Government necessarily provides inferior service because of the scope of which it attempts. This is unavoidable, but losses can be reduced through particularization or decentralization. The Taguchi loss function formalizes the insights of Edward I. Deming. It can be applied to any production system or to services like government. The goal is to minimize variance from a customer's expectation target. In the case of government there are, of course, multiple targets. You can view governmental service as a multi-dimensional set of services. Some dimensions intersect with voter/customer preferences, others are for all purposes infinitely distant. Tax loss function presumably has a quality target of some low number. Some services are of concern to some voters, and the problem for government is to minimize losses arising from voters who are a finite distance from particular quality targets. In other cases, though, voters do not care about services.
Governmental loss functions cannot rotate without changing distance (amount of loss) for some and increasing it for others. Losses to taxpayers are increased as gains to tax consumers are increased. Moreover, the constellation of services can be changed only at taxpayer expense. Preferences form market segments. Identification of segments is part of political processes. However, total losses can increase even with a winning voter coalition. This is possible because vastly increasing losses for a minority can be accompanied by modest increases for the majority.
Limiting the scope of government would limit the losses because preferences can be targeted to varying segments. Loss minimization means better democracy and better satisfaction of public preferences. Thus, there is a quality advantage to decentralization.
The major threat to quality in government services is the Olson/Stigler economic loss due to political pressure. As size increases asymmetric advantages to specific groups increase. This is because lobbying and organizational costs increase and because small losses in a particular lobbying episode may be insufficient to motivate resistance. Multiple small losses across a large geography and population accumulate, resulting in far larger losses than would be possible in a smaller population and geographic area. Thus, satisfaction with state and local services is likely to be higher than satisfaction with federal government services. Lack of awareness of federal government services is likely to be greater than lack of awareness of state and local services.
Decentralized blocks can make more rational decisions because incentives to participate are greater.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
My Letter to Congressman Maurice Hinchey Re HR 45
Dear Congressman Hinchey:
I oppose gun control and in particular HR 45, Representative Bobby Rush's (D-IL)Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, the text of which is located at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text.
As you likely know, the Federalist Papers #29, written by Alexander Hamilton, describes the nature of what the Founding Fathers saw as a militia. Hamilton leaves little doubt that the reason for the Second Amendment is protection against incursion against liberty by the state.
Given current developments in Washington, there is little reason to believe that the US government is legitimate or trustworthy. Rather, it is tyrannical. I have written to you previously advocating a 75% reduction in the federal budget, but you obviously have failed to respond in practice.
I would like to know your position on HR 45. I have indicated my e-mail and regular mailing address above.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
I oppose gun control and in particular HR 45, Representative Bobby Rush's (D-IL)Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, the text of which is located at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text.
As you likely know, the Federalist Papers #29, written by Alexander Hamilton, describes the nature of what the Founding Fathers saw as a militia. Hamilton leaves little doubt that the reason for the Second Amendment is protection against incursion against liberty by the state.
Given current developments in Washington, there is little reason to believe that the US government is legitimate or trustworthy. Rather, it is tyrannical. I have written to you previously advocating a 75% reduction in the federal budget, but you obviously have failed to respond in practice.
I would like to know your position on HR 45. I have indicated my e-mail and regular mailing address above.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Democrats Assault Second Amendment
A poster to my blog wrote about this bill (poster's text follows the text of the bill). I would be interested in further information on this subject. This is what Open Congress has for HR 45. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il).
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
Current 111st session of congress OpenCongress Summary:
The Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General broad authority over the program. There are no co-sponsors to the bill, and there is very little chance it will be adopted.
Short: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 as introduced.
Official: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. as introduced.
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits:
(1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
(3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
*The poster writes:
>I am not positive but, it could be something in the line of a bill congress is trying to pass will we are being distracted. Try going to this site and read up. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
I recieved an e-mail from a friend with this information. Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.
It has started.
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
This was just on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly
it under the radar.
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009.
You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
-It is registered
-You are fingerprinted
-You supply a current Driver's License
-You supply your Social Security #
-You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of
their choosing
-Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale
must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the
right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
-There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a
child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to
any child under 18.
-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are
storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is
punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your
pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and
more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in
your family pass this along.
Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630
a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is
to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he
suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting
associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.
This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of
guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip
away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone
realizes it.
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.
If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use
against me.
HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts
for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less
danger from their victims.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you
support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have
the right to choose.
April 24, 2009 11:41 PM
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
Current 111st session of congress OpenCongress Summary:
The Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General broad authority over the program. There are no co-sponsors to the bill, and there is very little chance it will be adopted.
Short: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 as introduced.
Official: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes. as introduced.
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits:
(1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
(3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
*The poster writes:
>I am not positive but, it could be something in the line of a bill congress is trying to pass will we are being distracted. Try going to this site and read up. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
I recieved an e-mail from a friend with this information. Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.
It has started.
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
This was just on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly
it under the radar.
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009.
You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
-It is registered
-You are fingerprinted
-You supply a current Driver's License
-You supply your Social Security #
-You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of
their choosing
-Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale
must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the
right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
-There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a
child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to
any child under 18.
