Lecture Notes: September '04

"I cannot understand the make of the minds that can do without a hope of the future: Carlyle for instance is continually enforcing the necessity of being virtuous and enduring all pain and self denial, without any hope of reward. I do not find myself in the least able to do this: I am too mean -- or too selfish; and I find that vexations and labours would break me down, unless I could look forward to a "crown of rejoicing." My poor friend Mr George used to talk of death in exactly the same tone that he did of going to bed, as no evil at all, though expressing no hope whatever of rising from that bed. I cannot do this: so far from it that I could no longer look upon the Alps, or the heavens, or the sea, with any pleasure -- because I felt that every breath brought the hour nearer when I must leave them all. To believe in a future life is for me, the only way in which I can enjoy this one." ------ Ruskin's Letters from Venice, April 1852

Lecture Notes: 09-30-04 Junkie Nation

It may have occurred to some since our last lecture (see Lecture Notes 09-25-04), that, if it is true that there is no such thing as “progressive taxation,” then is there never to be social justice? Is there no way to right the scales of inequity and alleviate human suffering? Is there nothing that can be done?

Well, of course dears, yes, there is much that can and ought to be done, but first answer why you think the place to have started was taxation? Of all the starting places why would you think we should begin with taxes?

Is it not because you want to take from the rich? Don’t you start your analysis with taxation because of social vengeance? ‘They have too much.’ ‘Capital is theft?’ Or, ‘Take from the rich and give to the poor.’ Robin Hood? You think: ‘The poor are poor because the rich have too much?’

However, once you have agreed to forgo wage and price controls, (and you should agree), then you have agreed to leave people with their property. Leaving people with their property, seeing as how there is inequality among their abilities, then you have agreed that there should be inequality of property. You will never be able to create equality among them, certainly not by taxation.

Now you have been deluded about the idea of “progressive taxation” for many reasons; because you believe in an objective structure of the world, because you have been lied to about these matters for generations, because of, what Ludwig von Mises called, the fallacy of the evenly rotating economy, for many reasons you have been mislead, but mainly you want to take from the rich and give to the poor because, more than wanting to help the poor, you want to hurt the rich.

But once again, I say, that if you do not impose wage and price controls, unless you take their property, your “progressive taxation” will simply be redistributed by the market.

The rich are rich, they have been moved to the front, because the consumers demand their products and services. As long as they are allowed to work out these relations among themselves, the rich will retain there position in front, in high demand, and every other supplier of goods and services will fill in to the rear with lesser and lesser demand for their goods and services. This is a law of the universe. If you try to interfere with it, and for example, try to place those in the rear in the front, they will be trampled by the people as they chase after the leaders whose goods and services they prefer.

You can not reverse this order with taxation, in the absence of wage and price controls, as every tax will simply be added on to all the other costs and redistributed to the consumers in the prices. For example the Value Added Tax (VAT) can be seen as the Progressive Income Tax one day later. On April 15 you assess the owner of a hotel his income tax. On April 16 the owner raises the rate on his hotel rooms by an amount to cover the tax. But this is the VAT tax. Indeed the VAT may be said to be more “fair” in that it is applied to every hotel room, i.e. even to hotels that otherwise would not be able to, for what ever reason, raise their rates. Under the Income Tax some hotel owners may not be able to raise their rates in response to the tax. However, on April 17 the VAT tax disappears in the whirl of the market as all costs are swept along and redistributed by the same market forces that move the rich to the front and drop the poor off in the rear.

This is why most economists shrug their shoulders when asked as to the “incidence of taxation” or which tax is more fair. It is not just that they are agnostic. It is true that the science of Economics imparts no special way of perceiving “fairness.” You would be better going to ask the inmates of a Seminary what is fair as ask an economist. Economics is the study of remunerative human action, meta questions of “fairness” are outside its scope. But the more important reason economist can not answer this question is that the economy is a dynamic process where Income Taxes, VAT taxes, all taxes are being swept up in the flurry of the market and disappear from sight in the prices.

In general the lower the taxes the better. The ancient Taoists would have appreciated this point. The less interference with the people and their choices the better. Less chance of being trampled. It is true that Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith has devoted his career to explaining all the ways the consumer’s choice is less than it appears but what ever freedom they have we are best leaving them with it such as it is.

