest attorney Paul Levy told Ars Technica that if a statement in a website’s domain name were both false and “stated with actual malice”, it is possible it could be considered defamatory. The First Post reported that Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry gave an analysis asserting that though the domain name of the website is “pretty dramatic”, it constituted “pure political criticism and there’s nothing wrong with that”. McSherry and Levy both agreed that the action of Beck to take the matter to the World Intellectual Property Organization was probably a tactic to determine the identity of the website’s owner.

Andy Carvin of National Public Radio wrote that Randazza’s legal brief was amusing, commenting: “It’s not often that I would recommend reading a World Intellectual Property Organization legal brief for its entertainment value, but today is going to be an exception.” Nate Anderson of Ars Technica commented “In any event, the WIPO battle promises to be entertaining, and there’s even a bit of serious purpose mixed in with the frivolity. Just how far can WIPO go in using its domain dispute system to address Internet spats?”. Domain Name Wire wrote that “…when someone who has created a bitingly satirical web site works with his lawyer to put pen to the paper, the end result can be quite amusing.”

Writing for Adweek, Eriq Gardner pointed out the comparison made by Randazza’s legal brief between the website’s parody nature itself and the statement made by Beck to Congressman Ellison, noting: “this case also makes a political point”. Jack Bremer wrote in The First Post that the attempts by Beck’s lawyers to argue that the website’s domain name is itself defamatory “looks like a first in cyber law”. Rick Sawyer of Bostonist characterized Randazza’s legal brief as “Hillarious!”, and called the attorney “among the North Shore’s most hilarious legal writers”.

	[Glenn Beck] did the one thing guaranteed to garner the greatest amount of publicity for the site…
—Politics Daily

The FOX News-critical site FoxNewsBoycott.com likened the legal conflict between Beck and the site to the Streisand effect, a phenomenon where an individual’s attempt to censor material on the Internet in turn proves to make the material itself more public. “Glenn Beck is experiencing the Streisand Effect first hand,” wrote FoxNewsBoycott.com. John Cook of Gawker.com also compared Beck’s actions to the Streisand effect: “Now Glenn Beck’s trying to shut down their web site, ensuring that people will write about it.” Jeffrey Weiss of Politics Daily wrote that by taking legal action, Beck “did the one thing guaranteed to garner the greatest amount of publicity for the site”. Techdirt described Beck’s legal action as “not particularly smart”, and noted: “Beck would have been better off just ignoring it. Instead, in legitimizing it by trying to take it down, many more people become aware of the meme — and may start calling attention to situations where Beck (and others) make use of such tactics.” The blog Hot Air noted the issue could gain attention if it becomes a test case for the First Amendment: “If this becomes a First Amendment test case, the smear’s going to be covered far and wide…”

]]> http://nikkieg23.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/us-free-speech-lawyer-defends-satire-of-glenn-beck/feed/ 0 nikkieg23 Cquote1.png Cquote2.png Cquote1.svg Cquote2.svg Cquote1.png Cquote2.png http://nikkieg23.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/what-i-like-about-a-long-war-in-afghanistan-or-why-america-desperately-needs-a-quaqmire/ http://nikkieg23.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/what-i-like-about-a-long-war-in-afghanistan-or-why-america-desperately-needs-a-quaqmire/#comments Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:12:23 +0000 nikkieg23 http://nikkieg23.wordpress.com/?p=1367 ]]> What I like about a long war in Afghanistan, or why America desperately needs a quaqmire

Possibly the world’s most valuable political analyst?

We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan.(…) The locals sense they have us over a barrel, so they exploit our naïve goodwill and presence to loot their countries and to defeat their internal foes. Thomas L. Friedman – NY Times

My dad once told me about an interesting fellow he worked with in a large rug company. When the CEO was choosing new rug lines this guy’s input was vital because… he was always wrong:  not sometimes, always.

If this man saw some new prototype just in from the design department and showed any enthusiasm for it, experience had taught the top management that nobody anywhere would ever buy it and conversely if he thought the proposed product was a dog, they would go into  night shifts to flood the market with the rug.

My father considered his colleague to be a veritable phenomenon of nature and one of the most valuable men in his organization.

My father assured me that to be always wrong is as rare and wonderful as to be always right. His wise words have stayed with me.

Among political analysts, Thomas L. Friedman is that man.

Just to refresh my reader’s memory, lets have a little peek at his record on Iraq:

During the lead up to the war he said,

“The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war.”