-They would have the right to come and inspect that you are
storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is
punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your
pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and
more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in
your family pass this along.
Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630
a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is
to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he
suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting
associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.
This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of
guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip
away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone
realizes it.
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.
If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use
against me.
HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts
for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less
danger from their victims.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you
support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have
the right to choose.
April 24, 2009 11:41 PM
Friday, April 24, 2009
Obama Tyranny Rising: Military Assault on Firearms
H/t Nancy Razik:
Gentlemen,
I am an 11B [Infantryman] currently assigned at Fort Campbell . I live off post, with my firearms(which I don't bring on post for any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday.
I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of all firearms I currently possess. In addition, I was also required to list registration information, location of all weapons individually, and information regarding any CCW permits I posses. If you are like me, then the people you work with know you have firearms. So I had to list at least some. I tried to talk to my 1sg (who is normally approachable through proper channels) to find out what this is for, and I was basically told, "I don't give a !&@%, just put your info on the form."
I don't know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well. It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days since the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why. I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here. I have been in almost 8 years, and never have any of my units asked for this information. If any of you out there have any info as to what all this crap is about please chime in. Otherwise consider yourself warned. I have already posted this on every other firearm forum I am a member of to get the word out.
Attached is a copy of the actual memo I received.
Gentlemen,
I am an 11B [Infantryman] currently assigned at Fort Campbell . I live off post, with my firearms(which I don't bring on post for any reason). A very frightening thing happened at work yesterday.
I was ordered to fill out a list containing my firearm information. This included make, model, caliber, and serial number of all firearms I currently possess. In addition, I was also required to list registration information, location of all weapons individually, and information regarding any CCW permits I posses. If you are like me, then the people you work with know you have firearms. So I had to list at least some. I tried to talk to my 1sg (who is normally approachable through proper channels) to find out what this is for, and I was basically told, "I don't give a !&@%, just put your info on the form."
I don't know how high this goes, but I am hearing that this is going on in other units at Fort Campbell as well. It just seems a little coincidental to me that within 90 days since the most anti-firearm President in history is inaugurated, some of the nastiest anti-firearm laws are put on the table in Washington, and then the Army comes around wanting what amounts to a registration on all firearms, even if they are off post, and doesn't provide any reason or purpose as to why. I fear something really nasty is blowing in the wind here. I have been in almost 8 years, and never have any of my units asked for this information. If any of you out there have any info as to what all this crap is about please chime in. Otherwise consider yourself warned. I have already posted this on every other firearm forum I am a member of to get the word out.
Attached is a copy of the actual memo I received.
Robert Welch on the Future, March 9, 1974
Nancy Razik forwarded this Youtube video of Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, in 1974. Welch died in 1985 and so did not live to see the big government Republicans co opt the Reagan revolution which he helped engineer. Welch makes more sense than the majority of university professors. However, I disagree with his emphasis on conspiracy. The ideology of "progressivism" does not require a conspiracy; and Wall Street bankers and others with an economic interest in big government and socialism do not need to conspire to recognize that the economic interests of America's elite depends on squelching free enterprise in the interest of high taxes, big business and of course monetary inflation, the mainstay of America's commercial banks and Wall Street. The video is well worth watching. Welch makes more sense than any television announcer and most of the academics alive today.
China's Coming Ascendancy
The United States occupies a prominent position in global affairs chiefly because of the period of laissez-faire that began in the early 19th century and ended in the 1950s at the latest. Much of the twentieth century's innovation, including today's wireless technology, continued to feed off 19th century breakthroughs. As laissez-faire ended, technological change slowed. Today what passes for technological change is trivial junk like hand-held computers. Major innovations such as television and air travel were the product of late nineteenth and early twentieth century innovation.
China could duplicate this process and exceed the US technologically just as the US exceeded Britain and Britain exceeded Holland. The requirement for technological innovation is limited government intervention, the winner takes the spoils, and private property whereby long term experiments can proceed multi-generationally and innovators can be rewarded.
The chief inhibitor of innovation is credit allocation by Soviet-style central planning bureau. America has adopted the central banking system, which is not qualitatively different from the central planning agencies of the Soviet Union and other communist states. The central bank makes one foolish error after the next, just as Gosplan did. The result is that credit is misallocated to foolish endeavors, sub-prime real estate, cornering the silver market and the like,
America has taken advantage of its reputation for a stable currency by outprinting all other nations' currencies. The reason for the dollar's reputation goes back 70 or 80 years, and in the past decade the dollar has fed off its past reputation even as the Fed has printed money at the clip of the Continental Congress, the modern inventor of paper money inflation. Those looking to the dollar for safety are like those who swam back to the Titanic.
So far, the Chinese and other US dollar holders have eaten the long term effects of dollar depreciation. This has been limited recently because of the dollar's rise. However, short term market manipulation and fluctuation cannot stop basic supply-and-demand relationships. If you triple the Federal Reserve Bank credit then you reduce the value of the dollar, maybe by less than three quarters, but maybe more.
Since China, Japan and Europe will suffer from dollar depreciation, it would seem that they would now be considering a currency alternative to the dollar. China advocated this at the G20 summit. If China decides to pursue this strategy, it has a chance to become the world's dominant power, just as Oswald Spengler predicted in his book "Decline of the West". Spengler did not look to monetary inflation as the cause of the west's decline, but that is the operating mechanism.
