Moral Hazard Writ Large:

Quote headline: Moral hazard writ large.

Comment: There is a style in the substance of this statement which is intended to impress the gullible what the person wants to say that is actually something simple like ‘double standards’.

Not only do people want to convey substance, they want to convey it in a pompous way that will make others impressed they are such powerful intellects when is all copied, they read others say so and they memorized and regurgitated it to similarly impress.

Defining the style in the substance of a speech:

Even if the writer is himself confused as to what exactly is the substance or meaning (and motives) of his speech, it can be objectively precisely determined by those who are discerning (and God) and the substance of a person’s speech may be true or false and what is false may be a lie, deluded (he believes it is true but is false) or nonsense (makes no sense eg yabadabadoo).

WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE, WHATEVER IS SAID IN SIMPLE TERMS WITHOUT ADORNMENT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECH.

IF YOU WANT TO CONVEY A MESSAGE THEN YOU SHOULD USE SIMPLE WORDS THAT ARE UNDERSTOOD BY MOST IF NOT ALL BUT IF YOU INTENTION IS TO SHOW OFF NOT CONVEY A MESSAGE TO BE UNDERSTOOD, YOU USE THE MOST HIGH SOUNDING AND EXOTIC WORDS YOU CAN FIND, YOU USE VAGUE LANGUAGE, YOU BEAT AROUND THE BUSH PADDING UP YOUR SPEECH WITH WORDS AND PHRASES THAT ARE ACTUALLY UNNECESSARY AND DETRACT FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT SPEECH.

Thus if you examine a person’s speech, you can make up what he is essentially saying or what he is alluding to or hinting indirectly.

Speech that is alluding or hinting is a form of dishonest or style in substance speech.

If there is a lot of padding, things said that detract from what he is saying to make it more impressive, that too is style in the substance of his speech.

If there are a lot of high sounding words that can be replaced by much simpler words that too is a style in the substance to impress.

A important component of the style in the substance of speech is the use of graphic descriptions or adjectives like finger licking goodness, luscious food, ‘mouth watering’ or words that consciously or unconsciously is intended to convey force eg ‘plunging’ market instead of sharply declining market, thrown out of court instead of dismissed.

Because it is a style in the substance, it is recurrent, memorized to be rehashed to impress, thus the person is fond of using favourite phrases like ‘to recap’,’ in other words’, ‘you see’ but not other phrases.

Choice of words:

Choice of words and by extension phrases or groups of words like ‘deafening silence’ usually copied from others is an important aspect of style in the substance of speech.

The choice of words or phrases copied from others (thus memorized to be regurgitated to impress) may be intended to impress how wonderful his command of English is or to incite sensuality (piping hot, mouth watering) or to convey and stir force (thrown out of court instead of dismissed).

THUS A CRUCIAL INGREDIENT OF STYLE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF SPEECH IS THE CHOICE OF WORDS OR PHRASES AND BECAUSE THESE WORDS OR PHRASES ARE MEANT TO IMPRESS, THEY MUST BE COPIED FROM OTHERS USING IT, COMMITTED TO MEMORY AND REGURGITATED REGULARLY TO FIT INTO THE PERSON’S SPEECH THAT DE FACTO MAKES THAT PERSON A ROBOT OF STYLED SPEECH.

Style is always predictable:

A person’s style of speech be it the way he speaks or the words and phrases he likes to use and never uses is always predictable because it is rehashed and whatever is rehashed is predictable as sure as the sun rises the next morning.

Although the person understands more phrases and words than he always uses, there are words and phrases he always uses and words and phrases he dislikes or hates to use and thus never use.

THERE IS A PATTERN IN THE STRUCTURE AND CHOICE OF WORDS OF A PERSON WHO HAS STYLED SPEECH THAT IS STEREOTYPICAL OF HIM SUCH THAT A PERSON FAMILIAR MAY SURMISE BASED ON READING SOMETHING WHO THE AUTHOR MIGHT BE.

Heavily styled speech:

Quote: Along California’s redwood coast, 1,000-year-old trees command rocky bluffs that overlook golden beaches.

Driven by emotion, stylish people use words and language either consciously or unconsciously aimed at stirring readers’ mental forces to be attracted.

The coast is not redwood but redwoods populate or dominate it.

It is false perception to perceive these trees command the bluffs. Towering above is not commanding.

There is no need to say the beaches are golden and if not all the beaches are coloured gold, he has not ascertain it is true, he is falsifying to exaggerate how wonderful it is.

The sand may be golden coloured but the beaches are never golden and the use of golden beaches is to falsely convey a picture of how wonderful those beaches are (not). What does it matter if the beaches are golden or not? Is the subject the beaches or the giant redwoods? Instead the description of the beaches as golden is for style, to stir the reader’s emotions to ‘wow’.

A bluff is a cliff but it is more impressive to speak of bluffs than old fashioned cliffs.

The person who is only intend on conveying substance without style may just say, towering 1000 year old redwood trees stand on rocky cliffs overlooking California’s beaches.

Omissions as part as style:

Sometimes people omit words as part of their style in substance as is the practice that likely originated from America of saying “the stock exchange closed Monday night down 200 points”. Instead of saying ‘on’ Monday, it is curtly said “Monday” and fellow goats with false perception find it a charming new way of stating things and copy it.

What is the substance said?

The substance of ‘Along California’s redwood coast, 1,000-year-old trees command rocky bluffs that overlook golden beaches’ is ‘giant 1000 year old redwood trees grow in a dominant fashion on cliffs that overlook California’s beaches’.

It is ponderous, necessary for show to describe the coast as redwood, the tress as commanding the bluffs and it is irrelevant that the beaches are golden but is said to exaggerate how wonderful it is.

What do people understand?

When Jesus asked his disciples who were complaining about no bread whether they are yet without understanding, it implies that ordinary people in this world are without understanding, do not understand.

So what is understanding? Do people understand and to what extent do they understand?

Everything that can happen has an actual nature that is true or applies to everyone. Understanding is merely seeing the nature of things as they actually are which implies you can also see the nature of things as they aren’t or falsely or as you are deceived. If you do not see the nature of things as they actually are, you have been deceived and do not and cannot understand.

Only force (resident in the person’s mind) and forced enforced false reasoning can make a person not understand, true reason has no force to make someone not understand. True reason shorn of force always effortlessly sees and understands things as they truly are.

You actually need little or no genuine reason to survive even quite well in this world. All you need is to observe and copy without understanding what others around say and do and you will be quite because the fact that others do or say it and they exist must mean their behaviour and speech have survival value, those who manifest speech and behaviour that have poor survival value have been eliminated by natural selection.

ANYONE CAN COPY EVERYTHING AND THE STYLE OF WHAT HE WANTS TO SAY OR DO OR POSE FROM OTHERS AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUE REASON OR UNDERSTANDING, ALL YOU NEED IS GOOD PERCEPTION (SIGHT AND HEARING), GOOD MEMORIZING OR RECORDING AND THEN USING THE RECORDING AS TEMPLATE TO COPY WHAT YOU MEMORIZED AND PLAY BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN FROM A MENTAL JUKEBOX OF COPIED SPEECH AND ACTIONS.

In reality people do understand but there is great variation in the level or degree with which different people understand and there are things that ordinary people will understand and never understand. Thus some people have greater capacity for understanding something taught to him, he will quickly understand whilst another will not understand no matter how times you hammer it into him. There some things eg money, gain, food, sex that they will understand but some things eg life after death, heaven and hell, sin, accountability that they will never understand.

The vast majority of people in this world understand enough of words and meaning to falsify or distort in order to gain un-righteously but do not understand enough to tell the truth.

People understand meaning enough to formulate and obey mental rules or programs or instructions that then become the sources of everything they say or do but once recorded, these programs are rendered often without further understanding even sarcastically. You may have initially understood what you programmed yourself to say or do in certain situations but once the programs have been installed, you need no further understanding, you may have forgotten your understanding and thereafter you are just a mindless robot reeling out what you recorded yourself to say or do in certain situations.

THUS PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND, BUT THE LEVEL OR CAPACITY FOR UNDERSTANDING, WHAT (MATTERS OR TOPICS) THEY CAN AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND VARIES GREATLY BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS. AS THE BUDDHA SAID, THERE THOSE WHO ARE LIKE THE SPOON THAT THOUGH IN DAILY CONTACT WITH THE SOUP DOES NOT KNOW THE TASTE OF THE SOUP WHILST THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE LIKE THE TONGUE, STRAIGHTAWAY IT KNOWS THE TASTE OF THE SOUP. THERE THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE TRAPPED IN THIS WORLD WILL UNDERSTAND (SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS) AND THINGS LEFT ON THEIR OWN, THEY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND. FOR EXAMPLE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE STRETCHING THEIR SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS ALL THE TIME AND THEY ARE THE CAUSES OF THEIR STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, SADNESS, HURT AND FEARS, LEFT ON THEIR OWN THEY WILL NEVER SEE IT IS SO.

PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ENOUGH OF MEANING TO FALSIFY AND DISTORT BUT NOT ENOUGH TO TELL THE PLAIN ‘LET YOUR YES BE YES ONLY’ TRUTH.

THEY MAY UNDERSTAND ENOUGH OF PLANS AND RULES TO FORMULATE THEM OR BE INSTRUCTED BY OTHERS WHAT TO SAY OR DO AND THEN CARRY THEM OUT BUT ONCE THE RULES OR PROGRAMS ARE WELL RECORDED IN THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOXES, THEIR UNDERSTANDING IS SWITCHED OFF AND THEY BECOME MINDLESS ROBOTS DISHING OUT WHAT THEY SAY OR DO ON CUE ‘WITHOUT GIVING A DAMN’.

Emotional stylish people may not truly understand:

Because the truth is whatever and however they perceive (see, hear, smell, taste and touch), think, speak and do is according to plans or instructions and they cannot behave in way that is not regurgitated or without instructions, people even highly intellectual ones may be highly sophisticated robots or computers that do not have genuine understanding only programmed or ordered or instructed understanding apart from which they have no understanding, cannot understand.

Tell the computer to do what it is designed to do and it will do so efficiently but tell the computers to do things for which it has no programs it will not understand or cannot do anything or try to use a program that it has that is closest in fit.

Thus when you speak to a highly intellectual person and are charmed by his replies that indicates he understood what you said, what may be happening is not true understanding. He perceived or heard what you spoke to him, he may only have heard snapshots and these snapshots are relayed to his dictionary of what you want or mean which may not be what you want or mean or had in mind (often you are trying to get at something but the other person interprets another not because of your poor expression but his interpretation or understanding is perverted) and thence it is relayed to his mental jukebox of recorded possible responses to activate a correct response.

Thus a person trained in Freudian psychoanalysis will interpret and understand whatever you say to him in terms of id, ego, super-ego, sublimation or whatever else that theory says is true whereas another person may not even understand it as such.

WHEN I SPEAK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL, I CAN DISCERN THEY ARE RIGID OR INFLEXIBLE PEOPLE WITH FIRMLY OR FORCEFULLY HELD VIEWS AND LOGIC THAT I CAN SEE IS FAULTY. YOU MAY THINK HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU SAY, AT LEAST SIMPLE THINGS YOU SAY TO HIM, BUT IT MAY NOT BE GENUINE UNDERSTANDING, HIS UNDERSTANDING MAY BE COLOURED EG BY EMOTIONS OR WHAT HE UNDERSTANDS OF WHAT I SAID TO HIM MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I HAD IN MIND AND I CAN SEE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND IF MY UNDERSTANDING HAPPENS TO BE TRUE. I GET THE FEELING OR I SEE I AM SPEAKING TO A ROBOT.

SO LONG AS YOU ASK THE ROBOT RECEPTIONIST QUESTIONS THAT IT HAS BEEN PROGRAMMED TO ANSWER YOU MAY DECEIVE YOURSELF THAT IT UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU ASKED WHEN IT DID NOT UNDERSTAND AT ALL, IT MERELY DETECT QUESTIONS IT WAS PROGRAMMED TO ANSWER AND IT SUPPLIED ANSWERS IT WAS PROGRAMMED TO GIVE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING AT ALL THE QUESTIONS NOR THE ANSWERS. BUT AS SOON AS YOU ASK THE ROBOT QUESTIONS TO WHICH IT HAS NO ANSWER THEN YOU BEGIN TO SUSPECT IT NEVER UNDERSTANDS THE QUESTIONS ASKED NOR UNDERSTAND THE ANSWERS IT GIVES.

JUST AS A ROBOT NO MATTER HOW SOPHISTICATED NEVER UNDERSTANDS EVEN THE QUESTIONS IT WAS PROGRAMMED TO FIELD AND IT NEVER UNDERSTANDS THE ANSWERS IT IS PROGRAMMED TO GIVE, IT JUST DOES AS IT IS TOLD, IN THE SAME WAY, HUMANS WHOSE BEHAVIOR INDICATE THEY ARE ROBOTS MAY NOT TRULY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SAID TO THEM OR WHAT THEY SAY IN REPLY.