Secondly, we can say that the more defuse the tax the better. Simply because there is uncertainty how the taxes will be redistributed, we should keep them small and apply them at as many points as possible so that if they do interfere from time to time with market activity, their impact will be the less. Instead of such a heavy reliance on the Income Tax we would do better to reduce that tax and supplement it with a VAT tax and Capital Tax. The Capital Tax would also be redistributed throughout the market, but it would allow us to lower our reliance on the Income Tax, and it would also stimulate the investment of capital into productive investments instead of conspicuous consumption, in as much as the tax would be owed whether the capital earned a return or not.

Now the point I want you to see is that taxation is the wrong place to look, if you are seeking social justice. Where is the right place?

Where the money is spent!

The only place you have control, (at least in principle), the only place where you can establish social justice is in the expenditures.

(In practice the elite monopolize the public expenditures for their own enrichment. For example the Golden Gate Bridge was supposed to advance development by connecting the growing San Francisco to Marin County. However the Bay Area elite then down zoned both counties turning the bridge into a $4 billion amusement ride. So the poor pay the most in taxes and prices and then the elite use the tax money to drive up prices even further. Social justice?)

And this is the most important point I want to leave you with: Where are most of the expenditures made? In the market!

It is in society, in the market, where you should establish social justice. That is where the people live. Don’t look at government. Government is a fraction of society. It is out there in society where you must act not in government.

Don’t tell me how much government has budgeted for affordable housing. How much could that ever be? Look at the people! There, in that swirling dynamic market is where most of the money is being spent, not in your affordable housing programs.

For example, ask yourself what are you doing to block the entrepreneurs and capitalists from meeting the demand of the consumers?

And you say to me what? ‘Oh, but we need our zoning ordinances, our building codes, our school district boundaries, $20,000 sewer charges, 1 to 2 year delays in permits, litigation, architectural review boards, litigation, impact studies , litigation, etc. etc.’ (see paper no. 1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/2002list.html )

But dear, whither your social justice? H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

You are liars.

You are not really concerned that in the Bay Area housing prices have been driven out of reach of the people. The rich, a faction of the rich, have colluded to use government to block capitalists from building housing. One faction manipulates the levers of power to prevent development, to prevent the market from satisfying the demands of the people for housing. Social justice? You do not really give a damn.

You are liars.

Barbara Simpson knows about the burglary, about the involvement of the KGO and KSFO employees use of the stolen notebook to harasse me. Bernie Ward also has made repeated references to it.

Yet see how the ‘Ol’ Static Factory’ (KSFO) a 5,000 watt station in the Bay Area is used by Barbara Simpson to do show after show about cattlemen. Cattlemen’s land rights. Did you know they were not allowed to open range their cattle? Land development rights. Mineral rights. Forestry. All of these subjects have been exhaustively covered by Barbara Simpson on a station that is difficult to pick up 10 miles from its transmitter.

Zoning? Down Zoning? Corrupt political power to reduce supply of housing? Housing prices and rents the highest in the nation? Housing crisis? Nielsen lowered the household count in the Bay Area by 83,000 households? Their market is shrinking, not their share, but the market itself, and still they will not cover the story. No, no couldn’t care less. Remunerative human action? You could not bribe the employees of KSFO to cover the housing crisis even though their rating would go up; that is how corrupt they are.

Bernie Ward will complain bitterly about the plight of the poor and homeless on KGO. Will recount how he has to “step over a homeless person to get into the donut shop,” but discuss how the liberal power elite of the Bay Area has used its lock on the power of government to force the people onto the street, into squalor, no, Ward is not interested in these questions of social justice after all.

And so I will place the gun in my mouth and blow the back of my head off in protest of Barbara Simpson and Bernie Ward. Both have made references to the theft of my notebook, but have refused to come forward and give evidence. What difference that Simpson is a “conservative” and Ward a “liberal?”

But in a larger sense my death is a protest not just of Barbara Simpson and Bernie Ward, my death is a protest against the hypocrisy of the Post Liberal Bay Area and its corruption. I protest the lie of “social justice.”

You have used your power to ruin me. Michael Weiner used his power to burglarize the Colonial Motel. Don Imus used his power to interfere with my employment, as did Ron Owens and Michael Krasney and Mrs. Jack Swanson.

And beyond the particular, the whole corrupt political culture, has manipulated the society of the Bay Area, to exploit the people for the gain of the few.