After no WMD were found he said,

“The stated reason for the war was that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction that posed a long-term threat to America. I never bought this argument… The WMD argument was hyped by George Bush and Tony Blair to try to turn a war of choice into a war of necessity.”

AND

“The right reason for this war, as I argued before it started, was to oust Saddam’s regime and partner with the Iraqi people to try to implement the Arab Human Development report’s prescriptions in the heart of the Arab world. That report said the Arab world is falling off the globe because of a lack of freedom, women’s empowerment, and modern education. The right reason for this war was to partner with Arab moderates in a long-term strategy of dehumiliation and redignification.”

Finally in August of 2006 he wrote,

“Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, democracy is not emerging in Iraq, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives”

His scrambling to maintain some reputation as an analyst and pundit led him to a series of statements that have come to be known as the “Friedman Unit”, a period of six months, where if his suggestions were followed, everything would turn out fine. Here is a sample of Friedman units ripped from Wikipedia:

“The next six months in Iraq… are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time” November 30, 2003.

“What we’re gonna find out… in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war.” October 3, 2004.

“I think we’re in the end game now…. I think we’re in a six-month window here where it’s going to become very clear” September 25, 2005.

“I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse” December 18, 2005.

“I think that we’re going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding” January 23, 2006

“I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq.” March 2, 2006

“we’re going to find out… in the next year to six months – probably sooner – whether a decent outcome is possible” May 11, 2006.

Today his message is:

Let’s finish Iraq, because a decent outcome there really could positively impact the whole Arab-Muslim world, and limit our exposure elsewhere. Iraq matters.

His reason seems to be because:

My last guiding principle: We are the world. A strong, healthy and self-confident America is what holds the world together and on a decent path. A weak America would be a disaster for us and the world.

So now from

“democracy is not emerging in Iraq, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives”·

We arrive at “we can’t throw more good lives after good lives in Afghanistan” because…

“Iraq matters”.

In my opinion this is all shorthand for, “if the US armed forces are tied down in Afghanistan, we wont be able to use them anywhere else”.

Where might that “anywhere” be?

My bet would be against Iran.

A lot of perspicacious analysts have always thought that in invading Iraq the real object was Iran. That is why Afghanistan was considered such a boring distraction. You probably remember how all the neocons  in those euphoric days were talking up, “real men go to Tehran”.

All the neocons have ever really cared about is Iran because it is Israel’s bête noire and Thomas L. Friedman is the smiling face of neoconnerie.

With the United States armed forces enmeshed  and maxed out in  Afghanistan, a full scale war with Iran? … fuggedaboutit.

The Russians know it, the Chinese know it, the Iranians know it,  and  most of all the Israelis know it.

So the bright side of the war in Afghanistan  is that a war with Iran would be a total disaster with hundreds of thousands of dead and might cause a worldwide depression as oil prices skyrocket and would only serve Israel’s and a few corrupt sheik’s interests, certainly not America’s. And as Friedman says,

“We simply don’t have the surplus we had when we started the war on terrorism”

So, if a low intensity endless quagmire-nightmare is the only thing standing between the USA and the abyss of war with Iran, the only excuse we can hand AIPAC for not going to war with Iran, then the president is right, Afghanistan is the “good” war.

Thomas Friedman, like my dad’s colleague, is  the most reliable bellwether that America is on the right track in Afghanistan.

So Mr. President, send the troops, the more the merrier: Afghanistan is the best excuse we’ll ever have for blowing off the Israelis and hey, we are still fighting terrorism, aren’t we?

by: Tony Pecinovsky

October 22 2009

The Treasury Department’s expected plan to cut executive pay by up to 90 percent - at the seven companies that received the most in bailout money - is not only good news. It’s great news!

It’s about time! The corporate elite, the rich of the rich, have been feeding at the public trough for far too long. For them to expect tens of millions in executive pay less than a year after being bailed out – with our tax dollars – is like rubbing salt in a fresh wound.

Not only did they cause of the current economic meltdown, in some cases they benefited from it. While they got golden parachutes, lavish perks, bonuses and stock options, the average working- class American got pink slips, foreclosure notices and the humiliation of having to ask a family member, relative, friend or charity for a little help during tough times.

It’s ironic how the lords of industry and the captains of finance cry foul when we ask them to sacrifice a little, maybe have a little modesty and think about ordinary folks.