Proof that people don’t genuinely understand:

Understanding means you can see the truth of what is said to you.

If you can understand in one place you must understand everywhere else because understanding is actually very simple and it is only the force in the person’s mind that can make him not understand anything.

THUS IF YOU CAN TRULY UNDERSTAND ONE THING, YOU MUST TRULY UNDERSTAND ANYTHING, IT IS NO PROBLEM FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND ONE THING THEN IT INDICATES YOUR UNDERSTANDING ELSEWHERE MAY NOT BE TRUE UNDERSTANDING BUT FALSE OR FORCED DRIVEN UNDERSTANDING.

Thus if someone were to point out the truth (as it is) that there are constant forceful stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness in your speech and that of everyone here, then if you truly understand, then you will see and thus understand that there is constant forceful stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness of your speech.

Because people here, even those who think they are good and highly intelligent or understanding still continue to display stretching, changing speed and loudness even after I have demonstrated it to them, they either do not see and therefore understand or they are not masters of their stretching, changing speed and loudness but they are slaves of their mental forces that drive them to constantly stretch, change speed and loudness.

IF A PERSON TRULY UNDERSTANDS THEN HE SHOULD UNDERSTAND ONCE HE IS INFORMED, THE TRUTH THAT THERE ARE CONSTANT FORCEFUL STRETCHING OF HIS SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND HOW THESE LEAD TO STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, SADNESS AND HURT. IF HE STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND, CANNOT SEE IT IS SO HE IS ALSO WITHOUT (TRUE) UNDERSTANDING ANYWHERE ELSE. WHEN YOU BEGIN TO SEE THERE IS STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS THEN YOU BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND. IF YOU STILL CANNOT SEE THERE IS STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS, YOU STILL CANNOT UNDERSTAND AND THAT MAY BE WHY JESUS ASKED HIS DISCIPLES, ARE YOU STILL WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING?

Death is not natural:

People in this world think death is natural, they are blameless in the cause of each others’ death.

If they see and understand they will realize that death is never natural or the inevitable course of things but every being here is responsible for killing each other either directly or indirectly by incessantly mercilessly bombarding each other with audio visual output that have constant force prolonging, changing speed and strength of force that leads to stress, restlessness, distraction, sadness and hurt that then causes diseases and suicidal or homicidal tendencies.

Because beings are attached to this world, think they are not to blame for each others’ death, think they are good when they are harmfully hypocritically nice even to their dearest ones, they do not see and understand, not just here but everywhere else, whatever understanding they have may be make believe false or programmed or mechanical understanding.

tkl

What a mess:

If I understand correctly, of the five major investment banks in the US only two, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are still standing and even these two are desperately trying to sell themselves off before they are liquidated. The rest, Bears & Stearns, Lehman and Merrill Lynch have all fallen. Lehman is worthless to its shareholders after trading at $70 and Merrill Lynch sold off for $50 per share after trading at $100 at one stage.

In the process, the US broke its rules separating commercial and investment banks forbidding commercial banks like Bank of America from buying investment banks because the investment banks are insolvent and need commercial banks to bail them out and even these may not be as secure as it may appear to the public.

Apparently the US government was forced to bail out F Mae and Mac because they owe a lot of money to foreigners especially China who were forced to keep their money in the US to keep the currency low so that US could afford to continue buying from China. If F Mae & Mac defaulted, China could be seriously hit and start withdrawing its money that could cause the dollar to crash and so by bailing out these entities, the US hope to keep China happy.

THUS CHINA ITSELF IS CULPABLE, IF IT HAD WITHDRAWN ITS MONEY ONCE EARNED, IT WOULD DEPRIVE F MAE & MAC OF MONEY TO LEND. BY KEEPING ITS MONEY IN THE US IN THE NAME OF CONTINUING TO EXPORT TO THE US, IT HAS ENDANGERED ITSELF AND THE US WHO HAVE LIVED WAY BEYOND THEIR MEANS.

When the US Fed decided to let Lehman default, it was actually playing Russian roulette, taking a risk that the default may not have implications beyond their control. It seems contra party risks that ensue as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy may yet prove fatal to the financial systems. WHETHER THE US’S DECISION TO LET LEHMAN TO GO BANKRUPT IS WISE OR FOOLISH REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

THE MARKETS ARE CELEBRATING THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS COMING TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR TROUBLED BANKS’ CREDIT OBLIGATIONS BUT THE US AND OTHER WORLD GOVERNMENTS MAY HAVE FINITE RESOURCES AND THESE RESOURCES MAY NOT STAUNCH THE BLEEDING FROM THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL MESS.

Using other people’s money without permission:

The Feds are using people’s money to bail out all these troubled banks without asking the people’s permission.

Do not assume that there is no karma in this but there may be deadly karma.

If Bush or ‘Hank’ Paulson were to be asked to use his own money to bail out these banks there will be no way they will agree and so it is presumptuous and creating serious karma using people’s money as toilet paper to wipe others’ shit without permission.

Seeking Moby:

Quote headline: Seeking Moby

Moby Dick is the name of a legendary whale and seeking whales which is what the reporter is actually referring to is not the same as seeking Moby, to perceive seeking Moby as the same as seeking whales is advanced false perception (that will end in mad perception, you don’t believe).

‘Seeking Moby’ is said falsely to be falsely nice to whales not truly good or to be mischievous. It is designed to stir readers’ emotions to perhaps be affectionate towards whales or to be mischievous.

There is nothing intrinsically friendly to whales or to readers to refer to whales as ‘Moby’ and if you perceive you are being friendly or affectionate to whales by referring to them as ‘Moby’ you have false perception.

THUS TO REFER TO SEEKING WHALES AS SEEKING MOBY IS TO SPEAK FALSELY, TO FALSELY PERCEIVE ONE AS FRIENDLY OR AFFECTIONATE AND JUST PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ HERE IS FALSE AND HARMFUL, NOT TRUE AND GOOD, WHAT THEY THINK THEY UNDERSTAND IN MANY PLACES MAY BE FALSE UNDERSTANDING AND THEREFORE IN TRUTH THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR THEY SERIOUSLY OVERESTIMATE THEIR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND.

Anwar struggling to form govt, says Ku Li

Comment: Just because there are delays does not mean Anwar is struggling to form government for the reasons Razaleigh gave.

It is actually for a person’s own good that he should refrain from speaking unless he knows what he says is true (and even if it is true, the Buddha will not speak unless it will benefit others).

Not only will there be painful karma for Razaleigh if what he says misleads others or is false (he told a lie) but without knowing what he said is true and saying it, he is cultivating false perception in himself that what he did not know as true is true and that will end in madness for him.

UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, YOU MUST NOT SAY OR BELIEVE IT IS TRUE BECAUSE YOU ARE COURTING MAD PERCEPTION THAT WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW BUT WHAT YOU ONLY BELIEVE OR SUSPECT IS TRUE. EVEN TO THINK OF THINGS YOU SPECULATE AS TRUE IS COURTING MADNESS. IF YOU PUBLICLY SAY WHAT YOU DID NOT SEE OR KNOW AS TRUE AND IT TURNS OUT FALSE, YOU ARE FURTHERING COURTING KARMA FOR DECEIVING OTHERS. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ARE TENGKU RAZALEIGH OR ANWAR, IF YOU MISLEAD OTHERS YOU HAVE KARMA AND WILL GO MAD FOR BELIEVING WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE.

KUALA LUMPUR: Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has difficulties in taking over the Federal Government, Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said.

“I think it is very hard for Anwar to form a government because DAP is their good friend during the elections but when it comes to policies and ideologies, I don’t think Anwar can make it.

“In the long run, how can he run Malaysia with two different ideologies and policies?” he said at a dialogue with bloggers at his residence here yesterday.

The Umno veteran said Anwar who had been appointed Parliamentary Opposition Leader had to substantiate his claim that Pakatan Rakyat had a majority to form the government and that the Barisan Nasional government had lost its majority.

“When he (Anwar) claimed about the number (of MPs joining Pakatan Rakyat), he should have proven it. But he failed to do so.

“He’s good at making offers that are populist to those who believe him,” said Tengku Razaleigh, who has offered to contest the Umno presidency in December. - Bernama

What men don’t get about women:

There are many who are attracted by such headlines and perceive there is something in it to read that they may learn about when it is all deluded.

There are many women with many different opinions what men don’t get about women but they are all OBJECTIVELY false or deluded. They want certain things from men, want men to treat them in certain ways but they are all deluded.

In the same way, men perceive women in certain ways that differ in different men and they treat women in certain ways that women object, even become irate about. It is true that men’s perceptions and how they treat women are false and deluded but both men and the women who want men to perceive and treat them in different ways are deluded, they believe what is false is true and are barking up the wrong tree.

WHAT WOMEN ARE ESSENTIALLY DOING WHEN THEY SPEAK ABOUT WHAT MEN DON'T GET ABOUT WOMEN IS TO EXPRESS THEIR RESENTMENT AT THE WAY MEN TREAT OR PERCEIVE WOMEN AND THAT RESENTMENT IS NOT ABOUT REASON BUT DISLIKE OR THE REPULSIVE STIRRING OF THEIR MENTAL FORCES THAT IS BLIND AND NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON AND SO WHAT THEY SAY DRIVEN BY THEIR RESENTMENT (AKA DISLIKE) IS NOT GUIDED BY TRUE REASON BUT DRIVEN OUT OF BLIND FORCE OR REPULSION.

Why the worst is yet to come:

You see the turmoil on Wall Street with all the five big investment banks disappearing, changed to commercial banks, sold off or become bankrupt.

Shares rise 500 points on news of US 700 billion bailout, only to fall again on doubts.

The worst is yet to come because derivatives are at the heart of the problem and it is difficult and time consuming to trace the tangled web of liabilities. Many insurance companies, pension and mutual funds have bought such derivatives and they may not have the money to pay for the losses or they do not yet realize the heavy losses due them that have not been worked out because derivatives are devious, mix up all sorts of toxic and safe debts, chop them up to be parcelled off to different buyers.

Apparently it will take some time who (banks, funds, individuals) will sustain what losses as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

JUST LIKE A JIGSAW PUZZLE THAT HAS BEEN SCRAMBLED AND PIECES SOLD OFF TO MANY UNSUSPECTING BANKS AND FUNDS, IT WILL TAKE MUCH TIME AND EVEN INGENUITY TO WORK OUT WHO OWNS WHAT PIECES OF THE PUZZLE AND HOW MUCH THEY ARE LIABLE. THERE ARE PLAYERS WHO NEVER EXPECTED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR DEFAULTS, THEY THINK THEY MERELY BOUGHT A DERIVATIVE THAT WAS SAFE AND GIVE THEM A STEADY INTEREST INCOME.

Why there will be no quick recovery:

Because the past extended boom was not based on fundamentals but abusive or reckless lending or credit practices, there is nothing to return to, if you return to the abuses of the past, it will end in the same result as today, namely a big mess. The reason why we are in a mess is because we have run out of fuel for the party and thus there will be no going back to the past.

Without the abusive practices of the past, even if recovered from the massive debts of the present, the economy will be more sedate, credit will much harder to get for a very long time until people forget and so things will never be the same again and there will be a prolonged lean even poverty stricken period.

THE EXTENDED GLOBAL BOOM WAS NOT BUILT ON FUNDAMENTALS BUT ABUSIVE CREDIT EG CHINA & ARAB OIL NATIONS EXPORTING TO AMERICA FOR FREE BY KEEPING THE MONEY THEY EARNED IN AMERICA TO USE. WITHOUT REVERTING TO THE ABUSES OR EXCESSES OF THE PAST, THE WORLD ECONOMY MUST SETTLE INTO A MUCH MORE SEDATE OR REALITY BASED LEVEL. FURTHER, A LOT OF HUGE DEBTS HAVE TO BE DIGESTED AND THESE WILL FURTHER CRIMP THE ECONOMY.

IT IS NOT AS IF THE WORLD IS A FIT YOUNG MAN WHO CAUGHT A FLU AND WILL RECOVER QUICKLY BUT THE WORLD IS LIKE AN ALCOHOLIC WHO HAS NOW FALLEN SICK WITH ALCOHOLIC LIVER AND BRAIN DAMAGE AND BEING HANDICAPPED NOW, CANNOT REVERT TO THE ‘GOOD OLD DAYS’.

Fat hope:

Those who entertain a swift and efficient recovery from this crisis are deluded. Just as they never predicted this crisis (when I said all along mankind was going for broke, financially and environmentally), they think they can predict the outcome of the present crisis.