And all of this has been done while mouthing the rhetoric of “social justice” and a “liberal” “concern” for the “well being” of “mankind.”

Liars. Frauds. Cheats.

This is why you insist that you can make social justice with a “progressive” tax code, or an “affordable housing program,” or whatever set of lies you find fashionable to espouse at the moment. You will not look at what you have done to the market, to society, because you will not look at your own hypocrisy.

So in this, Barbara Simpson and Bernie Ward are not exceptional, they are merely particular examples.

With my splattered blood I protest all of you.

Lecture Notes: 09-25-04

Everything appears out of phase. I am loosing the thread of the discussion. There is a sensation of drowning, dropping below the surface as once familiar faces and ideas recede and disappear into a dark background.

How little we are actually able to communicate to one another. We think we share a common language, share our thought on common subjects, yet, . . . what was there? What’s more it seems that everyone is actually colluding to avoid having to face the fact that there is no common ground, that we have been atomized.

For example, consider the collusion of both political parties to avoid facing a simple truth about governance. Both sides seem to conspire in a lie, in preference to the truth, because the lie is more beneficial to each of them than is the truth. To avoid having to admit that there is no such thing as “progressive taxation,” both Democrats and Republicans participate in the false claim that government can distribute taxes to the “rich,” ($200,000 according to Kerry), despite all evidence to the contrary.

The Democrats like to claim to the gullible public that they will not have to pay, but rather the costs can be shifted on to the “rich” who have the “ability to pay.”

But the Republicans also enjoy the benefits of this falsity because they can then claim that it is true, the “rich” do pay the great majority of taxes, which implies that it is fair that the rich should therefore have a greater say in the governance of the country, because, after all, “we are paying” for it; the rest of us being reduced to beggars.

As we have previously explained the government is not able to determine who actually ends up paying taxes unless it imposes “wage and price controls” simultaneous with the “progressive taxes.” Without wage and price controls taxes will be redistributed by the market just as all other cost are redistributed.

In other words, as long as there is a free market, as long as people are at liberty to control their property and labor, i.e. set their own price, the government is unable to direct the incidence of taxation on to any individual or class.

As long as people can raise prices the market itself will determine the incidence of taxation. Bill Gates and Microsoft, do not, have never, paid taxes. As long as Mr. Gates can raise his prices any attempt to take his property by taxation will fail. However, if price controls are placed on Microsoft, then the government can force Microsoft to pay. In other words, the power to tax is not the power to destroy unless it is accompanied with the power to prevent the actor from passing the taxes on to his customers.

It is true that not everyone is placed in as privileged, valued, a position as is Microsoft. However, even with these other actors, the incidence of taxation is determined not by the government and its tax tables, but by the value placed on the actors and their goods or services. The greater the perceived value placed on the actor by the consumers the greater that actor’s ability to pass on his taxes.

Who ends up paying the taxes in the absence of wage and price controls?: Those individuals with less, or no, ability to raise prices, industry sectors under heavy competition from low cost foreign producers, for example, or any industry sector which, for what ever reason, is experiencing price deflation. When taxes are levied against these sectors, and the individuals in these sectors, the taxes can not be passed on throughout the market, i.e. to their consumers, and they actually end up paying the tax.

Not only do these unfortunates end up paying their tax, they also end up paying every other tax passed onto them by those industry sectors on which they are dependent. In other words to the extent others are able to raise their prices the added price includes a portion of the so called “progressive tax” that had been levied against that privileged, valued, sector.

Again, the free market redistributes the “progressive taxes” not based on the “ability to pay” but based on the ability or inability of the actor to raise his prices. This ability to raise prices is based on the perceived value of the consumers. The consumers place a high value on the Microsoft operating system and have shown a willingness to pay higher prices. Microsoft and such companies therefore can raise prices and shift their taxes on to their customers in the absence of wage and price controls.

However, consumers may well shift their purchases of domestic automobiles to foreign automobiles to the extent the taxes increase the domestic’s prices. This dynamic accounts for the rapid rise and decline of industry sectors. Ascendant sectors operate tax free as consumers are willing to absorb their taxes, while industries in decline, for what ever reason, end up taking on a larger and larger share of the taxes, and other costs, while at the same time having less and less ability to pass on these costs in their prices.