They destroy families. They lay off 10,000 here, 20,000 there. They force draconian wage and health care cuts down our throats. They do it all with the stroke of a pen.

And then they cry foul!

For example, the Wall Street Journal is calling the proposed executive pay cuts “a seismic shift.” Not only will executives get paid less at AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, GM and the other bailed out companies, but the broader impact will be on corporate governance generally, they fear.

The Wall Street Journal quotes Charles Elson, head of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware: The proposed changes “dramatically injects the government into pay practices at private companies … It diminishes the authority of the board and the other investors…”

Additionally, Elson who sits on the board of HealthSouth Corp., says, “… the approach is atrocious because of the meddling.”

The Journal continues: Mr. Espen Eckbo, the director of Center for Corporate Governance at Dartmouth College, “anticipates increased shareholder pressure on companies without federal bailouts to create board risk committees and split the roles of chairman and CEO. There likely will be more non-binding stockholder resolutions next year calling for such changes.”

The Journal quotes a management attorney: “It seems very unprecedented for the government to be so dramatically realigning corporate structure on pay and governance.” Additionally, they fear that government intervention will “run a risk of driving out an important tier of management…”

Ominously, J.W. Verret, a corporate law expert at George Mason University School of Law, said, “There’s definitely never been anything like this where a government sets pay for a company that’s publicly traded.”

Oh, well pardon me if I don’t shed crocodile tears for the corporate elite.

It’s unmistakable though. They seem a little worried. Could it be that their days of riding rough-shod, smoking pistol in one hand and a big bag of cash in the other, are numbered. Could it be that the federal government might play a pro-active role and reign in corporate abuse. Could it be that the top executives will actually have to think about workers and their communities. Could it be that they may be held accountable for the piss-poor job they’ve done so far. Could it be?

If we do, in fact, begin to see a “seismic shift” - a dramatic injection of government regulation and a realigning of corporate structure on pay and governance -  then we may have turned a corner. We may have joined the rest of the modern world in capping executive pay.

By Stacey Mitchell

Borders Books is on “death watch,” according to one industry observer.  Virgin shut down its last US record store this month. Office Depot and Staples are struggling. Circuit City is gone. Best Buy has launched a desperate ad campaign.

The specialty chains that grew so aggressively in the 1990s and early 2000s — the so-called “category killers” that bankrupted thousands of independent businesses — are now themselves rapidly losing ground to a handful of giant mass merchandisers, namely Wal-Mart, Amazon, Target, and Costco.

While the decline of independent businesses has leveled off and many are finding ways to survive and even thrive by building local business alliances and emphasizing their community roots, the rest of the retail sector is undergoing dramatic consolidation as a small number of massive companies become ever more dominant. This is an ominous trend for manufacturers and consumers, and it exposes serious flaws in US antitrust policy.

Books as Loss Leaders

“For much of 2008, the industry focused its attention on the viability of the struggling Borders, but Barnes & Noble faces many of the very same issues,” wrote Peter Olson, the former CEO of Random House, earlier this year in Publishers Weekly. Olson predicts that the two chains will continue to lose ground, struggle to finance their inventories, and be forced to close outlets.

Big-box mass merchandisers, like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, have taken over 30% of the book market. These chains are now selling as many books as Barnes & Noble and Borders.

Mass merchandisers, especially Wal-Mart, can turn a book into a best-seller just by adding it to their shelves — a power that publishers have found irresistible. Many now devote considerable resources to supporting the big boxes.

But Michael Norris, senior analyst at Simba Information and editor of the Book Publishing Report, believes publishers are making a deal with the devil. “Publishers don’t realize it, but they are backing themselves into a corner if more bookstores continue to close,” he contends. “If the balance of power shifts to a couple of big retailers … publishers are going to find they have no relevance or power.”

The big boxes stock only a small number of titles. They treat books as loss leaders (i.e., they sell them below cost) to draw people into their stores. This undercuts bookstores and sharply narrows the range of books produced and sold. While a customer picking up Oprah’s latest pick at a bookstore will have an opportunity to browse publishers’ back-lists and check out books by new writers, at Wal-Mart or Costco, shoppers see only a small number of titles. Rather than another book, their impulse purchases are far more likely to be socks or steaks.

So, while the big boxes can sell truckloads of a particular book, their growing dominance in the industry is actually shrinking the overall book market. “These are not encouraging developments for an industry that has had an admirable track record to date in discovering new talent and fostering a diversity of expression,” notes Olson.