Not only has the world built great indigestible debts not on productive pursuits but useless, wasteful speculation (buying houses and shares that they in truth cannot afford), they think they are wealthy and spent according to that wealth because the shares they own on paper tell them they are wealthy when they can be wiped out in an instance (Merrill Lynch from $100 to $50 per share), they spent money that is not theirs (China keeping its exports earnings in US for the US continued use).

If you look at a lot of Malaysian blue chips they may not be that blue but formerly inefficient government entities like TNB, Telekom. Many are making money because of unfair monopolies eg PLUS, UEM, YTL & Maxis.

THE WORLD IS FACING A DEBT CRISIS BUILT NOT ON PRODUCTIVE PURSUITS BUT EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION ON CREDIT, SPECULATION IN THE SHARE AND PROPERTY MARKETS, CHINA AND EXPORTERS EXPORTING FOR FREE TO THE US BY KEEPING THEIR MONEY THERE AFTER BEING PAID. NOW THESE MOUNTAINOUS DEBTS MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY CLEARED WITHOUT THE ABUSIVE LENDING PRACTICES OF THE PAST AVAILABLE, A LOT OF THE ASSETS MAY BE WAY OVERVALUED SO THE MONEY LOST FOR GOOD BY THOSE WHO WERE SUCKERED TO BUY. MANY OF THE COMPANIES EVEN LIKE FORD, GM MAY BE OVERRATED (FORD & GM OWN FINANCE COMPANIES THAT BORROW MONEY TO FINANCE CAR BUYERS BUYING THEIR CARS) AND THUS WHEN ASKED TO TRULY PERFORM IN TRYING TIMES, MAY COLLAPSE.

And the shares will crash too:

Even today shares are richly priced, their PE ratios are higher than in the past to reflect optimism.

Now with the economy turning down, profits will decline even for ‘solid’ companies and so readjustments to a more realistic PE ratio plus declining profits will see share prices a pale shadow of what it is and that will make a lot of people less wealthy than they think they are.

 

Methane released in the Arctic could raise global temperatures

By Jessica Salter

Last Updated: 6:01am BST 23/09/2008

 

Millions of tons of methane stored beneath the Arctic seabed is bubbling up to the surface and being released into the atmosphere as the region warms up and the ice retreats, scientists have said. The gas is said to be 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and scientists have warned that it could accelerate global warming. It is usually locked in a deep freeze below the sea, but as the ice melts on the surface, small holes, or “chimneys”, appear and the gas escapes. advertisement Orjan Gustafsson, of Stockholm University in Sweden, who is onboard the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi, said: “Yesterday for the first time we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface.” He told The Independent that the team were documenting the “methane chimneys” using an echo sounder and seismic instruments. Scientists believe that underground stores of methane have in the past been responsible for rapid rises in global temperatures, changes in the climate and even extinction of species. They think that the amount of methane being released from the area of the Arctic along the Siberian continental shelf could equal the emissions from the rest of the world’s oceans put together. The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008 are being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union. The Arctic region has risen in temperature by 39.2F (4C) over recent decades according to scientists.

Badawi should not think Anwar does not have the names:

Quote: “I don’t think he has the names. If he does, I don’t think he would wait to inform the people.

Unless Badawi knows Anwar does not have the names he should not speak. He is speculating or taking a bet (that is the way to doubt and uncertainty) whilst also unrighteously doubting Anwar which is sinful.

THUS UNLESS BADAWI KNOWS FOR CERTAIN ANWAR DOES NOT HAVE THE NAMES HE SHOULD NOT SAY SO, HE AND THOSE ON THE SIDELINES DO NOT REALIZE HE IS CONDITIONING HIMSELF TO FALSITY, DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY THAT WILL BE TORMENTING. IT IS NOT FOR ANYONE ELSE’S SAKE BUT FOR HIS OWN SAKE THAT HE SHOULD NOT THINK ANWAR HAS THE NAMES.

What Badawi said below will have deadly and everlasting painful consequences he does not realize. He is slandering Anwar driven by emotion to lash out perhaps his ego hurt and he is at risk of being dismissed. What he says is derogatory or derisive and that is never the way to heaven but even another eternity of weeping and gnashing the teeth.

Badawi: "This is a waste of our time. It is a game of political lies by Anwar Ibrahim and the people are choosing to believe him," Abdullah told a press conference.

"He has no substance but the people will continue to be fascinated by him."

"Why should I be pressured? (it is denial of reality that will end in insanity, what he is saying is that others are mad to imagine he might be pressured, thus you should have your head examined if you think he is pressured) It is mere dreams. If at all it is true, (Anwar) would have announced it by now. The whole world would have known," he said.

"Do you think he would ask for a meeting with me to discuss a transition? He would storm into my room with hundreds behind him, shouting victory. This is Anwar's style."

Badawi’s absurd logic:

Badawi says the reason he does not think Anwar has the names is because otherwise Anwar would have waved the names to the public.

It is dangerous false logic to think that just because Anwar has not revealed the names to the public he does not have the names. What kind of PM is this running the nation’s affairs who makes such dangerous assumptions based on absurd logic?

IT IS A FOOL’S LOGIC TO THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE ANWAR HAS NOT PUBLICLY REVEALED THEIR MPS CROSSING OVER HE DOES NOT HAVE THE NAMES. IT INDICATES THE PRIME MINISTER IS A POOR LOGICIAN.

Never Too young:

Never too young: Nur Aliah Rosmah Esam, 3, helping out at her mother’s shop in Chow Kit.

This is a false statement aimed to be nice not true.

You can be too young eg a baby to help out your mother and so the statement is made falsely to exaggerate.

Anwar may be mad or gullible not bad as Badawi Depicts:

In saying Anwar is telling lies, a game of political lies & does not have the numbers, Badawi is depicting Anwar as bad, wants you to believe Anwar is bad.

But Anwar cannot be bad, he is either mad or gullible.

Unless Anwar is mad, he will be making a fool of himself in sending a letter to Badawi, wanting to meet him, calling an emergency session of parliament because soon it will be found out he will be mad because no one in BN is supporting him.

Anwar does not appear and speak like a mad person, a person with a loose screw in his head so that is not possible. The other possibility is that Anwar is gullible, he has been taken for a ride by BN MPs who will play him out and make a fool of him when the crunch comes.

THUS A REASONABLE MAN CAN ACCUSE ANWAR OF BEING MAD, CONCOCTING A SCHEME THAT IS FAR FETCHED OR HE IS GULLIBLE, BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE BY BN MPS BUT IT IS BIZARRE LOGIC TO ACCUSE ANWAR OF BEING BAD. EVEN IF ANWAR IS BAD, HE WILL MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF AND RISK BEING A LAUGHING STOCK IF HE TURNED OUT TO BE LIKE THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF.

THE REASON BADAWI IMPLIES ANWAR IS BAD IS BECAUSE HE WANTS TO DENIGRATE ANWAR, HE DOES NOT REALIZE THIS ACCUSATION DOES NOT STICK HERE, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF ANWAR BEING BAD BUT MAD OR GULLIBLE IF HIS SCHEME TO TAKE OVER IS WITHOUT BASIS. BECAUSE ANWAR DOES NOT LOOK AND SPEAK LIKE A MAD PERSON, HE CAN ONLY BE GULLIBLE NOT BAD AS BADAWI WANTS TO SELL TO YOU.

BECAUSE BADAWI’S LOGIC AND PERCEPTION IN THINKING ANWAR IS BAD IS FALSE, HE IS HEADED FOR MADNESS HE DOES NOT REALIZE.

Badawi is a man of muddled thinking:

Far from alone, there are many like Badawi who does not know he has muddled not clear thinking.

Muddled thinking according to the Buddha is the way to woe not safety and heaven.

If Anwar is not gullible, taken for a ride by BN MPs, he must be mad, out of his mind to go to such lengths to arrange a peaceful orderly transfer of government because if it is a charade, it will soon be found out by the cold light of reality and thence Anwar would be a laughing stock.

THUS IT IS NEVER BADNESS THAT IS THE DRIVE FOR ANWAR’S LATEST VENTURE, EVEN IF ANWAR IS BAD, IT IS NOT HIS BADNESS THAT IS AN ISSUE HERE BUT IF ANWAR TRULY DID NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS, HE MUST BE HALLUCINATING IN DANGER OF MAKING A FOOL OF HIMSELF OR HE HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR A RIDE BY BN MPS.

“I don’t think he has the names. If he does, I don’t think he would wait to inform the people” is the way Badawi usually speaks and reasons or argues. I am reasonably familiar with his utterance and I would say that is typically how he speaks, argues and attacks others. This way of speaking or arguing is rehashed, by rote and therefore he is a robot.

Syed Hamid: RPK’s articles ridiculed Islam:

Either Syed Hamid is a fool who does not know what he is talking about (that will end in insanity) or he is slandering RPK.

RPK never ridiculed Islam but he ridiculed the hypocrites who practice Islam in Malaysia.

THUS SYED HAMID IS EITHER GUILTY OF SPEAKING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT HE SPEAKS ABOUT OR HE IS MALICIOUSLY SLANDERING RPK THAT CAN SEND HIM EVEN TO HELL.

MMLee: China not a new power but old power revived:

There are many who share his view because they are partisan and involved in this world.

What he said is actually of little worth and splitting hairs.

It is because he is attached to this world (and will return here again and again to suffer that he said so) that he is attracted to highlight that China is an old power whose star is ascending.

He may be deluded because rather than China’s star ascending, the economic and environmental turmoil will sweep China away just as it may be sweeping the US away.

SUPPOSE THE WORLD INCLUDING CHINA IS HEADING TO A PRECIPICE AND YOU THINK IT IS THE US’ STAR DECLINING AND CHINA’S STAR RISING THEN THAT IS DELUSION THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN.

What does it matter?

What does it matter if China is a new power or old power revived? Does it increases or decreases China’s power by one iota whether it is a new or revived power?

The difference is emotional or a matter of style. If you are siding with China, have self identity views (that the Buddha said is one of three lower fetters to future woe), then it matters because a revived power means China has history, has glory that ‘transcends’ the present and extend even to the distant past and you are proud of it.

WHETHER CHINA IS A NEW OR REVIVED POWER MATTERS NOT ONE IOTA IN TERMS OF ITS REAL OR IMAGINED PRESENT POWER BUT IT MATTERS IN TERMS OF EMOTION, SPECIFICALLY THE STIRRING OF PRIDE THAT CHINA’S POWER IS NOT JUST EMERGING AT THE PRESENT BUT EXTENDS INTO THE DISTANT PAST. AS A RESULT OF SUCH ATTACHMENT AND SELF IDENTITY, YOU WILL BE DETAINED TO RETURN TO THIS WORLD, NEVER TO ENJOY YOURSELF BUT TO SUFFER, EVEN WEEP AND GNASH YOUR TEETH.

TARP may not save the world:

Congress is balking at approving the Feds 700 billion dollar bailout plan and with some justifications. As the Economist says below, that plan will not necessarily save the world from financial Armageddon.

Economists: One fear is that Mr Paulson’s troubled asset relief programme (TARP) will be blocked on Capitol Hill. That is possibly overdone: the risk of being blamed for plunging the world’s greatest economy into financial ruin is a good incentive for all sides to reach a compromise. Of more concern is that the plan, if it were approved, would neither shore up the financial system nor save the American economy. On that point there is room for argument, and hence for more uncertainty in the markets.

Soros says Paulson’s making mistakes and vested:

On a brief perusal, Soros seems to say some of Paulson’s recent actions have been ill thought and could have been fatal and his desperate drive to blanket bailout the financial system is incorrect.

What Paulson proposed may not save the markets but it may be beneficial to the cronies at the expense of the public.

The fate of the world's finances is not in the hands of wise people but emotional, vested fools. From what he said, Paulson has serious false logic, what do you expect from people who consort with the Bush crowd?

Paulson Cannot be Allowed to Have a Blank Check
By George Soros

Hank Paulson's $700bn rescue package has run into difficulty on Capitol Hill. Rightly so: it was ill-conceived. Congress would be abdicating its responsibility if it gave the Treasury secretary a blank cheque. The bill submitted to Congress even had language in it that would exempt the secretary's decisions from review by any court or administrative agency - the ultimate fulfillment of the Bush administration's dream of a unitary executive.

Mr Paulson's record does not inspire the confidence necessary to give him discretion over $700bn. His actions last week brought on the crisis that makes rescue necessary. On Monday he allowed Lehman Brothers to fail and refused to make government funds available to save AIG. By Tuesday he had to reverse himself and provide an $85bn loan to AIG on punitive terms.

The demise of Lehman disrupted the commercial paper market. A large money market fund "broke the buck" and investment banks that relied on the commercial paper market had difficulty financing their operations. By Thursday a run on money market funds was in full swing and we came as close to a meltdown as at any time since the 1930s. Mr Paulson reversed again and proposed a systemic rescue.