But notice that no where in this description is there “progressive taxation.” The “rich” merely collect the tax for the government, and this ability to “collect” is based not on their “ability to pay” but on their ability to raise their prices; i.e. based on the value consumers attach to their product or service.

Not withstanding this truth, the Democrats find it convenient to claim that government costs have been shifted onto the “rich” who are being made to pay the taxes for us, and the Republicans also find it convenient to claim that ‘yes, we rich folk are paying most of the taxes, you nobodies.’ Both prefer the lie to the truth.

Rich Republicans point to the large percent of Federal Income Taxes paid by the top one percent or five percent and snicker that those wastrels, the bottom 95% hardly pay anything. But where did the top five percent get their money with which to pay the tax? From the other 95%! Even the ones who earn so little that they do not even file a Federal return pay the taxes of everyone else; in the form of the prices for the goods and services they purchase. Raise the tax on the top five percent and the cost of canned beans goes up.

This is not an argument for wage and price controls. This is an argument for truth.

Notice too that this argument is the strongest argument in favor of the Flat Tax. The Flat Tax is a simpler tax, however the strongest argument is that the Flat Tax is no more regressive than the so called “Progressive Tax.” The objection that the Flat Tax is unfair because the rich can pay more is illusory. The dynamic market forces, by which all costs are redistributed by the action of the market, i.e. the consumer choices, that we have here been examining, will redistribute the Flat Tax just as the “Progressive Tax” is redistributed by the price mechanism. Note also that the Value Added Tax, upon which so much of the European Welfare State depends, turns out to be no more regressive than the “Progressive Tax” for the same reason that all of these taxes are redistributed throughout the economy, falling most heavily on those with the lowest ability to shift or avoid and least heavily on those whose goods or services are in the highest demand and who therefore have the highest ability to raise prices in response to increased costs including taxes.

But the important point I wish the reader to see is that it is the vanity of the rich Republicans which prevents them from articulating this argument in support of their cherished Flat Tax. They prefer not to make this, their strongest argument, because they would have to admit that they are not “paying” the greater share of the taxes but are rather merely collecting the taxes from their fellow citizens who have a lesser ability to raise their prices. Their egos are such, their pride in their superior “ability to pay” is such, that they would rather forgo this argument and even the implementation of their “Flat Tax” than admit to the truth of the matter.

But there is nothing that can be done. The parties, the mass media, the gigantic engine of society will continue to grind on, mostly oblivious to the truth, if not actually hostile to it.

Both parties seemed locked into a collusive agreement to prevent the truth from being told. A compact of lies, because lies are more convenient than the truth.

No one came forward to give evidence about what these powerful, rich, villains did to me. But then no one will come forward on any of these issues. Society: a conspiracy of lies.

If you had not death, you would eternally curse me for having deprived you of it; I have mixed a little bitterness with it, to the end, that seeing of what convenience it is, you might not too greedily and indiscreetly seek and embrace it: and that you might be so established in this moderation, as neither to nauseate life, nor have any antipathy for dying, which I have decreed you shall once do, I have tempered the one and the other betwixt pleasure and pain. ---Montaigne

Please do not think that I want to die. But I will write my argument in my own blood. I do not want to die but I will defy you who victimize life itself.

LOOKING at Mr. Thackeray’s writings as a whole, he would be more truthfully described as a sentimentalist than as a cynic. Even when the necessities of his story compel him to draw bad characters, he gives them as much good as he can. We don’t remember in his novels any utterly unredeemed scoundrel except Sir Francis Clavering. Even Lord Steyne has something like genuine sympathy with Major Pendennis’s grief at the illness of his nephew. And if reproof is the main burden of his discourse, we must remember that to reprove, not to praise, is the business of the preacher. Still further, if his reproof appears sometimes unduly severe, we must remember that such severity may spring from a belief that better things are possible. Here lies the secret of Thackeray’s seeming bitterness. His nature was, in the words of the critic in “Le Temps.” “furicase d’avoir été désappointé.” He condemns sternly men as they often are, because he had a high ideal of what they might be. The feeling of this contrast runs through all his writings. “He could not have painted ‘Vanity Fair’ as he has, unless Eden had been shining brightly before his eyes.” And this contrast could never have been felt, the glories of Eden could never have been seen, by the mere satirist or by the misanthrope. It has often been urged against him that he does not make us think better of our fellow men. No, truly. But he does what is far greater than this—he makes us think worse of ourselves. There is no great necessity that we should think well of other people; there is the utmost necessity that we should know ourselves in our every fault and weakness; and such knowledge his writings will supply.—From “Thackeray’s Literary Career,” in “Spare Hours” (1866) by Doctor John Brown.