If China decides to pursue a hard money strategy coupled with a limited government approach, permitting grass roots innovation just as Andrew Jackson did in the 1830s, then China will become the leading technological nation. However, if China opts for central bank capitalism then it will just reassert the communistic central planning approach it has pursued so far. In that case it will not become so important a power.
In either case, if China does choose to adopt an alternative currency and can convince the rising eastern nations to follow it, the United States is in trouble. That will be the first leg of a major dollar decline as the world's dollar holders put a run on worthless dollars. As the dollar declines, the US will see its military power diminish. Consumers will suffer and there will be political unrest. But the third world factories can move back to the US, and US citizens can regain the jobs now held by Mexicans and Indonesians.
China could duplicate this process and exceed the US technologically just as the US exceeded Britain and Britain exceeded Holland. The requirement for technological innovation is limited government intervention, the winner takes the spoils, and private property whereby long term experiments can proceed multi-generationally and innovators can be rewarded.
The chief inhibitor of innovation is credit allocation by Soviet-style central planning bureau. America has adopted the central banking system, which is not qualitatively different from the central planning agencies of the Soviet Union and other communist states. The central bank makes one foolish error after the next, just as Gosplan did. The result is that credit is misallocated to foolish endeavors, sub-prime real estate, cornering the silver market and the like,
America has taken advantage of its reputation for a stable currency by outprinting all other nations' currencies. The reason for the dollar's reputation goes back 70 or 80 years, and in the past decade the dollar has fed off its past reputation even as the Fed has printed money at the clip of the Continental Congress, the modern inventor of paper money inflation. Those looking to the dollar for safety are like those who swam back to the Titanic.
So far, the Chinese and other US dollar holders have eaten the long term effects of dollar depreciation. This has been limited recently because of the dollar's rise. However, short term market manipulation and fluctuation cannot stop basic supply-and-demand relationships. If you triple the Federal Reserve Bank credit then you reduce the value of the dollar, maybe by less than three quarters, but maybe more.
Since China, Japan and Europe will suffer from dollar depreciation, it would seem that they would now be considering a currency alternative to the dollar. China advocated this at the G20 summit. If China decides to pursue this strategy, it has a chance to become the world's dominant power, just as Oswald Spengler predicted in his book "Decline of the West". Spengler did not look to monetary inflation as the cause of the west's decline, but that is the operating mechanism.
If China decides to pursue a hard money strategy coupled with a limited government approach, permitting grass roots innovation just as Andrew Jackson did in the 1830s, then China will become the leading technological nation. However, if China opts for central bank capitalism then it will just reassert the communistic central planning approach it has pursued so far. In that case it will not become so important a power.
In either case, if China does choose to adopt an alternative currency and can convince the rising eastern nations to follow it, the United States is in trouble. That will be the first leg of a major dollar decline as the world's dollar holders put a run on worthless dollars. As the dollar declines, the US will see its military power diminish. Consumers will suffer and there will be political unrest. But the third world factories can move back to the US, and US citizens can regain the jobs now held by Mexicans and Indonesians.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Protest Bill Ayers' Speaking Engagement at Brandeis
I just received this missive from legendary blogger Doug Ross. Note that while Kitco and Miss USA ban people who oppose gay marriage, Brandeis University welcomes left wing murder advocates like Obama-colleague Bill Ayers. The left's version of free speech: "Free speech for us, they may be silent":
Apologies for the mass email... feel free to just copy the post. We need to stop this radical in his tracks. Best Regards, Doug
RED ALERT: Terrorist Bill Ayers Scheduled for College Speech
Brandeis College in Boston has scheduled our favorite terrorist, Bill Ayers, for a speech. Brandeis is a typical liberal institution and -- apparently -- uses the appellation "College" loosely.
And Brandeis takes its role as a bully pulpit for terrorists seriously.
"This is about freedom of educational opportunity," said Brandeis spokesman Dennis Nealon. "The university has made it clear that it is not going to bar the talk despite the controversial nature of the speaker."
Apparently Hitler was unavailable.
What Ayers has to do with 'freedom' in any form is a mystery for anthropologists of the future to figure out, as Ayers and his wife are very vocal and quite open about their Communist leanings.
Due to vocal opposition, Ayers' recent trips to speak at Naperville High School in Illinois, an indie bookstore in the same town and at Boston College have all been canceled.
By the way: does it seem like Ayers is trying to get out of house a lot these days?
But if you were married to the despicable shrew Bernadine Dohrn, you'd be heading out on weekly road trips too.
Let's get out the word: here's some contact information for the relevant parties:
Dennis Nealon, Executive Director, Media and Public Affairs
(781) 736-4205 nealon@brandeis.edu
Jehuda Reinharz, President, Reinharz@brandeis.edu
Joanna Gould, Assistant to the President
781-736-3001 gould@brandeis.edu
Dr. John Hose, Executive Assistant to the President and Assistant Secretary of the Corporation
781-736-3005 hose@brandeis.edu
Max Pearlstein, University and Media Relations Specialist
781-736-4206 maxp@brandeis.edu
Charles Radin, Director of Global Communications & Operations
(781) 736-4210 radin@brandeis.edu
Call or email... and politely express your opposition to the likes of Ayers indoctrinating our youth with despicable and anti-American leanings.
Apologies for the mass email... feel free to just copy the post. We need to stop this radical in his tracks. Best Regards, Doug
RED ALERT: Terrorist Bill Ayers Scheduled for College Speech
Brandeis College in Boston has scheduled our favorite terrorist, Bill Ayers, for a speech. Brandeis is a typical liberal institution and -- apparently -- uses the appellation "College" loosely.
And Brandeis takes its role as a bully pulpit for terrorists seriously.
"This is about freedom of educational opportunity," said Brandeis spokesman Dennis Nealon. "The university has made it clear that it is not going to bar the talk despite the controversial nature of the speaker."
Apparently Hitler was unavailable.
What Ayers has to do with 'freedom' in any form is a mystery for anthropologists of the future to figure out, as Ayers and his wife are very vocal and quite open about their Communist leanings.
Due to vocal opposition, Ayers' recent trips to speak at Naperville High School in Illinois, an indie bookstore in the same town and at Boston College have all been canceled.
By the way: does it seem like Ayers is trying to get out of house a lot these days?
But if you were married to the despicable shrew Bernadine Dohrn, you'd be heading out on weekly road trips too.
Let's get out the word: here's some contact information for the relevant parties:
Dennis Nealon, Executive Director, Media and Public Affairs
(781) 736-4205 nealon@brandeis.edu
Jehuda Reinharz, President, Reinharz@brandeis.edu
Joanna Gould, Assistant to the President
781-736-3001 gould@brandeis.edu
Dr. John Hose, Executive Assistant to the President and Assistant Secretary of the Corporation
781-736-3005 hose@brandeis.edu
Max Pearlstein, University and Media Relations Specialist
781-736-4206 maxp@brandeis.edu
Charles Radin, Director of Global Communications & Operations
(781) 736-4210 radin@brandeis.edu
Call or email... and politely express your opposition to the likes of Ayers indoctrinating our youth with despicable and anti-American leanings.
Alan Keyes Fears Obama Tyranny
Stephanie Turner of AC2C Revolt Parties quotes Alan Keyes (h/t Nancy Razik):
>Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law
Former Presidential candidate gives most dire warning yet about Obama agenda
Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes has given perhaps his most dire warning yet, saying that the Obama administration is preparing to stage terror attacks, declare martial law and cancel the 2012 elections, which is why they are demonizing their political enemies as criminals and terrorists.
Keyes is best known for his performance during the 2000 Republican presidential debates, when he was accredited by many media outlets as being the clear winner during a series of debates with George W. Bush and John McCain.
“It’s obvious that they will stop at nothing,” Keyes told attendees of a reception in Fort Wayne, adding, “We may wake up one day and there’s a series of terrorist attacks, the economy is paralysed…martial law will be declared everywhere in the United States and it won’t end until the crisis ends.”
Keyes said that Americans should be thankful if they even see another election in 2012, stating, “If we don’t wake up and work to see that it happens, we will not see another election.”
“The minute they think they can get away with it, they will end this system of government and that is their intention,” added Keyes, noting that everyone acting as if the time we are in was just “business as usual” reminds him of the attitude of politicians in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was rising to power or eastern Europe when the Communists were taking over after the second world war.
Keyes said that because the majority of people are decent-minded, they believe others will play by the rules when this simply isn’t the case, warning that this attitude will allow evil to take over before we can do anything about it.
“It is so clear that we have now put a faction in place - they are not playing by the rules and they don’t intend to play by the rules - if they were playing by the rules they wouldn’t have tried to identify their opposition as criminals,” added Keyes, making reference to the recent controversy surrounding the release of the MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which implied that Americans who exercise and are knowledgeable about their constitutional rights are a threat to law enforcement and potential domestic terrorists.
Keyes said that the only solution was from the bottom up because our leaders “are so gutless that they won’t even ask that the Constitution be enforced for clear, plain, absolutely unequivocal requirements,” and respond meekly with “their lips shut and their hearts terrorized.”
Keyes also warned of Obama’s agenda to create a civilian security force and said it was part of the ultimate agenda to disarm American citizens and create a police state.
Keyes has been a vocal critic of Obama, warning that he is a radical Communist who is determined to destroy America, and that if his agenda is not stopped then the country as we know it will cease to exist.
>Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law
Former Presidential candidate gives most dire warning yet about Obama agenda
Alan Keyes: Government Will Stage Terror, Declare Martial Law
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes has given perhaps his most dire warning yet, saying that the Obama administration is preparing to stage terror attacks, declare martial law and cancel the 2012 elections, which is why they are demonizing their political enemies as criminals and terrorists.
Keyes is best known for his performance during the 2000 Republican presidential debates, when he was accredited by many media outlets as being the clear winner during a series of debates with George W. Bush and John McCain.
“It’s obvious that they will stop at nothing,” Keyes told attendees of a reception in Fort Wayne, adding, “We may wake up one day and there’s a series of terrorist attacks, the economy is paralysed…martial law will be declared everywhere in the United States and it won’t end until the crisis ends.”
Keyes said that Americans should be thankful if they even see another election in 2012, stating, “If we don’t wake up and work to see that it happens, we will not see another election.”
“The minute they think they can get away with it, they will end this system of government and that is their intention,” added Keyes, noting that everyone acting as if the time we are in was just “business as usual” reminds him of the attitude of politicians in the Weimar Republic when Hitler was rising to power or eastern Europe when the Communists were taking over after the second world war.
Keyes said that because the majority of people are decent-minded, they believe others will play by the rules when this simply isn’t the case, warning that this attitude will allow evil to take over before we can do anything about it.
“It is so clear that we have now put a faction in place - they are not playing by the rules and they don’t intend to play by the rules - if they were playing by the rules they wouldn’t have tried to identify their opposition as criminals,” added Keyes, making reference to the recent controversy surrounding the release of the MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which implied that Americans who exercise and are knowledgeable about their constitutional rights are a threat to law enforcement and potential domestic terrorists.
Keyes said that the only solution was from the bottom up because our leaders “are so gutless that they won’t even ask that the Constitution be enforced for clear, plain, absolutely unequivocal requirements,” and respond meekly with “their lips shut and their hearts terrorized.”
Keyes also warned of Obama’s agenda to create a civilian security force and said it was part of the ultimate agenda to disarm American citizens and create a police state.
Keyes has been a vocal critic of Obama, warning that he is a radical Communist who is determined to destroy America, and that if his agenda is not stopped then the country as we know it will cease to exist.
CITI Training and the Common Rule
I just sent the following e-mail concerning the CITI training program concerning Institutional Review Boards also known as IRBs and human subjects committees. These committees are required for colleges that seek funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. They are supposed to check for abuses of research subjects under a regulation called the "common rule". The common rule stretches the definition of threat to human subjects beyond recognition. If an economist does a survey of consumption habits, the common rule subjects the survey to review by an Institutional Review Board or human subjects committee. The committee can say, for any reason, that the research cannot be done. The grounds for abuse are obvious, especially in America's politicized universities. However, the CITI training, which is run by the University of Miami, Donna Shalala, Queen of Political Correctness, president, took upon itself to say that research findings that are offensive or harmful to the interests of a group constitute a violation of the human subjects rules. That is a lie. My e-mail to a Brooklyn College committee that is aiming to find resources to support faculty research follows:
Dear K---: I just filled out the survey but I wanted to add something. The human subjects committee has had a research document that I provided them on March 1 and has not responded. If the college wishes to support research in the social sciences area, it should consider limiting the scope of IRB review to human subjects issues that go beyond mere surveys of adults. There is no need for such review.
Moreover, I would add that the CITI training module provided by CUNY is deceptive. In particular, it suggests that it is based on the common rule and that research that could potentially find something that is not advantageous to a particular group is subject to restrictions by the common rule. In fact, such a restriction would be a violation of the First Amendment. To question this claim, I went in person to the DHHS in Maryland two years ago and interviewed the people responsible for overseeing regulation of the common rule. They indicated that the claim in the CITI training is untrue. In other words, the CITI training engages in the sort of deception and manipulation that advocates of IRBs claim needs to be stopped in generalizable research. There is no reason for CUNY to tell researchers that if some activist or other finds a research finding objectionable, the researcher violated the common rule and the IRB needs to squelch it. That is a lie in which CUNY currently engages by utilizing the CITI training program.
I would urge CUNY to discontinue the CITI training, which is unethical and deceptive in claiming that research findings can constitute a human subjects issue, and replace it with a training that is honest and truly reflects the regulatory requirements of the DHHS. Not that I agree with that either, but lying, deception and the use of the DHHS regulation to potentially suppress speech and research is inconsistent with a valid research program.
Dear K---: I just filled out the survey but I wanted to add something. The human subjects committee has had a research document that I provided them on March 1 and has not responded. If the college wishes to support research in the social sciences area, it should consider limiting the scope of IRB review to human subjects issues that go beyond mere surveys of adults. There is no need for such review.
Moreover, I would add that the CITI training module provided by CUNY is deceptive. In particular, it suggests that it is based on the common rule and that research that could potentially find something that is not advantageous to a particular group is subject to restrictions by the common rule. In fact, such a restriction would be a violation of the First Amendment. To question this claim, I went in person to the DHHS in Maryland two years ago and interviewed the people responsible for overseeing regulation of the common rule. They indicated that the claim in the CITI training is untrue. In other words, the CITI training engages in the sort of deception and manipulation that advocates of IRBs claim needs to be stopped in generalizable research. There is no reason for CUNY to tell researchers that if some activist or other finds a research finding objectionable, the researcher violated the common rule and the IRB needs to squelch it. That is a lie in which CUNY currently engages by utilizing the CITI training program.
I would urge CUNY to discontinue the CITI training, which is unethical and deceptive in claiming that research findings can constitute a human subjects issue, and replace it with a training that is honest and truly reflects the regulatory requirements of the DHHS. Not that I agree with that either, but lying, deception and the use of the DHHS regulation to potentially suppress speech and research is inconsistent with a valid research program.
Gold Investors in Tutus: Chuck, Crum Confront Gay Fascism at Kitco
I am a Chicago fan, not of the Cubs or White Sox but of the city. I was last there in '05 and enjoyed it tremendously. Now, two sons of Chicago, Chuck and Jim Crum, have stood up in favor of freedom and against Kitco's, Daniela Cambone's and Bart Kitner's support for gay fascism and suppression of heterosexuals and freedom.
Chuck's and then Jim's e-mails follow:
"Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean
Chuck writes:
I called her, but she kept saying "no comment." I asked her if she was aware that most gold investors are morally conservative and oppose gay marriage, but she would not answer that either.
FYI: The CEO of KITCO is:
Mr. Bart D. Kitner
Kitco Inc
620 Cathcart Suite 900
Montreal, Quebec H3B 1M1
Canada
Website: www.kitco.com
Phone: (514) 875-4820
Fax: (514) 875-6484
Jim Crum writes:
From: jamesjcrum@aol.com
To: dcambone@kitco.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean
Ms. Cambone:
Just a point of clarification, and I will go.
You state: "Unfortunately, we cannot publish commentator’s who have points-of-views that are offensive to readers." Just exactly what is that to be taken as? Offensive to who? Offensive to homosexuals? Offensive to Jews? Christians? People under 18? Offensive to people who feel that Millard Fillmore was our best President?
I will not question your motivation, whatever it might be. You also do have the right to do this, I understand that quite well. But even if permissible, I can judge the behavior, and this does not look right. Frankly, it smells, and Mitchell Langbert has a point here.
I will leave you with a highlight you might wish to well remember:
"The left has whined about McCarthyism for more than fifty years, yet it does not hesitate to apply McCarthyite tactics, ruining careers with ideological litmus tests, when an individual's views do not conform to left wing or homosexual dogma."
& nbsp; - Mitchell Langbert
Have a good evening.
JJC.
Chuck's and then Jim's e-mails follow:
"Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean
Chuck writes:
I called her, but she kept saying "no comment." I asked her if she was aware that most gold investors are morally conservative and oppose gay marriage, but she would not answer that either.
FYI: The CEO of KITCO is:
Mr. Bart D. Kitner
Kitco Inc
620 Cathcart Suite 900
Montreal, Quebec H3B 1M1
Canada
Website: www.kitco.com
Phone: (514) 875-4820
Fax: (514) 875-6484
Jim Crum writes:
From: jamesjcrum@aol.com
To: dcambone@kitco.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Gold Investors in Tutus--Howard S. Katz versus Carrie Prejean
Ms. Cambone:
Just a point of clarification, and I will go.
You state: "Unfortunately, we cannot publish commentator’s who have points-of-views that are offensive to readers." Just exactly what is that to be taken as? Offensive to who? Offensive to homosexuals? Offensive to Jews? Christians? People under 18? Offensive to people who feel that Millard Fillmore was our best President?
I will not question your motivation, whatever it might be. You also do have the right to do this, I understand that quite well. But even if permissible, I can judge the behavior, and this does not look right. Frankly, it smells, and Mitchell Langbert has a point here.
I will leave you with a highlight you might wish to well remember:
"The left has whined about McCarthyism for more than fifty years, yet it does not hesitate to apply McCarthyite tactics, ruining careers with ideological litmus tests, when an individual's views do not conform to left wing or homosexual dogma."
& nbsp; - Mitchell Langbert
Have a good evening.
JJC.
The Second Amendment and the Doctrine of Probable Use
There are frequent discussions of whether to limit the ownership of various kinds of weapons such as assault rifles, machine guns and the like. The discussion on this topic has been historically illiterate and has failed to contemplate the fundamental reason for the ownership of guns. Guns are necessary for the public militia to protect the people from state tyranny. Hamilton noted this in the Federalist 29 and the Second Amendment makes this clear when it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the defense of a free state.
Since the purpose of the right to bear arms is largely to protect the public from state tyranny, the public ought to have the right to own weapons that are at least equal to weapons that the state would probably use in an assault on the public to re-enforce tyranny. Thus, if tanks are likely to be used against the public in a rural area, the public militia ought to have the right to own tanks.
Rifles used against tanks would hardly be effective for the defense of a free state. All legal discussion that fails to balance the weapons that the government might use against the people with the threat that private ownership poses to the public is illegitimate and does violence to the Second Amendment. The government's probable use of a given class of weapons against the public ought to be the basis for the legality of gun ownership.
Since the purpose of the right to bear arms is largely to protect the public from state tyranny, the public ought to have the right to own weapons that are at least equal to weapons that the state would probably use in an assault on the public to re-enforce tyranny. Thus, if tanks are likely to be used against the public in a rural area, the public militia ought to have the right to own tanks.
Rifles used against tanks would hardly be effective for the defense of a free state. All legal discussion that fails to balance the weapons that the government might use against the people with the threat that private ownership poses to the public is illegitimate and does violence to the Second Amendment. The government's probable use of a given class of weapons against the public ought to be the basis for the legality of gun ownership.
Every American Is Morally Obliged to Own a Gun
I have previously blogged about the Federalist 29 in which Alexander Hamilton discusses the militia. The militia, the body of citizens which could muster to protect the state and to protect the people, was necessary in Hamilton's view not only to protect the nation from external threat but also to protect the people from tyranny. It is evident that he saw widespread ownership of guns as a fundamental safeguard against governmental tyranny. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, was adopted to placate not Federalists but anti-Federalists. There was no serious questioning of this view by any American, Federalist or anti-Federalist, during the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Founders viewed the widespread ownership of guns as an important safeguard against tyranny then. The Second Amendment says that each American is responsible to own a gun. And the protection of freedom from the US government remains as fundamental today as it was in the time of Jefferson, Hamilton and Brutus.
The basis of American society is not the US government nor the Constitution, but freedom. Freedom adheres in the people. The United States can happily exist without the current form of federal government. But it cannot exist without freedom.
The Civil War fulfilled the American belief in freedom by freeing the slaves, but the war was fought not over freedom but over union. Slavery was not the main point for Lincoln and the North, and the freeing of the slaves a military tactic, not a moral statement. While the post-bellum period was unsuccessful in dealing with race, and the problems that resulted from the North's indifference and the South's resistance to equality reverberate today, the North's insistence on union changed the emphasis of American belief from freedom to union. The Republicans did not intend to dismiss laissez-faire, but by insisting on union they opened the door to enhancement of federal power. The federal government would remain limited in their view, but union, hence government, was to take precedence over individual and local choice. This was not new, as Andrew Jackson, the most laissez faire and localist of all presidents, had refused to permit nullification of tariffs by the states. Yet, the Civil War's magnitude and scope asserted centralization and federal power in a way that the founders had not intended. This change in psychology resulted from practical events, but it had philosophical ramifications that few at the time could have anticipated.
The Civil War's thrust toward centralization was re-enforced by the Progressives. This was a philosophical shift that elites advocated. The public was never entirely convinced by Progressivism, but has accepted the transformation of American government that Progressivism initiated. Nevertheless, the fundamental foundation of freedom as the cornerstone of American life and the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based were never rescinded. The changes that Progressivism and the New Deal wrought were applied piecemeal, and never fully understood. As a result, the question of the state's threat to freedom looms larger now than it has ever before. The central government's arrogation of power appears increasingly inconsistent with the principles on which a legitimate American government based on freedom can be based.
In order to be moral Americans must live up to their responsibilities. Americans have a moral responsibility to protect the public from tyranny. The federal government threatens tyranny. Ownership of a gun, then, is fundamental to each American's responsibility. The Second Amendment says that it is the moral responsibility of Americans to own guns. It is in this light that the Second Amendment needs to be understood:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A free state is secure only if it is protected from tyranny and external threat. The public must own guns to protect itself from the tyrannical state as vested today in the federal government.
The basis of American society is not the US government nor the Constitution, but freedom. Freedom adheres in the people. The United States can happily exist without the current form of federal government. But it cannot exist without freedom.
The Civil War fulfilled the American belief in freedom by freeing the slaves, but the war was fought not over freedom but over union. Slavery was not the main point for Lincoln and the North, and the freeing of the slaves a military tactic, not a moral statement. While the post-bellum period was unsuccessful in dealing with race, and the problems that resulted from the North's indifference and the South's resistance to equality reverberate today, the North's insistence on union changed the emphasis of American belief from freedom to union. The Republicans did not intend to dismiss laissez-faire, but by insisting on union they opened the door to enhancement of federal power. The federal government would remain limited in their view, but union, hence government, was to take precedence over individual and local choice. This was not new, as Andrew Jackson, the most laissez faire and localist of all presidents, had refused to permit nullification of tariffs by the states. Yet, the Civil War's magnitude and scope asserted centralization and federal power in a way that the founders had not intended. This change in psychology resulted from practical events, but it had philosophical ramifications that few at the time could have anticipated.
The Civil War's thrust toward centralization was re-enforced by the Progressives. This was a philosophical shift that elites advocated. The public was never entirely convinced by Progressivism, but has accepted the transformation of American government that Progressivism initiated. Nevertheless, the fundamental foundation of freedom as the cornerstone of American life and the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based were never rescinded. The changes that Progressivism and the New Deal wrought were applied piecemeal, and never fully understood. As a result, the question of the state's threat to freedom looms larger now than it has ever before. The central government's arrogation of power appears increasingly inconsistent with the principles on which a legitimate American government based on freedom can be based.
In order to be moral Americans must live up to their responsibilities. Americans have a moral responsibility to protect the public from tyranny. The federal government threatens tyranny. Ownership of a gun, then, is fundamental to each American's responsibility. The Second Amendment says that it is the moral responsibility of Americans to own guns. It is in this light that the Second Amendment needs to be understood:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A free state is secure only if it is protected from tyranny and external threat. The public must own guns to protect itself from the tyrannical state as vested today in the federal government.
Just Say No to Perez Hilton
I have written the following e-mail to the Miss USA Beauty Pageant. I have been subjected to the kind of harassment in academia that now raises its head in Miss USA and Kitco. It is critical that Americans voice their opposition to the offensive harrassment of heterosexuals in which the left is engaging.
I am personally offended by Perez Hilton's question to Carrie Prejean, Miss California. I firmly believe in beauty pageants, as most supporters of gay marriage probably do not. But I oppose ideological litmus tests, which most supporters of gay marriage seem to support. Perez Hilton saw fit to impose an ideology on contestants: the ideology of homosexual marriage. This is offensive. If everything offensive is a form of discrimination, then Hilton discriminated against Prejean and your pageant is unfair. The leftists in Hollywood might think themselves clever, but their ugly discrimination against conservatives puts them on the same level as those who formulated blacklists in the 1950s. Perez Hilton is an ugly thug, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing a bigot to be one of your judges. I have stopped paying to watch movies because of Hollywood's moronic, left-wing views. The thought that anyone who disagrees with the moronic, left-wing ideas of Spielberg and Hilton cannot find work disgusts me. You need to clean house.
I am personally offended by Perez Hilton's question to Carrie Prejean, Miss California. I firmly believe in beauty pageants, as most supporters of gay marriage probably do not. But I oppose ideological litmus tests, which most supporters of gay marriage seem to support. Perez Hilton saw fit to impose an ideology on contestants: the ideology of homosexual marriage. This is offensive. If everything offensive is a form of discrimination, then Hilton discriminated against Prejean and your pageant is unfair. The leftists in Hollywood might think themselves clever, but their ugly discrimination against conservatives puts them on the same level as those who formulated blacklists in the 1950s. Perez Hilton is an ugly thug, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing a bigot to be one of your judges. I have stopped paying to watch movies because of Hollywood's moronic, left-wing views. The thought that anyone who disagrees with the moronic, left-wing ideas of Spielberg and Hilton cannot find work disgusts me. You need to clean house.
Nancy Razik on Carrie Prejean
CARRIE PREJEAN IS MY NEW SUPERHERO!!! SHE DIED TO HER DREAMS TO HONOR JESUS CHRIST!!! GOD BLESS CARRIE!!!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Kitco Bans Gay Marriage Opponents
What does gold investment advisor Howard S. Katz have to do with Miss California? Recently, Perez Hilton, a gay judge in the Miss USA contest, asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she believes in gay marriage. Prejean suggested that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. There has been speculation that Prejean lost Miss USA as a result. Suppressive intolerance against all who disagree with extremist dogma is reminiscent of the the Fascist trial of Antonio Gramsci. The left has whined about McCarthyism for more than fifty years, yet it does not hestitate to apply McCarthyite tactics, ruining careers with ideological litmus tests, when an individual's views do not conform to left wing or homosexual dogma.
Howard S. Katz has been working on gold investing since the 1960s. He has successfully navigated gold, lumber and other commodities markets for 40 years, and frequently publishes on Gold Eagle, Goldseek, and other gold websites. Recently, on his personal blog that he had linked to a Kitco article, Katz mentioned that he opposes gay marriage. He did not write this in the Kitco article. He simply voiced the view that he opposed gay marriage in his blog, which was linked to the article.
Because Katz failed the Code of Gay Fascism, Ms. Cambone wrote Katz the e-mail below. It saddens me that the gay community and Kitco have taken to witch-hunting and McCarthyite tactics, such as attacking people's livelihoods because they merely store and do not lubricate their gold bars.
Does this mean that all current writers on Kitco support gay marriage? I will inquire. Please stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: commentary
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:35:50 -0400
From: dcambone@kitco.com
To: howardkatz@hotmail.com
Dear Mr. Katz,
We have run into quite a few complaints with your latest article. It seems that when our readers clicked the link to your website, they found a blog against homosexual marriages. This has insulted many people. We at Kitco realize that your commentary did not make reference to this fact but we cannot be associated with individuals who share these viewpoints.
You are a longtime contributor to Kitco and we appreciate your commentaries. Unfortunately, we cannot publish commentator’s who have points-of-views that are offensive to readers.
If you would like to discuss this matter in further detail, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Daniela Cambone
Content Specialist
Marketing Department
Kitco Metals Inc.
Direct Line: (514) 670-1317
Cell: (514) 928-5820
Fax: (514) 875-2579
dcambone@Kitco.com
www.kitco.com
Monday, April 20, 2009
Kitco Bounces Katz Over Gay Marriage
I just sent the following e-mail to Kitco. One of the several alternative gold sites where Howard publishes his articles is Goldseek.
Dear Friends: I am a blogger with an interest in gold and I occasionally submit op ed pieces to newspapers. Howard S. Katz told me that you have told him that he cannot publish in your website because he said that he opposes gay marriage in his blog. I find this interesting and would be interested in learning about your position on this topic and why you felt it was appropriate to ban him (assuming that is the case). I would be interested in setting up a telephone interview in the near future.
Best wishes,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Dear Friends: I am a blogger with an interest in gold and I occasionally submit op ed pieces to newspapers. Howard S. Katz told me that you have told him that he cannot publish in your website because he said that he opposes gay marriage in his blog. I find this interesting and would be interested in learning about your position on this topic and why you felt it was appropriate to ban him (assuming that is the case). I would be interested in setting up a telephone interview in the near future.
Best wishes,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