Mr Paulson had got a blank cheque from Congress once before. That was to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His solution landed the housing market in the worst of all worlds: their managements knew that if the blank cheques were filled out they would lose their jobs, so they retrenched and made mortgages more expensive and less available. Within a few weeks the market forced Mr Paulson's hand and he had to take them over.

Mr Paulson's proposal to purchase distressed mortgage-related securities poses a classic problem of asymmetric information. The securities are hard to value but the sellers know more about them than the buyer: in any auction process the Treasury would end up with the dregs. The proposal is also rife with latent conflict of interest issues. Unless the Treasury overpays for the securities, the scheme would not bring relief. But if the scheme is used to bail out insolvent banks, what will the taxpayers get in return?

Barack Obama has outlined four conditions that ought to be imposed: an upside for the taxpayers as well as a downside; a bipartisan board to oversee the process; help for the homeowners as well as the holders of the mortgages; and some limits on the compensation of those who benefit from taxpayers' money. These are the right principles. They could be applied more effectively by capitalising the institutions that are burdened by distressed securities directly rather than by relieving them of the distressed securities.

The injection of government funds would be much less problematic if it were applied to the equity rather than the balance sheet. $700bn in preferred stock with warrants may be sufficient to make up the hole created by the bursting of the housing bubble. By contrast, the addition of $700bn on the demand side of an $11,000 market may not be sufficient to arrest the decline of housing prices.
Something also needs to be done on the supply side. To prevent housing prices from overshooting on the downside, the number of foreclosures has to be kept to a minimum. The terms of mortgages need to be adjusted to the homeowners' ability to pay.

The rescue package leaves this task undone. Making the necessary modifications is a delicate task rendered more difficult by the fact that many mortgages have been sliced up and repackaged in the form of collateralised debt obligations. The holders of the various slices have conflicting interests. It would take too long to work out the conflicts to include a mortgage modification scheme in the rescue package. The package can, however, prepare the ground by modifying bankruptcy law as it relates to principal residences.

Now that the crisis has been unleashed a large-scale rescue package is probably indispensable to bring it under control. Rebuilding the depleted balance sheets of the banking system is the right way to go. Not every bank deserves to be saved, but the experts at the Federal Reserve, with proper supervision, can be counted on to make the right judgments. Managements that are reluctant to accept the consequences of past mistakes could be penalised by depriving them of the Fed's credit facilities. Making government funds available should also encourage the private sector to participate in recapitalising the banking sector and bringing the financial crisis to a close.

Always using force:

Beings in this world, even insects and worms are always using force that is unnecessary to do or vocalize the things they do.

In what sense are they all using force that is unnecessary to fabricate their activities in sound and motion?

Even when it is possible to say or do something without using force to prolong the motion (curved motion or motion that is rotational around an axis that is deemed stylish is prolonged motion compared to straight motion without rotation around its axis) or sound, accelerate or decelerate in speed and strength of force.

Whether a person is constantly using force to prolong, change speed and strength of force is objective never subjective, it is not for the person to deny or me to accuse you wrongly of doing so because sounds and motions with accompanying force prolonging, changing speed and loudness is very distinct, can never be mistaken for sounds and motions without force prolonging, changing speed and loudness that is for show, to impress, please, intimidate and dominate others.

AND IT IS THIS CONSTANT USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH THAT CAN BE TRANSMITTED IN FULL FIDELITY TO OTHERS THAT IS THE CAUSE OF THAT PERSON’S INSOLUBLE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION (INABILITY TO CONCENTRATE), SADNESS (MAD PROLONGING LEADS TO SADNESS) AND HURT (WITHOUT THE PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE ACCELERATING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH UNCONTROLLABLY AS A RESULT OF HEARING OR SEEING SOMETHING, THE PERSON CANNOT EXPERIENCE HURT. A PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE CAN ACCELERATE IN SPEED AND STRENGTH UNCONTROLLABLY ONLY BECAUSE OF FREQUENT PRACTICE THAT MAKES IT SLICK OR AUTOMATIC).

AND IT IS THIS CONSTANT BOMBARDMENT OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, SADNESS AND HURT GENERATED BY THE UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE IN SELF AND OTHERS THAT LEAD TO DISEASE AND ULTIMATELY KILL THE PERSON EITHER INDIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY THROUGH SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE.

WITH THE CESSATION OF ALL USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE ALL THIS MASS OF SUFFERING CEASES PERMANENTLY EFFORTLESSLY AND THE BEING HAS FOUND TRUE FINAL SECURE PEACE.

IF YOU THINK YOU DON’T STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED OR LOUDNESS AND YET YOU SUFFER FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, LET ME SHOW HOW YOU CONSTANTLY DO SO.

THERE IS NO TRUTH MORE FUNDAMENTAL OR CRUCIAL THAN WHAT I HAVE SAID THAT NO ONE HAS SAID IN THE PAST AND NO ONE TODAY WILL SAY EVEN WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO.

I KNOW WHAT I SAY IS TRUE BECAUSE BY STOPPING ALL STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS I EXPERIENCE AN EFFORTLESS FREEDOM FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AND BY DELIBERATELY STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS I CAN SENSE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION WELLING UP RAPIDLY.

BECAUSE WHAT I SAY IS FUNDAMENTAL, APPLIES TO EVERYONE AND IS FOR THEIR BENEFIT, WHOEVER IS THE COUNSELOR JESUS DESCRIBED MUST ALSO SAY THIS. IF I HAVE SAID IT, HE CANNOT SAY IT AGAIN TO TEACH YOU BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY DONE SO.

Haha, it’s a Taiwanese leisure farm

 

Posted by kasee

Thursday, 11 September 2008 21:42

This morning I was wondering what our BN MPs were up to in their “agricultural study tour” of Taiwan, so I did some googling. The first clue was in theSun: (he is speaking in a way to generate suspense by saying ‘first clue’ as if it is an act of great sleuth, making a mountain out of molehill)   The entourage’s itinerary includes a tour of the Shangrila Leisure Farm in Yilan county, which coincidentally (there is no need to say ‘coincident’ and therefore it is practicing controlled madness to say what is unnecessary) was hit by a magnitude 6.1 quake at 3.43pm (same time in Malaysia) on Tuesday.   The Malaysian delegation was welcomed by representatives from Taiwan’s foreign ministry as well as the manager of Malaysian Friendship and Trade Centre in Taipei. A-ha, a leisure farm reportedly among the stops; how interesting. So I looked up the Shangrila Leisure Farm (photo credit: taiwan-farming.org) in Yilan county and this is how it is described in two different websites:

 

Comment: ‘Haha’ & ‘A-ha’ are meaningless and are used to stir the reader’s emotion as if he has stumbled onto something ‘interesting’ or stirs his mental force attractively. Why should his and your mental force be stirred attractively by what he disclosed when it leads to stress, restlessness and distraction?

He is trying to be funny or mischievous using the information to attack the BN ‘in a friendly way’ that is delusion.

 

It is a reflection of the harebrained or idiocy or irresponsibility of the BN leaders that they would think of let alone carry out the ploy of bribing the MPs to leave the country for the duration of the ‘dreaded’ date. If MPS are going to defect, this is only postponing the inevitable without regard to pouring the nation’s money down the drain.

 

Sabah PKR Files ACA Report On Allegation Of BN MPs To Taiwan Receiving RM50,000

 

Posted by Super Admin

Friday, 12 September 2008 10:31

(Bernama) -- The Sabah Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) lodged a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) today over the allegation that each of the Barisan Nasional (BN) members of Parliament who joined the study trip to Taiwan had received RM50,000. Party Youth chief Abdul Razak Jamil filed the report at the state ACA office at 3.05pm. "Although BNBBC (Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club) deputy chairman Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin has denied the allegation, we don't know the truth, so the ACA should investigate," he told reporters after lodging the report. He made the report based on Sarawak People's Party (SAPP) president Datuk Yong Teck Lee's statement in the local press on Tuesday that the MPs who joined the trip were given RM50,000 each. The two SAPP MPs, Datuk Eric Majimbun and Datuk Dr Chua Soon Bui, did not go on the trip. The group left for Taiwan on Monday to study agricultural projects there and are scheduled to return home next Wednesday.

Dr M will cause chaos in BN, says Nik Aziz

The Pakatan Rakyat will benefit significantly if Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is allowed to rejoin Umno as he will cause chaos within Barisan Nasional, says Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

Comment: Anyone who sees nothing in benefiting from the misery or disarray of others has strict limits to how wise or discerning he is.

For Nik Aziz to speak of his party benefiting from an event is to reflect not just a calculating vested motive but to see nothing wrong and thus welcome an act of detriment by his adversaries.

A TRULY GOOD MAN WILL NOT WISH TO GAIN FROM OTHERS’ MISERY. THUS IT REFLECTS THAT MANKIND’S TOP CLERICS ARE ALL DELUDED.

Don’t even think of it:

A wise person will not even think of benefiting from the misfortune or wrong move of another, that is unrighteous gain but he will only pay attention to what he can do FAIRLY that is of benefit to himself, what his enemies do is none of his business.

That Dr M will stir trouble that will be to the advantage of PKR may not happen and may be a figment of his imagination and so he is falsifying, using force to condition himself to fantasy. Even if his fantasy turns out true, it will encourage him to fantasize more that will end in delusion and madness.

RPK in jail:

 

Raja Petra has been arrested and put in jail under ISA.

If he has done little wrong and he is a threat to the ruling elite rather than the nation, then it is an act with grave karma for Badawi and the rest who are responsible to arrest the man, charge him and put him behind bars.

It is likely Badawi severely if not totally underestimate the deadly painful karma due to him in the future, in future lives for the unjust act of putting another being in suffering just to save his own skin and that of his cronies.

IT IS BECAUSE BADAWI AND THOSE IN THE SAME SHOES THAT INCLUDE MANY WHO THINK THEY ARE GOOD CANNOT SEE THE TERRIBLE EXTENDED SUFFERING THEY ARE SETTING THEMSELVES UP WITH THEIR ACTIONS THAT THEY ARE SO GUNG HO.

JESUS SAID YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD YOU SAY, WHAT MORE PUTTING ANOTHER TO JAIL TO PROTECT YOUR OWN SKIN.

Lipstick on a pig:

Barack Obama said "that you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig" about Sarah Palin.

The statement is never guided by reason but driven by emotion to attack.

Attacking someone is never guided by reason but driven by force. Politicians are primed to attack others, it is their credo to attack others, opposing politicians for self gain such that it is irresistible to attack others. Thus in this situation given the chance to do so again, away from the heat of the moment Obama might think it may be wiser to resist comparing Palin to a pig.

Every time you attack a person verbally, because there is violent force accompanying no matter how you try to disguise by speaking ‘cooly’, you are conditioning yourself to attack others such one day you will lose control and go rabid, madly attacking others inappropriate and even paying with your own life.

A person who attacks others verbally, no matter how he denies is not going anywhere near heaven and that means an eternity of weeping and gnashing of the teeth.

Obama, McCain & Sarah Palin are not good people but calculating tough goats. 

Attacking is always rote not specific:

Attacking is always conditioned, regurgitated so the attacking person is a robot of attacking others.

You may have seen women who have sharp tongues good at attacking others but when they get into cat fights they are hopeless at defending themselves let alone attacking with their hands because although they are very used to attacking others with their tongue they have not programmed themselves to attack others with their hands.

Conversely there are others who are very good at attacking others with their fists but not very good with words.

THUS ATTACKING OTHERS BE IT WITH WORDS, HANDS, WEAPONS (GUNS, CARS) OR LEGS IS CONDITIONING AND THE PERSON IS MERELY REHASHING WHAT HE HAS RECORDED AND KEEPS RECORDING OR HONING UNTIL HE IS A GOOD ROBOT OF ATTACKING IN HIS PARTICULAR WAY BUT INCOMPETENT IN OTHER WAYS HE HAS NOT PROGRAMMED HIMSELF.

Must always record first:

People who think they are spontaneous specific to the occasion performers are kidding themselves.

Not only do they never speak or do something fresh, live specifically composed for the occasion but they cannot do it, have never done it and even as they learn new behaviour they must first record it and then play it back from recording before they can do or say something.

Just as a three head cassette deck can record with the recording head and playback with the separate playback head whilst recording, when people learn new speech or actions, they are simultaneously recording and playing back what they record.