Lecture Notes: 09-21-04

Game over:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."---- J. F. F. Kerry, December 2003, Newsday

Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure." --- Monday, Sept. 20, 2004 , Sen. John F. F. Kerry in a speech at New York University (NewsMax)

I watch the play unfold, scene by scene, then all of a sudden I remember that the curtain never comes down, the audience dies, and is replaced. We must say good bye to the never ending drama, the spectacle. I only wish the I. Q. average could have been raised just a few points. A tale told by an idiot. In the Bell Curve they describe what a rise of only 3 points would do for society.

Yet the difference between siblings is as much as 15 points. Therefore it might be possible, even without knowing in advance how all the relationships between all the genes, or even how they work to improve the ‘G’ factor, intelligence, to simply alter the other sibling’s genes to match the highest performer’s genetic profile. A 15 point rise would change everything.

In India to day, and China, there is a country, the size of the United States, in which every citizen has an I. Q. of 115 or higher. One full standard deviation above the mean. 300 million people, in India and China, in each of them, who are in the top 16% of the I. Q. distribution.

How often have you heard it said that the graduate students in the sciences and engineering are disproportionably foreign born? So often the simple minded attribute this to the “harder work” of the foreign born, or their “discipline,” etc. This is because the liberal establishment has suppressed knowledge of the bell curve distribution of ‘G’, intelligence. Without any scientific explanation our commentators are forced to rely on personality, and personal “interests” to explain the differential performance.

Of the 600 million in India and China alone, 50% are under 18. Yet without the technology to reach them most will go without an education. In these two countries alone there are 72 million people in the top 3% of the intelligence distribution. 72 million who should be working on their PhDs.

We could reach them with the laser disks I proposed 14 years ago. Over the last 14 years we could have completed both a high school and a college curriculum and made it available to the people of the world. Instead you have entertained yourselves destroying my life. Why? Why? Do you even know?

The election campaign is over. Kerry has proven himself a dishonest person unfit for command. Let us turn our attention to the really important issues facing the world.

California should rejoin the Western Governor’s Electronic University.

Courses are already available from Open University. Hong Kong University already broadcasts these courses to the people of Southern China. More should be done.

You could still do something to change . . . your fate is not sealed.

Lecture Notes: 09-20-04 How dumb is Don Imus?

He visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center. For the first time. He has been in “entertainment” (loosely defined) for 40 years? This was his first visit. OK. He claimed it had been a “life altering experience.” His words. Life altering.

Isn’t that what the degenerate said about 9-11? Life altering? He pledged to live a different life. Then, not two years later, he was using his influence with the GAB Robins organization to harasse. Again. Just like he did in 1998 then using the brother of Southern California radio personality Shotgun Tom Kelly. (see Psy Ops)

No nothing new here: he sets up some recreation for cancer patients and you would think he had invented the cure for cancer. Now again he promises it was a “life altering experience.” But no this is not how dumb Don Imus is. How dumb is Don Imus?

He then starts questioning if President Bush has visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center? Repeatedly questioning the President. “Has he been there?” Dumb? No, there is more. When he is informed that the President has been there many times he does not apologize and say, ‘Yes, of course I am the one who has never been there before. What a fool I am.’

No, he presses on with his attack, “How about Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, those "war criminals" have they ever been there?” The reporter just wants to get off the phone, she makes a noise of “umhum, umhum.” She does not say, ‘Yes you dumb bastard . . .”

Over 40 years and never once paid a visit to any of our returning soldiers. And when he does finally go once, the first time, he immediately starts in questioning everyone else’s patriotism. But this is not how dumb he is.

He gets Kerry on his show, Kerry who has been avoiding real interviews, and Imus is honored by the appearance. Kerry only goes on the show because he knows Imus will be flattered and not ask any serious questions. Release your records? ‘Oh, I have.’ Oh, OK. What a dope.

Mr. Kerry you said that Iraq was the “wrong war.” Then you said that those who died in Iraq fighting for this country were fighting in the “war against terrorism.” Which is it? Instead of asking him, instead of conducting an interview, Imus waits until Kerry is off the show to say that he does not understand what Kerry’s position is on the war.

How hard is this? This is not nuclear physics. Kerry is a trimmer. Half his party opposes the war and so instead of showing leadership and winning over their support he flip flops. And this is not the first time we have seen this is it:

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

---- DRUDGE

(Haven’t the Democrats surveyed this coast already? Don’t they know all the coves and shoals all up and down the left wing coast? Pt. McGovern? Mondale Rock? The shoals of Dukakis? The Gore Cove? You can only go left so far. Haven’t you charted all of this before? Now you have run aground again on the Kerry Bank. Why do you allow the radical elite to navigate? Don’t you see? They are absolutists. Ideologists. The radicals are blind. )

So this is how dumb he is? Not yet. Then there is Tom Oliphant on the Imus show. He knows you can say anything to Imus he is so dumb. Speaking about the history of Kerry’s Vietnam lies, Oliphant snips that, ‘there used to be standards.’ Imus does not question this claim. That the Swift Boat Veterans documented the story, supported by 250 vets, part of which even Kerry himself admitted was true, this because his own journal proved that he was not under enemy fire when he requested his first Purple Heart, his own colleague, a retired Admiral, told him at the time that the Purple Heart could not be granted for this reason, a rule that the treating physician also pointed out to Kerry when he went in with the small shard still poking the skin of his forearm.

Imus of course says nothing. So is this how . . . no not yet.

Then See B. S. runs the story of the forged documents. Standards? Does Imus question where See B. S.’s standards have gone? No. Does he ask Kerry about the involvement of Kerry’s campaign in the publication of the forged documents? One senior operative in the Kerry campaign, a former Senator no less, has admitted to assisting the forger present the forgeries to the Kerry organization. But then that is why Kerry goes on the Don Imus Show isn’t it?

No, this is how dumb Don Imus is: He has repeatedly demanded, (after I posted my intention to kill myself in protest), that “if you say you are going to do something then you should do it.” This is how dumb Don Imus is.

Fixing a whole where the rain gets in and stops my mind from wandering.

I am not going to blow away the back of my head for you Don Imus: I am going to because of Don Imus. Not for; because of.

With my death I protest Don Imus, Michael Weiner, Mrs. Jack Swanson . . . etc.

Also, by killing myself, I protest all the rest of you who have known but have done nothing. You who knew about the burglary, the harassment at Farmers, CENCAL, AAA Auto Club, Crawford, State Farm, GAB Robins; you knew and did nothing.

I realize that you did nothing about Rwanda. Most of you would have done nothing about Saddam Hussein. Right now you do nothing about Darfur. Do you know that the Syrians are using chemical weapons in Darfur right now? Recall the chemical attack on Jordan? What country did those chemical weapons come from? Syria! There is reporting on three chemical attacks in Darfur. You hypocrites. You beat your chest and claim that if you had been around when Hitler was committing his crimes . . . why then you bravely shout that you would . . . hypocrites.

I die to protest you. Joking with Ron Owens about “taking baths.” Joking with Jim Dunbar and Ed Wygant about witches. Bernie Ward just “loves it when conservatives go after one another.” And how much else to you know? Access and Gymboree? The IRS? The vandalism. The San Rafael Police?

I have given up wondering. Today Barbara Simpson explained she has no sympathy for people “who keep journals and diaries . . . writing everything down. And then it gets stolen and made public. So? And so? So? What do you expect?” You see it is my fault. I should not have kept a notebook. When Michael Weiner and his ADL (see Intel Operations) and San Rafael Police (see Intel Operations and Psy Ops) contacts burglarized the “Colonial Motel Suspect’s” room and Michael Weiner went on the air less than 24 hours later reading from the stolen notebook: That was my fault.

I am going to kill myself because of Barbra Simpson, and Bernie Ward and Ron Owens, too. I refuse to live in such a world. We can look at things far away in Darfur, or at your corruption closer to home. Not just the $2 billion in kickbacks that will be taken out of the hurricane damage in Florida. Not just the cover up by the IRS. Corruption comes in many forms. How about the $4 billion cost over run on the Bay Bridge? The fact that the design has never been tested for even a “small car bomb.” (Note that $500 million in engineering fees have already been paid out. But they just couldn’t get around to checking on terrorist threats.) Or the chemical explosives found on the Flight 800 debris? Corruption?

Did I say you have not spoken up for me? You have not spoken up for anyone. You do nothing for the people of Darfur just as you did nothing for the people of Rwanda. No marches. No candle light vigils. Not a single email saying, “Yes, I know what Michael Weiner has done.” You do not stand up for the people of Darfur, or me, or anyone. You are corrupt degenerates who party while others die. Selfish. Contemptible. You will just have to find someone else to torment. Let me off. I want out.

This is what Don Imus found so “amusing.” I am supposed to keep getting up. This is how dumb you are Don Imus. I am going to sit down and I am not going to get up again. F--- you.

Lecture Notes: 09-13-04

The millionaires celebrate their victory. Michael Weiner rejoices. Don Imus beams with satisfaction. Mrs. Jack Swanson, still clutching the CENCAL letters, gloats.

Why? I am nearly dead. They await the promised suicide.

For twelve years they have taunted and hectored. Not content to merely have me followed they employed spies. Shotgun Tom Kelly’s brother worked in the same office with me and he supplied the occasional quote for Don Imus to use. Mrs. Jack Swanson regularly reported my movements to keep up the steady harassment.

But not content to merely taunt and ridicule, Michael Weiner used his connections to burglarize my room and steal my notebook. Michael Krasney, Ron Owens, Michael Weiner, Don Imus, Mrs. Jack Swanson each of them used their contacts to follow me from job to job. (I started this web site in 2003 after Don Imus used his influence with GAB Robins.)

And during all of this hundreds of others, the staff at KGO for example, Senators, the San Rafael Police Department, the ACLU, many many others not only knew about all of this but actively participated. The San Rafael Police not only knew of the burglary they helped cover it up and have detained me, illegally searched me and my car, harassed . . .

And the rest? My car is rammed and the police officer says he can not tell who is at fault? The junkies that started following me. Then when they where described here, at this site, they disappeared? Scott Bobro, pill popping Scott Bobro, harassed me at work, had made references to what I had written in my stolen notebook about my dead mother, how do we explain that? The acts of vandalism? The harassment, by the IRS, at the workplace, . . .

So, yes, celebrate, I can not fight you all . . . I am nearly dead.

Congratulations. It has taken you 12 years, but how proud you must be.

But do not imagine that I want to die. I want to live.

Glenn Beck, from what you have said, I conclude that your dear mother suffered from an illness. My death will not be like her death. I want to live. I choose to die. I die in protest. An act of will.

I am given no alternative.

I will not live in a world where good Christians joke about these things. “I have heard what you do to some of your listeners.” A complete corruption.

We can look at these things close in or we can look . . . far away . . .

Corrupt degenerates.

Lecture Notes: 09-10-04

Glenn Beck, you are going to feel so guilty after I am gone. And I just want you to know that I forgave you.

Counselor: Well, so this is a really profound practice . . . to forgive your tormenters. This is about his space alien election campaign skit?

Yes. I forgave him. I hold you responsible.

Counselor: Me? Why am I responsible for some fat goy in Philadelphia?

He is not so fat. He has lost 50 pounds.

Counselor: How would you know? Its radio.

Well, I’m sure he lost 30 pounds, or 25 pounds. You can trust him, he is a Republican. Anyway you started it. You put me in play with these radio folk

Counselor: I think you should see me twice a week.

New Ruskin Poll:

Let’s take a vote. What do you think? Did the counselor actually say, “I think you should see me twice a week.” Send your reply to Plinio Designori.

Counselor: Why don’t you tell—

Not now. Let them vote.

Counselor: Yes, and he came too.

Yvonne, you see. You spoil everything.

Counselor: Well, at least you have your answer.

Answer?

Counselor: The skit? Dr. Wolfram’s questioning if we could even recognize a message from another life form or would it be lost in the background noise, lost in the patterns created by the universe itself. Your message: Is there intelligent life in the universe? It was received and acknowledged.

Oh. Was it?

Counselor: A public case.

Lecture Notes: 09-09-04

In A New Kind of Science, Dr. Wolfram asks if it would even be possible to recognize a message from another (or an) intelligent life form? Not, could we understand it, decipher it, but could we even recognize it?