What’s more, mass merchandisers are the least profitable retail channel for publishers, because they systematically over-buy and often end up returning over 40% of their inventory. (That compares to a return-rate of about 10% at independent bookstores.)

Most dangerous of all, the big boxes may suddenly decide to reduce or even eliminate the space they devote to books. “Big-box stores like Wal-Mart wouldn’t hesitate to rid their stores of books if it meant replacing them with higher margin items,” said Norris. “They have no stake in the future of print titles. In a bookstore, the future of the store depends on books. In a non-bookstore, the future of the book depends on the store.”

The other company taking market share from chain bookstores is, of course, Amazon, which now captures about 15% of book sales.  No one knows exactly what Amazon is up to these days, but its recent acquisitions and the fact that it lists publishers as competitors in its SEC filings is making many nervous. Boris Kachka, who covers the book industry for New York Magazine, explains, “Editors and retailers alike fear that it’s bent on building a vertical publishing business — from acquisition to your doorstep — with not a single middleman in sight. No HarperCollins, no Borders, no printing press.”

Wal-Mart Refashions Toys, Music and Electronics

Similar dynamics are playing out in category after category as mass merchandisers undercut specialty chains to become the dominant sellers, gaining unprecedented power over manufacturers and the ability to refashion entire product categories to suit their own needs, not those of producers or customers.

In 2003, Wal-Mart set its sights on the toy market.  It sold toys at a loss for an entire holiday season, sending Toys R Us, KB Toys, and FAO Schwartz into a tail spin. Wal-Mart emerged as the nation’s top toy seller, capturing more than 25% of the market. The needs and interests of Wal-Mart’s buyers soon became the primary consideration in the design and production of toys.

Last month, as part of a nationwide remodeling project, Wal-Mart began cutting the shelf space devoted to toys in its supercenters by half.  The loss of some 400 feet of aisles could crush a number of manufacturers that depend on Wal-Mart for a sizable share of their business and now have fewer competing retailers to turn to.

Much the same has happened with music. Although the decline of record stores is often blamed entirely on online downloading, even in 2009 CDs still account for more than 75% of album sales. The downfall of record stores really began with big-box retailers.

Starting in the 1990s, Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy sold popular CDs below cost in order to bring people into their stores and sell more refrigerators and toasters. It was a strategy that many specialty music stores, chain and independent, were unable to counter, despite their vastly larger selections.

Mass merchandisers soon grew from minor players in the music business to major gatekeepers, controlling more than two-thirds of the market, dictating terms to record companies, and blacklisting albums they found objectionable.

Today, the big music chains, Tower Records and Virgin Megastores, are gone and so too are thousands of independent record stores.  Meanwhile, big-box retailers — who calculate their interest in music the same way they do toothpaste, in dollars per square foot — have shifted strategy and are slashing the amount of space devoted to CDs. Next on the agenda are office supplies and electronics. Sales at Office Depot, Office Max, and Staples have plummeted, as Wal-Mart and Costco have expanded their line-up and dropped prices.

In electronics, Best Buy was initially viewed as the likely beneficiary of Circuit City’s demise, but many analysts now expect Wal-Mart, which recently redesigned and enlarged its selection of televisions and computers, and Amazon, which is also expanding its electronics offerings, to split much of the market share up for grabs. Meanwhile, Best Buy has launched a new ad campaign that makes a direct appeal to shoppers not to defect to Wal-Mart.

Restoring Competition

Selling goods below cost in order to drive competitors out of business — a strategy Wal-Mart first employed against small-town drugstores in the Midwest in the 1980s and now uses for nationwide assaults on entire product categories — is technically illegal. But US antitrust enforcers have taken a very lax attitude toward predatory pricing and other antitrust violations ever since the Reagan administration.

The consequence is an economy where power is so concentrated that it undermines the free market itself and threatens our individual liberty within it. Bullied and financially squeezed by mega-retailers, manufacturers have little choice but to focus on producing a narrow range of products that suit these companies’ needs, while cutting support for competing retailers and eliminating investment in new products, writers, and artists.

The wave of chain store consolidation now underway adds new urgency to calls for a reinvigorated antitrust policy and a return to the idea that a competitive economy is one made up of lots of competitors, many of them small and independent.

It also adds new significance to the growing grassroots movement to revive and expand independent businesses. Local business alliances have formed in more than 120 cities and now include about 30,000 independent businesses.