THE ONLY WAY STYLISH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE CAN SPEAK OR DO SOMETHING IS BY REHASH BASED ON INSTRUCTIONS OR PROGRAMS IN THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOXES, THEY CANNOT PERFORM WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS, THERE IS GREAT AVERSION EVEN REPULSION TO DO OTHERWISE AND SO WHEN THEY LEARN SOMETHING NEW EG WHEN BEING TAUGHT HOW TO DRIVE OR SPEAK TO PATIENTS AS DOCTORS, THEY PAINSTAKINGLY, FALTERINGLY SIMULTANEOUSLY RECORD AND PLAYBACK FROM THE RECORDING WHEN THEY FIRST DO IT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEY ANXIOUSLY TRY TO RECALL WHAT THEY RECORDED IN ORDER TO REPEAT AS MIRROR LIKE AS POSSIBLE WHAT THEY JUST RECORDED.

THUS WHEN YOU EDUCATE A PATIENT ON SOMETHING QUITE SIMPLE YOU MUST EVEN SHOUT AND REPEAT SO THAT IT WILL BE HAMMERED OR RECORDED INTO THEIR ‘DUMBSKULLS’. A PERSON OF GENUINE REASON IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU SAID ONCE SOFTLY WITHOUT ADDED FORCE.

Must always ask the parrot to do it:

Just as a company director who has never done anything by himself but always instructs his secretary to do so on his behalf soon becomes incapable and too lazy to do so himself but always automatically delegate it to his secretary, he does not know any other way of doing so even when it is possible for him to personally do or say it without going through his secretary, even so there is a parrot in the mind of stylish emotional people and it is this parrot that is always responsible for whatever that person say or does, he never does so personally bypassing the mental parrot but always assign his parrot to do so.

IF THE SECRETARY OR MENTAL PARROT IS YOU, THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO CALL HER SECRETARY OR PARROT. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OR PARROT IS NOT YOU AND THERE IS A DANGER OF ASSIGNING OTHERS TO DO YOUR DONKEY WORK, THEY MAY GO BESERK OR GO ON STRIKE, IF YOU ARE A LAZY VOYEUR AND DISK JOCKEY OR DIRECTOR, YOU ARE DICING WITH FUTURE INSANITY.

Insanity or partiality of Reporter’s ISA arrest:

The fact that the UMNO operative was defiant in the aftermath indicates the report was not inaccurate but he was truly a racist whose views aired publicly could incite both the Malays and Chinese and yet he was not arrested under ISA but the reporter who reported what he said was.

This reflects double standards in this country, the law is used to persecute and applied selectively.

IT REFLECTS ADVANCED FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE THAT THE REPORTER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ISA ARREST JUST FOR REPORTING WHAT ANOTHER SAID AND WHATEVER CREDIBILITY THEY HAVE HAS NOW DISAPPEARED.

Tkl

Anwar jailed with expired law:

Anwar was jailed for 5 or 6 years in 1998 for abusing his powers to suppress allegations of sodomy.

As RPK pointed out in his recent blog (and Anwar’s lawyers brought to attention during his trial), the law with which Anwar was charged had been repealed by parliament some time ago but because of dereliction of duty it was left unsigned. Nevertheless they insisted on charging Anwar using this expired law and for ‘good measure’ his sentence did not start with his arrest but six months later.

ULTIMATELY IT IS DR M WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS UNJUST PROSECUTION IN WHICH IT DID NOT MATTER IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF HOMOSEXUALITY WAS FALSE, BUT ANWAR WAS CONVICTED OF ABUSE OF POWER TO SUPPRESS THOSE ALLEGATIONS. DR M AND THOSE WHO HELPED SUCH INJUSTICE DO NOT REALIZE BUT HORRENDOUS KARMA IN PAIN AWAITS THEM AFTER THEY HAVE ‘ENJOYED THEMSELVES NOW’.

Phantom UMNO members:

UMNO boasts it has millions of members but it may be mostly phantom members.

According to RPK, in order to quell dissent the ruling elite decreed that no UMNO branch meeting can go ahead without a quorum of 25 members present.

This is a dastardly hypocritical decree aimed at stifling opposition because the presence of numerous phantom members meant that even if many members meet, they fail to make the quorum.

Apparently UMNO branch meetings recently had been raucous even to the point of chair and acid throwing but because of the stipulation that 25% of members must attend and many of the members are phantom, the branches could not organize meetings whose resolutions are binding.

IF WHAT IS SAID IS TRUE, UMNO LEADERS ARE CYNICAL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAY. OUTWARDLY THE ENCOURAGE DISSENT BUT THEY STIPULATING 25% QUORUM AND KNOWING IT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, THEIR APPROVALS ARE EMPTY.

Being jailed is no fun:

Being jailed is no fun and if you think it is wait until your turn comes to be locked up even for life.

Thus if the law you want to jail someone with is has been repealed by parliament but as a result of dereliction it has not been enacted, then the man with a sense of fair play with cease prosecution of someone using a law that parliament has repealed.

In the same way, the ISA is a draconian law whereby someone is locked up without trial and was designed to fight communist insurgency not everyday use and so it behoves on the wise ruler to only use it where absolutely necessary, not at the drop of the hat or to intimidate opposition.

If you know that many members of UMNO exists only as phantom and it is impossible for any branch to raise a 25% members quorum in order to meet then what you say that they can meet if they get a 25% quorum is hypocritical. What you say is shit that you want others to eat as food. Wait until you have to eat shit as food yourself and then you will weep.

FOOLS CRAVE TO BE LEADERS NOT REALIZING THE HEAVY BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY AND THE KARMA DUE SHOULD YOUR EXERCISE OF POWER HARM OTHERS.

Why Mamaks outmalay Malays:

It has been said that it is the Penang mamaks who were mostly behind this furore about the Chinese being squatters in this country.

It is not a surprise but it is to be expected that mamaks should outmalay the Malays.

Mamaks are Indians who have converted to Islam and it is likely that even if they deny it, many convert to reap the economic benefit of possessing a muslim name and it is not a surprise they not only adopt Islam but they identify themselves and perceive themselves as Malays even more than the original Malays.

People who will change religion and even race to gain economic benefits are likely to be people with less scruples than those who don’t and it is not surprising that they outmalay the Malays and defend the special rights of Malays because it is precisely for these special rights that they converted to Islam and adopt Malay culture.

In the same way, nations with large or mostly immigrant population like the US and Australia tend to be more shallow, crass money minded because those who tend to migrate are those out to seek fortunes and establish themselves well in this cut throat world whilst the more timid ones tend to stay put or not migrate. So migration is a natural selection process of those who are tough and out to survive as best they can with less sentiment.

And mankind is entirely a species of migration because we all started out in Africa and so in a sense the human race is entirely migrants.

No reason:

EVEN IF ANWAR IS A BAD OR HOPELESS LEADER FOR THE COUNTRY, IS MORE CORRUPT THAN DAIM AND DR M, IT IS NO REASON TO THROW HIM IN JAIL USING TRUMPED UP CHARGES BASED ON A LAW THAT PARLIAMENT HAS REPEALED AND SO IT REFLECTS THAT ALL THAT HAS BEFALLEN ANWAR INCLUDING HIS ALLEGED HOMOSEXUALITY IS MUD SLINGING BY UNRIGTHEOUS ENEMIES OUT TO DESTROY HIS NAME AND PUT HIM AWAY.

YOU MAY NOT LIKE ANWAR, YOUR MENTAL FORCE IS STIRRED REPULSIVELY BY THE SIGHT OF HIM OR WHAT HE REPRESENTS, BUT THAT IS NO REASON TO DO ALL THE THINGS HE WAS SUBJECT TO, THERE IS NO PROOF HE WILL BE AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER FOR THE COUNTRY AND SO YOU ARE A PREJUDICED MAN SLANDERING HIM HEADED FOR WOE, THE ANIMAL WOMB OR HELL TO HOLD SUCH VIEWS.

No reason to persecute Anwar:

Even if Anwar will be an unmitigated disaster for this country, there is no reason to not just slap trumped up charges on him and jail him using defunct laws but to assault and poison him in jail and unfairly commence his sentence six months after his incarceration.

NO MATTER HOW YOU DON’T LIKE ANWAR, YOU MUST TREAT HIM FAIRLY LIKE ANYONE ELSE AND SO IF YOU WANT TO JAIL HIM MAKE SURE HE HAS DONE WRONG AND YOU GO ABOUT IT BY DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. IF YOU ACCUSE HIM OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT MAKE SURE THAT YOU YOURSELF IS NOT A WORSE OFFENDER. IF NAJIB DID SODOMIZE ALTANTUYA, WHAT MAKES IT ACCEPTABLE TO SODOMIZE A FEMALE AND NOT MALE?

 

(Effacement)

12. "But herein, Cunda, effacement should be practiced by you:

(1) others will be harmful; we shall not. 
(2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing.
(3) Others will take what is not given; we shall abstain.
(4) Others will be unchaste; we shall be chaste.
(5) Others will speak falsehood; we shall abstain.
(6) Others win speak maliciously; we shall abstain.
(7) Others will speak harshly; we shall abstain.
(8) Others will gossip; we shall abstain.
(9) Others will be covetous; we shall not be.
(10) Others will have thoughts of ill will; we shall not.
(11) Others will have wrong views; we shall have right view.
(12) Others will have wrong intention; we shall have right intention.
(13) Others will use wrong speech; we shall use right speech here.
(14) Others will commit wrong actions; we shall do right actions here.
(15) Others will have wrong livelihood; we shall have right livelihood here.
(16) Others will make wrong effort; we shall make right effort.
(17) Others will have wrong mindfulness; we shall have right mindfulness.
(18) Others will have wrong concentration; we shall have right concentration.
(19) Others will have wrong knowledge; we shall have right knowledge here.
(20) Others will have wrong deliverance; we shall have right deliverance.
(21) Others will be overcome by sloth and torpor; we shall be free.
(22) Others will be agitated; we shall be unagitated here.
(23) Others will be doubting; we shall be free from doubt here.
(24) Others will be angry; we shall not be angry.
(25) Others will be hostile; we shall not be hostile here.
(26) Others will denigrate; we shall not denigrate.
(27) Others will be domineering; we shall not be domineering.
(28) Others will be envious; we shall not be envious.
 (30) Others will be fraudulent; we shall not be fraudulent.
(31) Others will be hypocrites; we shall not be hypocrites.
(32) Others will be obstinate; we shall not be obstinate.
(33) Others will be arrogant; we shall not be arrogant.
(34) Others will be difficult to admonish; we shall be easy to admonish.
 (36) Others will be negligent; we shall be heedful here.
 (39) Others will be without conscience; we shall have conscience.
 (42) Others will be lacking in mindfulness; we shall be established.
(44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them we shall not.

Broccoli may help protect lungs:

According to scientists, broccoli contains a chemical that may help protect the lungs against serious disease.

You hear so many often conflicting stories about garlic being good for this and that, carrot being good for this and that that if one were to follow them, one’s mind will be cluttered with so many dos and don’ts that is never a pleasure but a burden and suffering and if one has to suffer so much to remember all these things and make sure one keeps practicing eg taking broccoli, then what is the point of this fastidious dietary concern for your health?

Jesus said who amongst you can lengthen your life by cubit by being anxious. If you were not anxious to lengthen your life you would not take notice and follow such multitudes of conflicting health advices.

Can you see and know that it is true eating broccoli protects the lungs? It is impossible you can see and know it and thus you use force to blindly believe it is true because you are anxious for your life and you presumptuously trust scientists to be unscrupulous or not themselves deluded (these scientists who say broccoli is good for the lungs may be just as deluded as you).

THUS WITHOUT YOURSELF SEEING AND KNOWING THAT BROCCOLI IS INDEED GOOD FOR YOUR LUNGS YOU ARE FOOLISHLY ACCEPTING IT AS TRUE BECAUSE OF YOUR FEAR FOR YOUR HEALTH OR MISPLACED TRUST IN SCIENTISTS.

Broccoli is or may be good for your lungs is a rule or program that by adopting you become a slave to that plan that dictates what you must or must not do. All you do is memorize the plan ‘broccoli is good for your lungs’ and keep reminding yourself about it and put it into practice by eating as much broccoli as often as possible until you may become obsessed or mad about broccoli.

THUS EVEN IF IT IS TRUE BROCCOLI IS GOOD FOR YOUR LUNG, BY ADOPTING IT YOU BECOME A SLAVE TO ITS INSTRUCTING AND YOU ARE PRACTICING A RITUAL OF EATING BROCCOLI THAT ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA IS ONE OF THREE LOWER FETTERS TO WOE.

THUS ANYONE WHO DEFENDS THE STATEMENT AND SAY MAY BE IT IS RIGHT AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD PAY SOME ATTENTION TO ‘BALANCE OUR DIET’ BY EATING SOME BROCCOLI MAY BE DELUDED, ADVOCATING WHAT IS NONSENSE THAT WILL LEAD TO MADNESS.

Merrill Lynch Desperately Sold:

This is not your average financial crisis but the portents are that it may be a mother of all financial crises.

In Frantic Day, Wall Street Banks Teeter

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

This article was reported by Jenny Anderson, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Ben White. It was written by Mr. Sorkin.