I hadn’t thought to question the idea. Maybe I couldn’t, . . . but . . . scientists? Someone smart like that? What? They have formulas and stuff? No?

This idea of his is connected with “computational equivalence.” This relates to the “intelligent design” theory. The theory that the world is so complex it appears to be the result of “intelligent design.” But just so, he questions if we could sort out a signal from an intelligent life form just because it would be surrounded by so much else that appears intelligent by design.

The principle of “computational equivalence” holds that at some point, a very early point, even very simple systems develop patterns that make them appear to be “equivalent” to much more complex, intelligent systems, and they are, both of them, “equivalent.”

At first you might think, for example, that 11 dimensions are not enough to explain all the variety of the universe, and yet Dr. Wolfram’s automata begin to generate complex systems with even fewer rules. As they are allowed to run, and the universe has been running for a long time, they generate ever more complex systems and become indistinguishable from “intelligent” systems that have been “designed,” i.e. they are “computationally equivalent.”

As I look around it is becoming more and more difficult to discern any intelligible pattern. Society appears to be merging back into the “inanament” universe. It becomes more and more difficult to think of any explanation for what my fellow human beings are doing. They seem to be directed by forces beyond the reach of our universe, beyond human comprehension. Free will?

A laughable joke.

I do not understand why they do the things they do. The word “hypocrisy” no longer seems to cover it. It is easier to imagine them driven by Gods or Devils.

I was driving down Lincoln Avenue, (Lincoln!), and a motorist whose car was parallel parked pulled out and hit my car. Their front left bumper hit my car’s right rear quarter panel. The other driver refused to give their information and insisted on calling the police. That’s right, the San Rafael Police. The officer came, took a report, but said he could not say who was at fault. Why? Guess.

For years employees, repairmen, who work for a coin operated laundry repair and service company, have had a storage unit near my storage locker. Over the years one of the repairmen has noticed me, and has for years been harassing me. He has taken some dislike to me. He has noticed that I am alone, poor, that I keep to myself. In a word: a mark.

Yet this has not been much of a problem for me. For years I have traveled extensively and so I would be away from the storage facility for years at a time. Even when I am in the area my schedule rarely brings me to the place, and then only occasionally when he is there.

He has been placing sheet metal screws in my tires, on the ground in front of my tires. Even confronting me at times. Blocking my vehicle in with his truck. I have tried to deal with it as best I can. This last Saturday he was waiting outside the facility for over an hour and followed me. Should I call the police? Report vandalism? That is right. The storage facility is in San Rafael.

And these are just two of the many, many instances. An utter mystery to me. I now will never know, for example, how Frank Blaha, the manager for GAB Robins, see (Psy Ops, Imus Protests), was connected to Don Imus. I still wonder if Scott Bobro was connected to Michael Weiner, (he quoted from the Stolen Notebook), or if he was connected to Ron Owens, (Bobro went out of his way to tell me that his uncle is a Vice President with a horseracing union where Owens is a regular).

And why all these people, even complete strangers, have done what they have done, and why they would do what they have done for all these years, all of it is a mystery.

And there is much more. Sandy Natelson, a resident of Marin, has not before been mentioned because there was never any clue that he was involved with all of the rest, and yet . . . in retrospect who knows. Everything fades into the background noise. How does one ever know anything. Is there intelligent life in the universe?

And these are just the people who have come close enough for me to lay eyes on them directly. What about all the rest? The most powerful? Mr. Bush? Mr. Kerry? Isn’t it clear that probably it is just the same for them?

And all of history. Wars and pestilence. 6 billion people. Motives? Reasons? Does it even make sense to ask such questions?

Reason?

I am driving down the street and I see the service technician following me. It is Saturday. They do not work on Saturday. He has been waiting outside the storage facility for an hour, no, an hour and a half. He passes me and turns off. A month earlier the woman pulls from the curb and rams the rear of my car with the front of her car as I am driving down the street. The San Rafael Police officer says he does not know who is at fault.

Mr. Putin says that if we appear weak we will be attacked.

Well, yes, I can see that . . . I am weak and I have been attacked these last twelve years. Yes I can see that . . . and yet what is the point?

The bio weapons have been made.

I pull over and carefully examine my tires. I get out the pliers and remove the sheet metal screw. Good, I think, I got it before it cut into the seal. I put some water on the hole. Yes. No air is escaping.