There are signs that these initiatives are making a difference.  Market research, surveys, and anecdotal reports from small business owners suggest that “buy local” has become a priority for more people.  In many sectors, the market share of independent retailers has been holding steady for the last few years. Most encouraging, there are more new independent businesses opening, including, most notably, neighborhood greengrocers and food co-ops, hardware stores, and some 350 new bookstores over the last four years.

Another sign that a genuine shift might be underway came on Saturday, April 18, when music fans mobbed more than 1,000 independent record stores in the US and abroad as part of Record Store Day. “It was the best sales day we’ve ever had in our 18-year history,” said Eric Levin, owner of Criminal Records in Atlanta and one of the organizers of the event.

Now in its second year, Record Store Day is an annual celebration of independent music stores. This year’s event was huge and included more than 600 in-store performances and over 80 exclusive releases produced specifically for Record Store Day. Neilson SoundScan reported a 16% upswing in album sales. The event made the top 5 news stories on Google and was the 35th most searched item on the web.

Among the top sellers were vinyl releases put out by Green Day, Radiohead, and other bands. Sales of vinyl records, many of which include a code that buyers can use to also download the album online, have surged in the last year, up 89%. “It’s a back-to-real movement akin to the farm-to-table movement,” explains Levin, whose store hosted 14 concerts on Record Store Day, including a performance by Manchester Orchestra that drew a crowd of 650.

“The hurdles of corporate power have been almost insurmountable,” Levin observed. “Fortunately, we’ve been surmounting them.”

Stacy Mitchell is a senior researcher with the New Rules Project (newrules.org/retail), where this appeared and a free monthly email newsletter is available. She is author of Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses.

• Your brassard and your badge won’t stop bullets.
• If it’s stupid but works, it isn’t stupid.
• Don’t look conspicuous – it antagonizes officers.
• When in doubt, empty your shotgun.
• Never share a patrol car with anyone braver than you.
• Not wearing body armor attracts bullets and knives.
• If your response goes well, you’re at the wrong barracks.
• Your Patrol Supervisor will show up when you’re doing something really stupid.
• The time it takes to respond to an emergency is inversely proportional to the importance of the call.
• The warrant you don’t read is the one you’ll serve at the wrong quarters.
• No matter how you write it, the Desk Sergeant will want it changed.
• If you charge in all alone, you’ll be shot by your own officers.
• The diversion you’re ignoring is the actual crime.
• The important things are always simple.
• The simple things are always hard.
• The easy ways are always blocked.
• The short cuts are always under construction by the post engineers.
• Anything you do can get you in trouble – including doing nothing.
• When you’ve secured a crime scene, don’t forget to tell the brass.
• Using the siren and light to clear traffic – attracts traffic.
• It only becomes a riot right after you show up.
• If you take out the newest patrol car, you’ll have an accident.
• No street-wise unit ever passed inspection.
• No inspection-ready unit ever makes it on the streets.
• The thing you really need, will be left back at the MP Station.
• Radios will fail as soon as you need back-up desperately.
• Flashlight batteries always die out, just when you really need light.
• Military working dogs attack anything that moves – including you.
• The helicopter will always be low on fuel, as soon as you need it.
• You’ll find the suspect you want, when you’re off-duty and unarmed.
• If you respond to more than your fair share of calls, you’ll have more than your fair share of calls to respond to.
• The suspect will escape, just before you set up a good perimeter.
• The dependent who screams loudly when you don’t show up quickly, also screams loudly when you do.
• The weight of the dead body you’ll have to carry is proportional to the amount of stairs you’ll have to climb.
• Fatalities always occur at the end of shift – or when it rains and snows.
• Your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
• Contrary to popular belief – general officers don’t get tickets.
• You won’t get called to a court martial – unless it’s your day off.
• Take off your hat and the MP Duty Officer shows up.
• Empty guns – aren’t.
• Your two minute “back-up” is always actually ten minutes away.
• The alley you sprint down, is the wrong alley.
• Tasting suspected drugs works – but only on TV or in the movies.
• Suspects always hide in the last place you look.
• Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.
• Professional criminals are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.
• Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof – then blame a Private.
• Don’t stand, if you can sit – don’t sit, if you can lay down – if you can lay down, you might as well take a nap.

High School 1957 vs 2009

by Dan Nickerson on 08/29/2009

When I posted this chain email I received in August..  I had no idea that it would generate this level of attention.

Posting non-original content is not something I teach or normally do.  At the time I thought it was interesting, my list might appreciate it and it would make a good tweet.

I didn’t expect it to generate 100’s of comments and initiate debates on race, religion, sex and drugs… but it has…

I’ll keep this post up for now, but if it really digresses I’ll probably remove it..

The original author of this article created 8 extreme scenarios to highlight some differences between 1957 and 2009.

Obviously there are 1000’s of scenarios that could be created to highlight the good and bad of both generations, but this particular post was written to favor 1957.

I guess the real question is… Would you rather grow up in 1957 or 2009 and why?

Scenario 1:

Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck’s gun rack.

1957 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2009 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:

Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives — they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged them with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3:

Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.

1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal’s office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2009 – Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario 4:

Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt..

1957 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.

2009 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario 5:

Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 – Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.

2009 – The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:

Pedro fails high school English.

1957 – Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.

2009 - Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro’s English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 7:

Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.

1957 – Ants die.

2009 – ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents — and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny’s dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario 8:

Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2009 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison… Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Leadership PACs Let Politicians Spend Money Freely on Leisure Outings

By MARCUS STERN and JENNIFER LAFLEUR of ProPublica, BRIAN ROSS, AVNI PATEL and ASA ESLOCKER of ABC News
Sept. 25, 2009

For people who love golf, the chance to play at the five-star Greenbrier resort in West Virginia is a dream come true. Especially if someone else pays for it.

House Minority Leader John Boehner’s PAC spent $550,000 on travel and entertainment expenses around the country, more than any other lawmaker, according to a ABC News/ProPublica analysis of disclosure data. In the past three years, Boehner has travelled to Palm Springs, CA; Boca Raton, FL; and Scottsdale, AZ to raise money for his PAC.

(ABC News)

That was the case this summer for two powerful members of Congress, House Republican Minority leader John Boehner of Ohio and Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.

Accompanied by top corporate lobbyists , the two golf-loving Republicans spent a luxurious weekend at the Greenbrier, the kinds of cozy gatherings new ethics reform laws were supposed to curb.

“You’re seeing the quintessential Washington insider pay-to-play game,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

Many people assumed these types of outings were ended when Congress passed reforms in 2007. But those reforms didn’t mention what has come to be an important source of funding for politicians: leadership political action committees, or PACs, whose money can be spent for almost any purpose, including golf.

Members of Congress are supposed to use their leadership PAC funds to support other politicians. But in the 2008 election cycle, Chambliss spent more money from his PAC on golf outings, $225,000, than on donations to other political campaigns, $204,000. On Capitol Hill, his leadership PAC is known to some as a golf PAC.

Chambliss declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a statement he said he holds the golf outings only to raise money. Top of Form

A spokesman for Boehner’s PAC, The Freedom Project, also defended the spending as legitimate and said that through his PAC, he contributed “more than any other Republican in the House.”

McGehee and others call leadership PACs modern-day slush funds. Some members of Congress use them for pretty much whatever they want, including subsidizing their lifestyles and hobbies.

In a joint report with the investigative journalism group ProPublica, ABC News found that members of Congress used leadership PAC money to pay for visits to ski resorts, casinos, Disney World and the Super Bowl. Senate Majority Harry Reid of Nevada used leadership PAC money to throw a $39,000 inaugural party. New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel ordered a $64,000 oil portrait of himself.

Reid spent 53 percent of his PAC money on campaigns he was supporting. That’s $1.1 million.

Federal Election Laws even allow members of the Congress to spend the money on themselves or their friends and families. Senate rules do not even mention leadership PACs, although hundreds of millions of dollars pour into these funds every election cycle.

Lobbyist Jim Ervin might bristle at McGehee’s use of the phrase slush fund, but he seems to agree in spirit.

“I think that it’s more than appropriate for Senator Chambliss to do whatever he wants with the leadership PAC money. Certainly I think golf is completely acceptable,” he said. Ervin and two of his clients – defense contractors Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics — put $30,000 into Chambliss’ leadership PAC in the last election cycle. Top of Form

Leadership PACs give incumbents an unfair advantage because challengers typically can’t raise the maximum amount of money allowed for their campaign committees, much less for a leadership PAC, said former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith.”For the most part it’s really kind of an incumbent racket,” he said.

The FEC disclosure forms that leadership PACs file are so cursory that lawmakers don’t have to disclose who participated or contributed at a PAC fund-raiser, the day the event was held or how much money was raised.

When Chambliss’ leadership PAC ran up a $50,394 bill at the Ritz-Carlton Naples on Jan. 25, 2008, the only stated purpose was, “PAC EVENT/LODGING/BANQUET/GOLF.”

Chambliss’ love of golf is so legendary in Washington political circles that he has been teased for letting golf interfere with his political and legislative business.

In 2003, then-President Bush told a crowd at a golf fund-raiser for Chambliss that the senator had intercepted him on his way to the dais and said, “If you keep it short, we might be able to get a round of golf in.”

Chambliss also took heat for skipping a sensitive closed-door Iraq war intelligence briefing in 2005 to golf with Tiger Woods.

Lawmakers who leave Congress sometimes keep their PACs — or they hand them down like valuable heirlooms to their successors, with the same tight circle of lobbyists and fund-raising professionals often continuing as the core of the organization.

Chambliss’ Republican Majority Fund has been around for decades. Former Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee controlled the PAC when he was the Senate Republican leader until 1985. He handed it off to then-Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma. When Nickles retired from the Senate in 2005, he handed it off to Chambliss.

Laura Rizzo, who ran the leadership PAC for Nickles, now runs it for Chambliss. More than one-third of the PAC’s expenditures during the 2008 campaign cycle — $237,536 – was paid to Rizzo for “PAC FUNDRAISING CONSULTING.”

Nickles, whose passion for golf is as legendary as Chambliss’, now has a successful lobbying practice. Nickles Group and its clients contributed $37,500 to Chambliss’ Republican Majority Fund during the 2008 campaign cycle.

Neither Nickles nor Rizzo returned calls seeking comments about their long associations with the Republican Majority Fund.

In March, the FEC’s six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans, sent Congress a list of legislative recommendations, including one to prohibit personal use of leadership PAC funds. Their letter went to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as president of the Senate. It also was sent to members of the House and Senate committees that oversee the FEC.

So far, the FEC has gotten no response. ProPublica left messages at the offices of the speaker, majority leader and chairmen of the two committees seeking comment, but got no replies.

This was a joint investigation by ABC News and ProPublica – an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. ProPublica Director of Research Lisa Schwartz and Justin Grant, ABC News, contributed to this report.

The GOP’s Misplaced Rage

by Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett helped develop supply-side economics while on the staff of Rep. Jack Kemp in the 1980s. In 2006 he was fire

d by a conservative think tank for writing a book critical of George W. Bush from a conservative point of view, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. His new book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published in October.

AP Photo; Getty Images

Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago.

Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.

Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.

Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins. The most thorough has been done by John Taylor, a respected economist from Stanford University who served during most of the Bush administration as the No. 3 official at the Treasury Department. In his book, Getting Off Track, he puts most of the blame on the Federal Reserve for holding interest rates down too low for too long.

While the Fed does bear much responsibility for sowing the seeds of recession, it’s commonly treated as an institution independent of politics and even the government itself. But the Federal Reserve Board consists of governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Because the president appoints the board, he has primary influence over its policies. This is especially the case for chairmen of the Fed appointed by Republicans because they often have ties to Republican administrations. Chairman Ben Bernanke was originally appointed as a member of the Fed in 2002, serving until 2005, when he became chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House, a position that made him Bush’s chief economic adviser.

As early as 2002, a majority of the seven-member Federal Reserve Board was Bush appointees, and by 2006 every member was a Bush appointee. While many critical decisions about monetary policy are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, the board’s position always prevails.

The Treasury secretary also has had breakfast with the Fed chairman on a weekly basis for decades. Consequently, most economists generally believe that every administration ultimately gets the Fed policy it wants. Therefore, one must conclude that if there were errors in Fed policy that caused the current downturn, it must be because the Fed was doing what the Bush administration wanted it to do.

To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere.

But in a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison.

Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession.

But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.

• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.

• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.

• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.

• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.

Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.

According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.

Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth.

On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes.

I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits.

But there is yet another dimension to Bush’s failures—the things he didn’t do. In this category I would put a health-care overhaul. Budget experts have known for years that Medicare was on an unsustainable financial path. It is impossible to pay all the benefits that have been promised because spending has been rising faster than GDP.

In 2003, the Bush administration repeatedly lied about the cost of the drug benefit to get it passed, and Bush himself heavily pressured reluctant conservatives to vote for the program.

Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama’s initiative while proposing nothing themselves.

In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.

Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October.