In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer, people briefed on the deals said.

The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of tens of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments.

They culminated a weekend of frantic around-the-clock negotiations, as Wall Street bankers huddled in meetings at the behest of Bush administration officials to try to avoid a downward spiral in the markets stemming from a crisis of confidence.

“My goodness. I’ve been in the business 35 years, and these are the most extraordinary events I‘ve ever seen,” said Peter G. Peterson, co-founder of the private equity firm the Blackstone Group, who was head of Lehman in the 1970s and a secretary of commerce in the Nixon administration.

It remains to be seen whether the sale of Merrill, which was worth more than $100 billion during the last year, and the controlled demise of Lehman will be enough to finally turn the tide in the yearlong financial crisis that has crippled Wall Street. Questions remain about how the market will react Monday, particularly to Lehman’s plan to wind down its trading operations, and whether other companies may still falter, like the American International Group, the large insurer, and Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest savings and loan. Both companies’ stocks fell precipitously last week.

Though the government took control of the troubled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only a week ago, investors have become increasingly nervous about the difficulties of major financial institutions to recover from their losses.

How things play out could affect the broader economy, which has been weakening steadily as the financial crisis has deepened over the last year, with unemployment increasing as the nation’s growth rate has slowed.

What will happen to Merrill’s 60,000 employees or Lehman’s 25,000 employees remains unclear. Worried about the unfolding crisis and its potential impact on New York City’s economy, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg canceled a trip to California to meet with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Instead, aides said, Mr. Bloomberg spent much of the weekend working the phones, talking to federal officials and bank executives in an effort to gauge the severity of the crisis.

The weekend that humbled Lehman and Merrill Lynch and rewarded Bank of America, based in Charlotte, N.C., began at 6 p.m. Friday in the first of a series of emergency meetings at the Federal Reserve building in Downtown Manhattan.

The meeting was called by Fed officials, with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in attendance, and it included top bankers. The Treasury and Federal Reserve had already stepped in on several occasions to rescue the financial system, forcing a shotgun marriage between Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase this year and backstopping $29 billion worth of troubled assets — and then agreeing to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The bankers were told that the government would not bail out Lehman and that it was up to Wall Street to solve its problems. Lehman’s stock tumbled sharply last week as concerns about its financial condition grew and other firms started to pull back from doing business with it, threatening its viability.

Without government backing, Lehman began trying to find a buyer, focusing on Barclays, the big British bank, and Bank of America. At the same time, other Wall Street executives grew more concerned about their own precarious situation.

The fates of Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers would not seem to be linked; Merrill has the nation’s largest brokerage force and its name is known in towns across America, while Lehman’s main customers are big institutions. But during the credit boom both firms piled into risky real estate and ended up severely weakened, with inadequate capital and toxic assets.

Knowing that investors were worried about Merrill, John A. Thain, its chief executive and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs and the New York Stock Exchange, and Kenneth D. Lewis, Bank of America’s chief executive, began negotiations. One person briefed on the negotiations said Bank of America had approached Merrill earlier in the summer but Mr. Thain had rebuffed the offer. Now, prompted by the reality that a Lehman bankruptcy would ripple through Wall Street and further cripple Merrill Lynch, the two parties proceeded with discussions.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Thain and Mr. Lewis cemented the deal. It could not be determined if Mr. Thain would play a role in the new company, but two people briefed on the negotiations said they did not expect him to stay. Merrill’s “thundering herd” of 17,000 brokers will be combined with Bank of America’s smaller group of wealth advisers and called Merrill Lynch Wealth Management.

For Bank of America, which this year bought Countrywide Financial, the troubled mortgage lender, the purchase of Merrill puts it at the pinnacle of American finance, making it the biggest brokerage house and consumer banking franchise.

Bank of America eventually walked away from its talks with Lehman after the government refused to take responsibility for losses on some of Lehman’s most troubled real-estate assets, something it agreed to do when JP Morgan Chase bought Bear Stearns to save it from a bankruptcy filing in March.

A leading proposal to rescue Lehman would have divided the bank into two entities, a “good bank” and a “bad bank.” Under that scenario, Barclays would have bought the parts of Lehman that have been performing well, while a group of 10 to 15 Wall Street companies would have agreed to absorb losses from the bank’s troubled assets, to two people briefed on the proposal said. Taxpayer money would not have been included in such a deal, they said.

Other Wall Street banks also balked at the deal, unhappy at facing potential losses while Bank of America or Barclays walked away with the potentially profitable part of Lehman at a cheap price.

For Lehman, the end essentially came Sunday morning when its last potential suitor, Barclays, walked away from a deal, saying it could not obtain a shareholder vote to approve a transaction before Monday morning, something required under London Stock Exchange listing rules, one person close to the matter said. Other people involved in the talks said the Financial Services Authority, the British securities regulator, had discouraged Barclays from pursuing a deal. Peter Truell, a spokesman for Barclays, declined to comment.

Lehman was expected to seek bankruptcy protection for its holding company by late Sunday in what would be the largest failure of an investment bank since the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert 18 years ago, people close to the matter said. Lehman’s subsidiaries were expected to remain solvent while the firm liquidates its holdings, these people said. Under this scenario, a group of banks have tentatively agreed to provide a financial backstop to assist in an orderly winding down of the 158-year-old investment bank. Such an agreement could expose those banks to losses on Lehman’s assets.

Herbert H. McDade III, Lehman’s president, was at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York late Sunday, discussing terms of Lehman’s dissolution with government officials. The Fed was expect to play a supporting role in the process by temporarily accepting lower-quality assets from banks in return for loans from the government.

Lehman’s filing is unlikely to resemble those of other companies that seek bankruptcy protection. Because of the harsher treatment that federal bankruptcy law applies to financial-services firms, Lehman cannot hope to reorganize and survive. It was not clear whether the government would appoint a trustee to supervise Lehman’s liquidation or how big the financial backstop would be.

Lehman has retained the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges as its bankruptcy counsel.

The collapse of Lehman is a devastating end for Richard S. Fuld Jr., the chief executive, who has led the bank since it emerged from American Express as a public company in 1994. Mr. Fuld, who steered Lehman through near-death experiences in the past, spent the last several days in his 31st floor office in Lehman’s midtown headquarters on the phone from 6 a.m. until well past midnight trying to find save the firm, a person close to the matter said.

The weekend’s events indicate that top officials at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will take a harder line on providing government support of troubled financial institutions.

While offering to help Wall Street organize a shotgun marriage for Lehman, both the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, and Mr. Paulson had warned that they would not put taxpayer money at risk simply to prevent a Lehman collapse.

The tough-love message was a major change in strategy, but it remained unclear until at least Friday whether the approach was real or just posturing. If the Fed was faced with the genuine risk of another market meltdown, analysts said, it would be almost duty-bound to ride to a rescue of one kind or another.

What few people anticipated was that the Treasury and Fed officials might reach for an even broader strategy.

“They were faced after Bear Stearns with the problem of where to draw the line,” said Laurence H. Meyer, a former Fed governor who is now vice chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, a forecasting firm. “It became clear that this piecemeal, patchwork, case-by-case approach might not get the job done.”

At first glance, the new strategy by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke represents a much purer and tougher insistence that Wall Street work out its own problems without government help.

But that is only the first glance. If Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, its capital reserves would immediately fall below the minimum requirements for bank holding companies. Federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve, would have to show lenience for as long as it took the capital markets to regain their confidence — which could be quite a while.

And Merrill Lynch is hardly the only troubled financial institution on the horizon. Administration officials acknowledged this week that more bank failures were inevitable, and the main protection for depositors — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — is likely to exhaust the reserves it has built over the years from bank insurance premiums.

“What we need now is a systemic solution and to admit that this is an extraordinary situation,” Mr. Meyer said. He said the government should go to the heart of the crisis — the mortgage market — and start buying mortgage-backed securities in a broad rescue.

That is similar to an approach urged by Alan Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke’s predecessor as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Mr. Greenspan, who has long been a staunch opponent of government intervention in the economy, said Sunday that the federal government might have to shore up some financial institutions.

“This is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century type of event,” Mr. Greenspan said in an interview on ABC. “I think the argument has got to be that there are certain types of institutions which are so fundamental to the functioning of the movement of savings into real investment in an economy that on very rare occasions — and this is one of them — it’s desirable to prevent them from liquidating in a sharply disruptive manner.”

Most economists say that bailouts are often bad economic policy because each rescue tends to encourage “moral hazard” — the tendency of institutions and investors to take even bigger risks because they assume the government will rescue them, too.

Both Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke worried that they had already gone much further than they had ever wanted, first by underwriting the takeover of Bear Stearns in March and by the far bigger bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Officials noted that Lehman’s downfall posed a lower systemic threat because it had been a very visible and growing risk for months, which meant that its customers and trading partners had had months to prepare themselves.

Outside the public eye, Fed officials had acquired much more information since March about the interconnections and cross-exposure to risk among Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and traders in the vast market for credit-default swaps and other derivatives.

But James Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa and chairman of the House Banking committee, said the Fed and Treasury might not be able to avoid a broader rescue.

“The Fed’s historic position is to object philosophically to a rescue role but in the end to do everything in its power to avoid anything that poses systemic risk,” said Mr. Leach, now a lecturer at Harvard.

“My sense is that the systemic question will be the only question on the table if Lehman falters,” he continued. “If systemic risk is considered grave, the Fed, perhaps with Treasury playing at least an advisory role, will intervene.”

The sins of short sellers:

Armed by insider information and often borrowed money, short sellers want to make fabulous wealth in quick time by selling shares they borrow knowing that the share price will drop and they can buy back to return later much cheaper and pocket the difference, in the process causing the company whose shares they sold plunge into a crisis that may otherwise not have occurred had they not shorted.

Banks Fear Next Move by Shorts

By LOUISE STORY

In May, David Einhorn, one of the most vocal short sellers on Wall Street, made no secret he was betting against Lehman Brothers. Now, some investors are afraid that fund managers like him will take advantage of the climate of fear stirred up by the troubles of Lehman to single out other weak financial firms whose declining share prices would bring them rich rewards.

At emergency meetings over the weekend, the heads of major financial institutions urged Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the New York Fed, and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., to consider having the Securities and Exchange Commission reinstate a temporary rule to limit the risky but potentially lucrative practice of betting on a firm’s falling share price, according to two people who were briefed on, but did not attend, the meetings.

They are concerned that short sellers might fix their gaze on other big financial institutions. But Wall Street may be breathing easier after one company frequently mentioned, Merrill Lynch, began advanced talks on Sunday to sell itself, and another, the insurance giant American International Group, moved toward a restructuring in an effort to strengthen its financial position.

In July, the S.E.C. briefly halted a practice known as naked short selling after speculators placed large bets that shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giants, would decline. That also made it harder, though not impossible, to short the stocks of 19 financial institutions, including brokerage firms like Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley.

The investment tactic of betting a stock will slide is not new, of course. But it has become particularly controversial in the last year, when Wall Street firms started to be singled out as the credit crisis turned the financial sector upside down.

Short sellers and their free market supporters say they have done nothing wrong. If anything, they say, they have merely spotted problems at financial institutions ahead of everyone else, making them a useful early warning system for the rest of the market. Critics believe they have contributed to the speed of the decline of any number of financial shares.

Short-selling against financial institutions has proved particularly lucrative for hedge funds. Mr. Einhorn’s accusations included a complaint that Lehman had been failing to properly account for its marks on troublesome holdings.

Lehman’s shares were already under pressure when he took the microphone at a large industry gathering in May to lay out his case against the investment bank. The firm, he told the crowd, had used “accounting ingenuity” to avoid large write-downs and remained tainted by bad commercial real estate investments.

Mr. Einhorn stood to profit by convincing people of his view: He had been betting against Lehman’s stock — it stood at around $40 when he spoke — since July 2007, when it traded for around $70.

While Lehman’s shares have declined as investors lost confidence in its ability to repair its balance sheet, in the four months after Mr. Einhorn’s remarks, short-selling played a role in the erosion. A rapid plunge in the shares to below $4 last week created the conditions that brought the 158-year old firm to its knees on Sunday.

For all his boldness, Mr. Einhorn is aware of the havoc that bank failures can create. “We would not win if Lehman went down and took the whole financial system with it,” Mr. Einhorn said in an interview in June. “An actual collapse of Lehman — that would not be a good thing.”

Other hedge fund managers recognize the dangers and the harm that is befalling bank employees who have been paid in their companies’ stocks. “My children, their playmates’ fathers work at Lehman,” said one manager who is short Lehman and asked to remain anonymous, citing the fragility of the situation. “Obviously I had nothing to do with what happened, and the idea that I profited, and they got clobbered, and I’ve got to see them on Monday is awkward. I feel badly for them.”

Mr. Einhorn was never shy with his criticism of Lehman. He pointed to the bank’s investments in two real estate companies, Archstone and Sun Cal, and said Lehman had not marked its mortgage assets down enough. “Lehman is one of the deniers,” he said in the June interview.

To many, Mr. Einhorn simply saw the writing on the wall early. And, hedge fund managers say, Lehman executives failed to realize how much credibility Mr. Einhorn has in the investor community. Lehman might have fared better if it had raised capital or taken write-offs far earlier, as Mr. Einhorn suggested.

But to some in the world of finance, Mr. Einhorn and investors like him are dangerous.

“It is really like taking a baseball bat to someone who is down,” said Jim Hardesty, president of Hardesty Capital Management in Baltimore. “A bunch of these guys with very large bats are circling around certain companies and banging them over and over again. It is unsportsmanlike conduct.”

“My worst nightmare would be waking up one day and listening to David Einhorn talk about our company and wanting to short myself,” said Larry Robbins, chief executive of the hedge fund Glenview Capital, as he started his own speech at the May conference, the third event that included Mr. Einhorn’s criticisms of Lehman.

Hedge fund managers who focus on shorting companies stand out in the industry in an otherwise terrible trading year. Hedge funds are down more than 4 percent but short-focused hedge funds are up 9.76 percent, said Hedge Fund Research.

By coincidence, Mr. Einhorn’s fund, Greenlight Capital, is down 4.3 percent this year through Aug. 22, according to HSBC (he also invests in stocks, as well as shorting them).

His is a so-called long-short fund, which means he invests $2 buying shares in companies for every $1 he places shorting other companies. One company he took a positive view on was New Century, one of the first mortgage lenders to file for bankruptcy.

Mr. Einhorn said in June that he receives far more criticism for his short positions than he does for the positive bets he makes, which he also sometimes discusses publicly. And, he said, executives at companies are biased in the views they provide because they own so many shares of their companies’ stocks.

Mr. Einhorn declined to comment for this article and a spokesman would not say if he was still short Lehman’s stock or on what day he sold his position.

Eric Dash contributed reporting.

Love stronger than evil says pope:

The message will stir the people’s emotions but why is it wrong or meaningless?

Strength is about force not reason which has no force to be stronger.

So long as you argue and want to be stronger you will never escape woe. His statement will be a challenge to others to fight or argue that evil is stronger than love or whatever (fallacious) positions you might care to adopt.

There is true love that has no strength to be stronger than evil and there is false or emotional love which is actually passion that has strength and it is a disguised form of evil itself.

ORDINARY PEOPLE SEE NOTHING WRONG AND SEE IT IS TRUE BUT IF LOVE IS TRUE, IT HAS NO STRENGTH WITH WHICH TO BE STRONGER THAN EVIL, SO LONG AS YOU SPEAK ABOUT STRENGTH SO LONG WILL YOU BE LOCKED IN BATTLE IN WHICH THERE ARE NEVER WINNERS.

IF YOU PERCEIVE LOVE HAS STRENGTH THEN YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION THAT IS NOT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

LOVING KINDNESS TO ALL AS TO SELF IS THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT HEAVEN IS NOT THE ULTIMATE AND TO TRANSCEND EVEN LOVE, TO BE TOTALLY EQUANIMOUS, NEITHER LIKING NOR DISLIKING IS A HIGHER STATE OF THE MIND THAT ACCORDS HIGHER RELEASE FROM SUFFERING.

Anyone who speaks with objectively discernible use of force to prolong syllables, change speed and loudness is harming himself and others with force and incapable of truly loving himself and others, do not know what true love is about. If you can speak without using force to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness you will see and know that true love is without force, has no force with which to be stronger than evil.

True love is the answer:

True love is not stronger than evil but true love is the answer to evil, the answer to all a being’s suffering and the end of all strife on earth.

And how does one truly love oneself and others?

The first crucial step is to pay attention to never impart force on others with one’s postures, expressions, speech and deeds and that means not to use force to prolong, change speed and strength in whatever one says or does.

Greenspan’s grim warning:

 

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve and a leading economic expert, warned: “Let’s recognise that this is a once in a half-century, probably once in a century type of event.” He added that it was the worst “by far” he has seen in his career. The former central banker also warned that “we will see other major firms fail”.

 

Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch woes pile-up as Wall Street faces day of reckoning

Three of the biggest names on Wall Street - Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG - poised to buckle under the seismatic credit crunch pressure.

 

The global financial system faced its biggest test in at least half a century this morning after some of the world’s leading firms took drastic emergency action in America in the face of a worsening international economic crisis.

Lehman Brothers, one of the world’s biggest investment banks, was on the verge of collapse after a weekend of talks to find a willing buyer ended without success.

Hank Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, led the efforts to identify a buyer but the British bank Barclays walked away from a deal. Lehman Brothers was last night being prepared for bankruptcy.

Merrill Lynch, another investment bank, appeared likely to be bought by Bank of America in an attempt to save it from a similar fate. Discussions on what would be a $200 billion (£110 billion) merger were at an advanced stage last night.

Meanwhile, American International Group, the world’s largest insurance company, was planning a radical restructuring of its business, which would see it sell its aircraft leasing arm and raise $20 billion from new investors.

The impact on stock markets was expected to be severe. If Lehman crumbled, it would be the first collapse of a major bank since the credit crisis began 13 months ago, and would stand as one of the biggest banking collapses in history.

Coupled with the moves by other Wall Street giants, it would wipe billions of pounds worth of value from pension funds and other investments.

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve and a leading economic expert, warned: “Let’s recognise that this is a once in a half-century, probably once in a century type of event.” He added that it was the worst “by far” he has seen in his career. The former central banker also warned that “we will see other major firms fail”.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers, which fell into difficulty as a result of its exposure to the troubled American mortgage market, could also threaten the 4,000 jobs at the bank’s European headquarters in London.

The accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) was understood to be standing in the wings to act as administrator in the UK for Lehman’s assets, should the decision be taken to push ahead with liquidation.

It had been hoped that a weekend of talks between some of the world’s most senior bankers and leading regulators from the Bush administration would produce a deal to save the bank.

A consortium led by Bank of America was believed to have been first to pull out of the negotiations.

Barclays, the UK’s third largest bank, has been keen to move into the top tier of global financial institutions, but terminated the talks because of the US government’s unwillingness to guarantee Lehman’s assets.

The US Treasury was unwilling to commit taxpayers’ cash to a bailout of Lehman, marking a distinct change in its attitude to coping with the credit crisis.

Mr Paulson went into the weekend discussions insisting that government money should not be used to resolve Lehman’s problems, and that the administration had to draw a line in the sand.

The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve had previously committed taxpayers’ money to rescuing Bear Stearns, another bank, in March.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which underwrite most of America’s mortgages, were “nationalised” just a week ago after running into serious difficulties.

In the case of Lehman, however, the US government was unwilling to pursue a similar policy.

City analysts had called into question the health of Lehman’s balance sheet in spite of several rounds of fund-raising.

A spokesman for Lehman Brothers declined to comment last night.

Who may be behind short sellers?

It is a gamble to borrow shares to sell on the market hoping to profit by buying back later at a cheaper price, so why are these short sellers so confident to take such risks? May be it is not such an uncertain bet they are making.

Company CEOs and insiders hold substantial stakes in their companies and there are laws forbidding them from buying and selling when developments in the company may influence share prices.

Thus a way for insiders to not sell and yet sell is to lend their shares to outsiders to sell or supply information to short sellers who do not have the shares to sell them so that when these short sellers make profit or ‘a killing’ they will share it with the CEOs who tipped them off.

Short selling aggravates the plunge in share prices that would otherwise occur and so they are evil or rapacious like sharks circling around a troubled company.  If company insiders are involved then they are undermining the very companies that they are supposed to take care of.

THIS IS A WORLD OF DECEPTION WHERE WHAT APPEARS TO THE EYE MAY NOT BE WHAT IT IS AND SO IT IS THAT IT IS LIKELY THESE SHORT SELLERS ARE NOT MAKING BLIND BETS BUT THEY HAVE COMPANY INSIDERS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE COMPANY.

The implications of the collapse of these financial giants:

1)   These financial giants have made a mess of the money entrusted them in deposits and so there will be significant if not serious fallout that will only slowly come to light when the public learn the money deposited in banks are gone and there are runs on banks.

2)   Lehmann Bros used to trade at $68 and now it is worth a few dollars. So those investors and that include many pension or mutual funds who invested in these shares are going to be ‘devastated’ and that means further losses for the public.

3)   The government or Fed Reserve has to come in to bail out these institutions that means that money must be printed that will dilute the value of existing money or money that otherwise could have been used elsewhere is consumed bailing out these institutions.

 

 

Oil falls more than $5 a barrel

(Comment: Many reasons why oil is falling is given below. Without knowing what the true causes are, one should not speak as if one knew because that is presumptuous that will end in confusion and insanity.

Oil may be falling because of the reasons given but it is possible it is because speculators are unwinding their positions hit by a credit crunch that may also crimp speculators in depriving them of credit to speculate.

THUS IT MAY BE THAT OIL IS FALLING BECAUSE SPECULATORS ARE SELLING OR BECAUSE SPECULATORS ARE STRUGGLING TO GET CREDIT TO MAINTAIN THEIR POSITIONS JUST AS BUSINESSES ARE STRUGGLING TO GET CREDIT.)

World oil prices have shed more than $5, ending below $100 a barrel for the first time in six months, spurred by concerns about the global economy.

With banking giant Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection, US light sweet crude shed $5.47 to settle at $95.71 in New York.

London Brent also fell sharply, down $5.20 to $92.38 a barrel.

News that Hurricane Ike had not damaged refineries as much as feared also contributed to the fall in prices.

Concerns over the financial health of the banking sector - and its wider global impact - were deepened by the news that fellow investment bank Merrill Lynch had agreed to be bought by Bank of America.

Merrill had been struggling with bad debts of more than $40bn (£22bn).

And uncertainty about the future of insurance giant AIG also weighed on the market.

"Oil sold off in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the buyout of Merrill Lynch," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago.

Badawi’s stubbornness and denial of reality:

Badawi is reported to have said he will refuse to meet Anwar unless the latter revealed publicly the list of defectors.

His action is not based on reason but antagonism or stubbornness to make it difficult for those who assail him. Anyone who delights in making life unnecessarily difficult for others will himself suffer difficulty in the future.

Only an emotional proud man will find it hard to accept reality that is unpalatable to him. If it is true that his MPs are defecting then there is not only no point not accepting reality but it is cultivating insanity denying reality by refusing to see Anwar.

PEOPLE SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH BADAWI SETTING CONDITIONS FOR MEETING ANWAR BUT HIS CONDITIONS ARE UNREASONABLE, BASED ON EMOTION AND REFUSAL TO ACCEPT REALITY THAT IS THE PATH TO FUTURE INSANITY FOR HIM.

Badawi’s rote response:

If you think Badawi’s response to Anwar’s request for a meeting to arrange an orderly transfer of power is a reasoned specific to the occasion response, you may be right or wrong (deluded).

I say it is impossible to be a reasoned specific to the occasion response but a standardized rote response dictated by his mental parrot in which he, driven by emotion (eg anger and ill will) only select the possible options available in his jukebox.

The first reaction by Badawi to Anwar’s proposal will be emotional, perhaps a mixture of anger, even murderous wrath that must be concealed from public gaze, an urge to attack (aggression) and even fear and panic.

Having taken snapshots of what is happening and driven by arisen emotions, he consults his mental jukebox for responses that he perceive is appropriate but is actually inappropriate and therefore he is practicing controlled insanity that will descend into future insanity.

To ask for the public revelation of those defecting is not an appropriate response but an excuse not to meet Anwar and a delaying or obstructing tactic that is never wise but foolish and can be dangerous or fatal to him in some situations. What does it matter if the defecting MPs are named publicly, in due course when the alternative government is formed, he will know.

THUS THE REQUEST THAT ANWAR FIRST NAME THE DEFECTING MPS IS NEVER A GENUINE REASON FOR NOT MEETING ANWAR BUT IT IS AN EXCUSE NOT TO MEET HIM AND THEREFORE OBSTRUCT ANWAR LIKE AN OSTRICH BURYING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND. A PERSON IN TOUCH WITH REALITY WILL NOT RUN AWAY FROM UNPALATABLE REALITY BUT MEET WITH ANWAR AND SEE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY AND IF HIS (BADAWI’S) POSITION IS UNTENABLE THEN TO RESIGN JUST AS A CHESS PLAYER MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE HAS BEEN CHECKMATED AND RESIGN.

Style is at the heart of sin & suffering:

There is no other entity at the heart of sin and suffering except style.

And what is this style that is at the centre of sin and suffering?

Style is the constant use of unnecessary force to fabricate a way of speaking, doing things and posing that is for show, to be seen and heard to stir others’ mental forces to be impressed, pleased, intimidated, dominated or deceived. Further it is the saying and doing of things or the substance of what is said or done which actually have no meaning or are not meant but merely for show, to be seen or heard.

It is the practice of style that leads to emotions that are forms of like (thrill, excitement, greed, lust, pride) and dislike (anger, hate) and sadness and hurt and fear.

Without practicing style a person cannot be afflicted with tormenting emotions, it is impossible for a person who is truly without style, who truly does not stretch syllables, change speed and loudness to be emotional and therefore style is the cause of emotions not emotions the cause of style.

WHETHER YOU ARE AWARE OR NOT, YOU MUST, UNDER RELENTLESS COERCION FROM SOCIETY, INITIALLY DELIBERATELY USE FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS WHEN YOU SPEAK SO THAT THIS USE OF FORCE WILL GENERATE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, CONFLICT THAT LEAD WITHOUT FAIL TO EMOTIONS THAT ARE CONDITIONING AND SUBSEQUENT BECOME THE DRIVE TO MAINTAIN THE PERSON IN STYLE.

IT IS STYLE THAT PRECEDES AND CAUSES EMOTIONS, NOT EMOTIONS THAT CAUSE STYLE.

Anyone who is stylish is doomed to mad conflict because the constant prolonging (eg stretching of syllables) conflicts with the simultaneously accelerating in speed and loudness of those stretched syllables and thus the person is somnolently practicing the controlled agony of delaying and rushing at the same time that must end in loss of control and mad forceful even violent mental conflict.

TO RUSH (ACCELERATE IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS) AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU DELAY (PROLONG YOUR SYLLABLES) IS MADNESS AND YET STYLISH PEOPLE DEEM IT DESIRABLE AND CHARMING AND THAT IS ADVANCED FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC.

THE CONSTANT USE OF FORCE TO STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IS THE SOURCE OF ENDOGENOUS STRESS THAT MUST REGULARLY RISE TO OPPRESSIVE LEVELS.

THE CONSTANT CHANGE IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS IS MEANINGLESS AND MEANT TO BE SEEN AND HEARD AND THEREFORE IS PRACTICING CONTROLLED RESTLESSNESS (CONTROLLED CHANGING WITHOUT NECESSITY EXCEPT FOR SHOW).

WHEN YOU SPEAK ANGRILY, YOU MUST DIVIDE YOUR ATTENTION BETWEEN THE ANGRY WAY YOU SAY IT AND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ANGRILY OR RENDER IT MINDLESSLY BY ROTE AND SO ANYONE WITH A SIMULTANEOUS SUBSTANCE AND STYLE IS PRACTICING CONSTANT DIVISION OF HIS ATTENTION OR NON ATTENTION TO WHAT AND HOW HE SAYS OR DOES THINGS.

THE CONSTANT USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG SYLLABLES OR UNITS OF MOTION IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF THAT PERSON’S SADNESS THAT WITH TIME WILL BECOME MALIGNANT AS DEPRESSION.

THE CONSTANT FORCE TO ACCELERATE EVEN VIOLENTLY IN SPEED AND STRENGTH IS THE CAUSE OF THE PERSON’S HURT THAT WILL HEEDLESS CONDITIONING, BECOMES EASILY AROUSABLE TO UNCONTROLLABLE LEVELS. THUS ALL STYLISH PEOPLE CAN BE HURT BY WHAT IS SAID OR DONE TO THEM THAT MAY BE INNOCUOUS BUT IDIOSYNCRATICALLY HURTFUL TO HIM.

ANYONE WHO IS STYLISH MUST BE A ROBOT BECAUSE HIS CONSISTENT BRAND OF STYLE CANNOT BE RENDERED LIVE BUT MUST BE MEMORIZED AND RENDERED BY ROTE AND HE IS IN DANGER OF MAD ROTE BEHAVIOR WHEN HIS MENTAL PARROT DOES OR SAYS THINGS INAPPROPRIATELY WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

ALL STYLISH PEOPLE ARE IN DANGER OF MAD VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTANTLY USING FORCE TO VIOLENT LEVELS TO FABRICATE STYLE AND THERE MUST BE AN URGE THAT THEY MUST CONTROL TO NOT LASH OUT VIOLENTLY OR LOSE CONTROL.

ALL STYLISH PEOPLE HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION & LOGIC THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION & LOGIC BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVE STYLE AS MEANINGFUL WHEN IT IS JUST THE USE OF BLIND FORCE THAT IS HARMFUL TO SELF AND OTHERS.

STYLE IS AT THE HEART OF SIN BECAUSE THE USE OF FORCE IN STYLE IS TRANSMITTED TO OTHERS THAT HARM AND CONDITION THEM IN THE SAME WAY AS THE STYLISH PERSON CONDITIONS HIMSELF.

Thus style is the source of a person’s sin and suffering, it precedes and gives rise to emotions (forms of like and dislike, sadness, hurt and fear), not emotions giving rise to style.

Style is the source of the person’s insoluble stress, restlessness, distraction (cannot concentrate), conflict (simultaneous rush and delaying in accelerating in speed and loudness through a delayed syllable), gives rise to his emotions, sadness, hurt and fear that are never pleasure but suffering, is the source of false perception and logic of what is meaningless and harmful is meaningful and beneficial. Style necessitates the person must be a robot because his consistent brand of substance and style must be committed to memory and reproduced from memory impersonally, insincerely to meet the demands of a situation.

WHAT I SAY ABOUT STYLE ABOVE APPLIES TO ALL BEINGS HERE BECAUSE THEY ALL MANIFEST STYLE. BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE STYLE THEY MUST ALL SUFFER FROM STRESS, RESTLESNESS, DISTRACTION, CONFLICT, SADNESS, HURT, LIKE AND DISLIKE, FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION, VIOLENT URGES AND MAD ROTE BEHAVIOR AND DOOMED TO DESCEND INTO TORMENT IF THEY DON’T WORK TO ERASE THEIR STYLE BY PAYING ATTENTION TO STOP STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS.

ALTHOUGH WHAT I SAY IS CRUCIAL AND APPLIES TO ALL BEINGS HERE AND NO ONE HAS SAID IT BEFORE AND IT IS UNLIKELY THEY WILL SAY IT BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH THAT THIS WORLD CANNOT ACCEPT BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES NOR KNOWS IT.

What style means:

Style means you must suffer from forceful conflict that can arise out of the blue for seemingly trivial matters because to rush (accelerate in speed and strength) and delay (use for to prolong) at the same time in the name of style is to generate a clash of force.

Style means you must suffer from sadness because the constant use of force to prolong syllables and units of motion in the name of style leads to sadness which is nothing more than a person’s mental force prolonging out of control.

Style means you must suffer from hurt when you see or hear something because the constant use of force to accelerate in speed and strength is the prerequisite to hurt which is caused by the involuntary, unshielded acceleration in speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self without being shielded by the force of self preservation.

Style means you must be a robot because the simultaneous combo of substance and style cannot be produced live specific for the occasion but must be memorized and regurgitated from memory. Having a parrot in your mind means you are in danger of its rebellion and going mad.

Style means you must suffer from emotions and fear because without using force to fabricate style you will not have the force that is necessary to power the emotions.

Style means you must possess seriously false perception and logic because to perceive style as meaningful and beneficial is deluded, false perception and logic.

Style means you must suffer from violent urges because style requires the constant use of force in indirect or disguised ways that means the cloaked use of force must occasionally escape control and surface as violent urges.

 

'We are heading into a storm and it's reminiscent of the 1930s', warns investment guru George Soros

 

Last night George Soros, one of the world's most powerful financiers, warned that the world was 'heading into a storm'.

Mr Soros, the financial speculator best known for cashing-in on the pound's withdrawal from the European Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday in the 1990s said that the worst was far from over.

Mr Soros even claimed that we are only at the beginning of a major financial crisis.

He compared the current situation with the Great Depression of 1930s which followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Speaking on BBC's Newsnight, he said: 'We are not through it at all.

'We are heading into the storm rather than coming out of it. We are at a very precarious moment.'

When asked whether the US Government was wrong not to bail out the Lehman Brothers, he replied: 'Whether they should have been rescued depends on whether the financial system survives.

'If it survives then it was right to let them go bust. If there is a meltdown then it obviously wasn't.

 

'One thing is clear - We mustn't allow the financial system to collapse as it did in the 1930s.'

Referring to Hank Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, he said: 'The way Paulson is handling the situation is reminiscent of the way the bankers handled it in the 1930s.'

He added: 'The financial system has gone overboard and the financial engineering has grown to big, it takes up too big a share in the world's resources.

'Now it is shrinking. When it becomes regulated it will be less profitable than the last 25 years.'

Speaking of the impact on Britain, he said: 'The financial industry is a major segment of the British economy. That's why Britain is more heavily hit by the financial crisis than most other economies.'

Poor losers:

Badawi has castigated Anwar for lying and many things not realizing it is him and UMNO that are sore losers.

Jesus said let your yes be yes only and so if it is true that you have lost the support of your MPs then it is their wish you do not remain PM and so you should go quietly and honourably rather than dig in, be thick skinned and hurl mud at others.

MOST IF NOT ALL GOATS ARE POOR LOSERS. WHEN THEY ARE WINNING THEY FLASH THEIR TEETH WITH GORGEOUS SMILES BUT WHEN THEY LOSE, THEY SHOW THEIR FANGS AND DRAW THEIR KNIVES.

Style is all about force:

Force is the puppeteer behind all style. Behind whatever can be classified as style is force, never true reason.

There is style in the way a person speaks, does something and poses and style in the substance of what he says and does.

Because what the person said or did that is for style, intended to deceive, please, impress, intimidate and dominate another, it is according to a plan which that stylish person likes and has committed to memory to be rehashed again and again to impress and so he is a slave of that plan merely selecting that plan and using force to undertake that plan or substance of what is said or done that is meant to impress, please, intimidate or dominate.

THUS THE STYLE IN THE WAY A PERSON POSES, MOVES AND SPEAKS CAN ONLY BE THE WAY HE CONSISTENTLY USES FORCE TO PROLONG UNITS OF MOTIONS AND SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE TO CREATE MANIFESTATIONS OF FORCE CHANGES THAT CAN BE SEEN AND HEARD BY OTHERS AND HIMSELF THAT HE FINDS DESIRABLE, MEANINGFUL AND GOOD. THE STYLE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID OR DID IS ACCORDING TO PLAN IN WHICH HE JUST SELECTS THE DESIRED PLAN AND SUPPLY FORCE TO ACTIVATE THAT PLAN.

What is the style in the substance of a speech? Whatever that is in the substance of a speech that is regularly repeated but meaningless and intended to please and impress others is the style in the speech. Thus such words like ‘well’, ‘you see’, ‘I say’, or ‘four score and seven years ago’ instead of saying ‘forty seven years ago’.

THERE IS STYLE THAT IS THE WAY A PERSON POSES, SPEAKS AND DOES THINGS THAT IS CONSISTENT OR STEREOTYPED IN HIM AND DIFFERS FROM OTHERS AND IT IS ALL ABOUT HOW HE USES FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH.

THERE IS STYLE IN THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT HE SAYS OR DOES AND IT IS ALL ABOUT MEMORIZED REHASHED SEQUENCES OF WORDS OR ACTIONS IN WHICH HE JUST SELECTS AND SUPPLIES FORCE TO ACTIVATE THEM.

THUS STYLE IS ALL ABOUT FORCE AND THE USE OF FORCE THAT IS UNNECESSARY TO FABRICATE STYLE IS EVIL.

Markets must be policed not just regulated:

There are many even today amidst financial mayhem who tout ‘free’ markets as efficient and self regulating and do not need intervention by authorities.

If it is the truth that markets are never guided by genuine reason but programmed logic driven by greed for maximal gains countered by fear for losses that left alone will end in mayhem, markets must be regulated in all aspects and the regulations rigorously enforced or policed, then those who preach efficient free markets are deluded, have wrong view that is the way to hell or the animal womb.

If you want to delay then don’t rush:

If you want to delay then don’t rush. If you want to rush then don’t delay. To delay at the same time as you also rush is mad and because all stylish people are doing this when they speak eagerly to show their ‘genuine’ concern or interest, they are practicing the ultimate controlled insanity.

IN TRUTH THERE IS NO NECESSITY OR REASON TO DELAY ANYTHING AT ALL AND THERE IS NO REASON TO RUSH OR ACCELERATE IN SPEED AND STRENGTH ANYTHING AT ALL LET ALONE TO RUSH AND DELAY AT THE SAME TIME WHICH IS THE HEIGHT OF INSANITY. THAT STYLISH PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN AWARE THEY DO SO OR THEY PERCEIVE IT IS MEANINGFUL, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO GOOD IS ADVANCED FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC.