the price - was worth it (US Israel Iran)

 .. the end - justified the means ...

   .. too bad - for the many 'collaterals' ...

     .. omelette = broken eggs [or 'just' beaten]

-=*=-

1. "the price - was worth it" - the ½mio children, being ½ of the total of about 1mio Iraqis, thought to have died as a direct result of the US-sponsored UN-sanctions against Iraq, '91+. This estimate is sure to be short of the real total, and does not attempt to measure misery.

2. "the end - justified the means" - the downfall & execution of Saddam, at a cost to-date of (estimate; the US doesn't even attempt to count): 1.3+mio dead Iraqis, with 2+2mio displaced or fled - and 6+ years later (longer than all of WW2), Iraq is still occupied by 150,000 invading US soldiers; infrastructure damaged, in many places totally destroyed, and the whole economy in tatters.

3. "too bad - for the many 'collaterals'" - Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan (this only but not all since 2001); the US invading, pink-misting 'grunts' do not care a wit who they witlessly kill. Bullet, bomb or robot-missile, rained down on the 98% innocent indigenes out of clear blue skies. Their skies, not the invader's. Ummm; what's about the 2%? - actually, more indigenes, variously called "Al-Qaeda" or "Taliban" - but probably more accurately: "genuine, patriotic freedom fighters."

4. "omelette = broken eggs [or 'just' beaten]" - Iran today; the 'legitimate' authorities either brutally suppressing legitimate democratic dissent - or desperately defending their age-old culture from US-inspired, US-funded & US-assisted subversion, psyops and snivelling greed.

5. "boots - or settlements; 'on the ground'" - the near 1000 US bases around the world, threatening & coercing democracies such as Germany, Japan - and Australia (remember the (CIA) coup against Whitlam); and the illegal settlements the Zs build, as they press their (non!)borders ever further into Palestine, beyond the (undeserved!) 'gift' the UN (immorally!) 'gave' them in '47/8.

6. Omitted (amongst others); the whole grisly, South America saga, the brutal attacks on the former Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, the (war crime!) A-bombings. Too many US-depredations, not enough (my) time. But note one thing: almost without exception, the US(Israeli) attacks are made against pitiful if any resistance.

-=*=-

These are not actions from some dreadful medieval past, they are current, starting roughly post-WW2 and occurring almost continuously right down to the present moment. Apart from the actions by Iran, which - IMHO - may very well be only self-defensive in nature, even if (slightly?) misguided (but see Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away) - these aggressive (see Nuremberg Crimes against Peace) actions are actions carried out by, led by, the so-called world leader - and its vicious side-kick.

The US (plus Israel) are not doing any of this to spread democracy; they have no use for truth and less for justice. (See corrupt and venal MSM, including big bits of the AusBC.) The US (plus Israel) are doing what they do to enable US-style capitalism to rip-off the world's resources, and further enrich themselves ever more obscenely beyond avarice in the process.

They, the US (plus Israel), represent themselves as "the pinnacle of human civilisation."

-=*=-

«Without justice, there can be no peace. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.»
 -- MLK.

About time to get something useful - honourable & legal to do, eh?
 

triple peaks of democracy (US, Israel, Iran)

 .. 1. the US invasion of Asia ...

   .. 2. the Zionist invasion of Palestine ...

     .. 3. police action against poor-loser Iranian insurgents

-=*=-

1. My title should be enough, but I'll 'toss' up some extras anyway. We know about Lakoffian® framing; it's not just what one says, but also v.definitely how one says it. I have recently pointed out a few of the multitudinous AusBC sins of transmission.

For some reason unknown to me, the AusBC has given itself permission - or been ordered - to tell us lies, the recent/current examples being two, namely the pro-opposition biased reporting on the attempted subversion (green revolution (Iran; 'the fix')) of the Iranian election and the pro-Liberal-opposition biased reporting on the OzCar/utegate psyop mounted against our own Federal government by Turnbull&Co.

On the one hand, the AusBC is joining by encouraging dissent against the legal order in Iran; the only 'real' info we have so far seen on Iranian voting intentions predicted essentially the given result. Massive street demonstrations (by sore losers) may look impressive, but IF they are the result of external subversion, and in any case represent only a small but v.well organised minority, *and* have been declared illegal, THEN reasonable police action would be understandable. Further IF the demos get out of hand (we've seen lots of fires) THEN more extreme actions (water-cannon, batons) could be justified. I do not by this condone any killing in any way, but who is to know who's really 'responsible?' See the $US400mio that we know about, deployed (via CIA, we suppose, perhaps Mossad) specifically towards the destabilisation of Iran. Based on the known 'School of Assassins' m.o. they could have multiple undercover killers active in Iran. Note: fires in the streets have been seen recently in France, water-cannon, batons deployed in Germany, etc.. Sooo, Q: Why is the AusBC describing events in Iran with such draconian language? (A: Silly question; they wish to influence, as opposed to inform.)

On the other hand, until it became ludicrously obvious that Turnbull had well and truly shot himself in the foot, the AusBC bias was full-tilt to the Liberals. Not just on the Federal scene, the AusBC full-tilt bias to the Liberals is 'enduring and endemic' to Canberra local politics. Q: Why that? A: See influence vs. inform. Q: Whose interests are served? A1: *Not* ours, we the sheople, A2: *Not* our de-balled and defective democracy.

Only fully and fairly informed voters could be capable of making sane electoral decisions; any single lie is a crime against democracy, but the AusBC is a serial, multiply continuous offender. Boo! Hiss! Bad Aunty!

-=*=-

2. The US, and its as good as continuous 'resource' wars. There's a logical fallacy, often deployed 'in the bad old days' by Howard: "Everyone knows..." which he would then follow by one of his famous lies. (Coined especially for Howard: "All politicians lie!" - where 'all' is loosely interpreted as the multiple Howard personalities assembled "as a shag on a rock.") Sooo, everyone knows - or should know by now, exceptions being a) those actually 'on the take,' b) those erring ideologues who support criminals 'for free' (i.e. lying trolls), and c) those deliberately deceived, see AusBC above... - Err, everyone capable of sorting truth from the MSM dross knows that the US is run by an outlaw rogue regime, mass-slaughtering across the planet, recent examples being Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan:

US drone strike kills 45 in Pakistan
Posted June 24, 2009 06:00:00
  «US ally Pakistan officially objects to the strikes by pilotless US aircraft, though the attack came as the Pakistani army was preparing an offensive against Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan on the Afghan border.» 
[AusBC/justin]

Fat lot of good any 'objecting' will do:

Pentagon Multiple Choice: Dissenting Americans are Terrorists
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
June 15, 2009
  «It should come as no surprise a DoD Antiterrorism Awareness training course characterizes dissidents as “low level” terrorists. Such indoctrination and brainwashing will make it easier for soldiers and DHS paramilitaries — including “public-private partnership” (fascist) shock troops such as InfraGard and soon enough Obama’s “public service” Jugendbewegung — to not only round-up and intern dissidents but shoot them down in numbers as they were shot down in their millions by Stalin and Mao in the blood-soaked 20th century.» 
[infowars/Nimmo]

I hear some saying yeah, yeah, pull the other one; so try this:

October 26, 2008 12:40 PM PDT
U.S. Army warns of twittering terrorists
by Steven Musil
  «The U.S. intelligence community is concerned that terrorists might use micro-blogging tool Twitter to coordinate attacks, according to a purported draft Army intelligence report posted on the Web.
The report--present by the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion and posted to the Federation of American Scientists Web site--examines the possible ways terrorists could use mobile and Web technologies such as the Global Positioning System, digital maps, and Twitter mashups to plan and execute terrorist attacks.» 
[cnet/Musil]

But IF you still think I'm dreaming THEN try this:

Middle East
Jun 20, 2009
Beijing cautions US over Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar
  «Earlier, Moscow welcomed Ahmadinejad's re-election. Both China and Russia abhor "color" revolutions, especially something as intriguing as Twitter, which Moscow came across a few months ago in Moldova and raises hackles about the US's interventionist global strategy.» 
[atimes/Bhadrakumar]

-=*=-

3. In another type of "Everyone knows" bucket, we have the "except for the deliberately disinformed" one, see AusBC above. Here I refer to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, essentially the defining injustice that allowed every subsequent injustice - like the illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation; murder for oil. I note the UN now bleating at Iran; Q: Why didn't the UN declare the B, B & H invasion illegal - until too late? Q: Why did the UN allow Zionists to invade Palestine in the first place? On top of all of those v.good questions, come the overarching one, Q: Why does the AusBC provide cover for invading alien Zionists, who have been mass-murdering the original legal owners of Palestine now for 61+ bloody years? One glaringly obvious (i.e. dog's balls) one is because the politicians not just allow it, they order it. But what of AusBC 'integrity?' What of their so-called 'professionalism?' Bah! Of course, either voluntarily surrendered, or totally corrupted - if not both, even assuming that any of those ever existed.

-=*=-

Facit: The 'peak of perfection' of Anglo/Judaic 'civilisation' arises in the so-called 'leader(s)' of the so-called 'free' world, the (mad dog!) US, with its (illegitimate!) tail, Israel - and their murdering wars for resources, mainly the US for oil, Israel for land and water. That the filthy crimes of this 'dastardly duo' go largely unremarked, is because of continuous (lying!) 'cover' afforded by the (corrupt & venal!) MSM, including big bits of the AusBC.

To criticise Iran in the face of their own vast criminality is the utter heights of hypocrisy; there can never be peace without justice, and the reform must start 'at the top' - else, 'the fish is rotting from the head.' Phew! - But not just awful, catastrophic.
 

OzCar/utegate perspective

"Jobs for the boys" or "favours for mates" is the 'hook' Turnbull went fishing with - but it could be pointed out a certain Howard/Manildra ethanol rort (something like $500,000 if my recall is correct - High-octane spark, Ethanol uproar engulfs Howard), but whatever the sum, that was both *real* money and *real* chicanery; here what's under discussion is a) some broken-down old ute and b) some unspecified, theoretically *possible* assistance. Oh yes, I do know that "It's the thought that counts."

I thought it was pretty crook, watching Turnbull admit that he had *nothing* in his hands, no email; no text, basically SFA. Q: What then, had he based his calls for a Rudd resignation on? Then to go Oh, so disingenuous and say "Fake email? We composed no fake email!!?" - now that's what you call a red herring, as is belatedly trying to switch the attack (back) to Swan.

It might be what you call a conundrum, Turnbull obviously had *something*, whatever it is he won't say (but we know that he's had it for some time, just as obviously did Abetz); when challenged "Put up or shut up" he flat-out failed to produce, then went to bluster. Meanwhile, a 'real' fake email turns up, possibly clearing the 'nightingale' who sang to the Senate, dragging in some so-far anonymous new actor, a '42-year-old Calwell man.'

Fakes are lies; lies are deployed to deceive. 'Sent from Treasury' presumably implicates the Calwell culprit; the nightingale showed apparent genuine discomfort. Perhaps the song-bird is (partly) off the hook, but heading for a nervous breakdown (sorry if so.)

It looks like a psyop designed to damage Rudd; the exit of Costello could work to rule out "smirk and mirrors," but we have to put some faith in what we see - and what we saw last night on 7.30 was Turnbull in full-on attempted and cowardly squirm-out mode - but with his foot fixed firmly to the non-evidence, false-email floor. Turnbull's "no basis" mea culpa looks pretty terminal - a) he claims he hadn't sighted it, meaning b) it couldn't *possibly* have been checked let alone verified and then the ultimate nail c) it was an eff'n forgery anyway. Also what of the 'helpers' Abbott, Abetz, Bishop, Hockey & Minchin? Are they desperately trying to bail out a sinking boat, or are they going down with the ship? Both?

-=*end*=-

PS Still no transcript. Ooops! 7.30 are totally screwed up; the Turnbull transcript contains the Rudd segment, and the Rudd segment itself is empty - where is the Turnbull segment, why the switch? Bad, Aunty!

Now we can see my objection to O'Brien, Uhlmann et al. at the AusBC: they are grabbing at the side-show (Swan), now that Turnbull has totally stuffed up on the main event. Note that the Uhlmann citation is *NOT* of the AusBC 19:00 news bulletin; I do not know if that 'episode' is documented anywhere and if so how, but lateline is a v.much toned-down version of what Uhlmann tried to 'push' earlier that day, namely that Swan was the target all along (as if to imply 'main' target.) If that amounts to the AusBC trying help Turnbull wriggle away I leave as a question for 'individual contemplation.'
 

remember, the most important thing ... (response, see text)

[response to BobW Jun 22, 2009 4:23:00 AM; 4095 char limit!!?]

 .. is not at all what they do...

   .. but what they say ...

     .. haw, haw, haw!

-=*=-

G'day Bob,

 .. as you might recall, I'm not irreligious so much as anti-religious, but I was (against my will, even back then) inoculated with some religious 'pollution.' One such bit is this:

  .. Forgive them father, for...

     .. they know not what they do.

Complete and utter bullshit of course, and a 'matching' piece is this little bewdy:

  .. The meek shall inherit the Earth.

Even worse BS; me: "Justice delayed is justice denied!"

-=*=-

At this point, we need a perspective-pause. We are not 'on the ground' in Iran; most of the so-called 'Western' journalists who were there have been ejected (or run away;) some who have stayed - perhaps all (especially think here: Fisk) - seem to have their own agendas. What we absolutely *know* - is that the MSM lies, also publicly financed broadcasters. It's not new (but my realisation is relatively new); an old adage comes to mind (or I made it up): "IF a liar, THEN no credibility."

One reason for dragging religion into it is because Iran either 'fell to' or 'was rescued by' religion in 1979 (option chosen by individual observer opinion), due to a revolution against the (US)UK-installed *repressive, rip-off* Shah regime, itself the result of an external, subversive coup. For 30 years now, the 'mad mullahs' have ruled, 'dictatorially' is the charge (more individual observer opinion to decide on the veracity of the preceding, MSM-pushed propaganda). More than half of contemporary Iranians were born since then, and have a) little to no knowledge of their own history/predicament, and b) wish to 'play' with the 'rest of the West' - to which they have convinced themselves - or have been corrupted - to desire.

Personal note: Having been through a 'religion-rejection' event myself (and not only survived but am definitely, tending to infinitely better off); I can understand young, intelligent people similarly rejecting their religion. BUT: What I can't understand is why this particular group (under 30 Iranian 'intellectuals' - i.e. students, or just 'slightly better educated' even) wish to jump from the (Iranian religious) frying pan into the (US rip-off) fire. To me, this indicates amazing naïveté bordering on criminal. The Iranians stand at the abyss: they stand to lose their patrimony, not 'just' like Iraq (illegal invasion, brutal occupation) - but these 'green revolutionaries' look like *giving it away on purpose, 'for free'*.

Me not understanding modern students is neither new nor unique, here I recall "students for Reagan." In my own student days I was (virulently!) anti-war (and still am); and so now to some responses to Obama lecturing to the current, as far as I know legal authorities in Iran, who may well be (certainly my conclusion) facing a violent insurrection, instigated by foreign subversion, carried out by a rabid rent-a-mob rabble of erring-ideologue young brats (who may have validly made their own personal choice between "Heaven later ..." and "iPod now!") - but have seen their particular option fail to 'get up' in the election - and are apparently committed to destruction.

-=*=-

So, Mr Obama:

'68 Chicago democrats' convention.

Kent State shootings.

Patriot Act.

NSA spying on your own people and politicians (with a view to blackmail?)

MAC Act.

Illegal invasion of Iraq, now morphed into a brutal occupation, and the oil-rip-offs now seriously getting underway, by the (mainly US) oil majors.

All the above perhaps not 'yours' - but your country's *regimes'*.

Accelerating the invasion of Afghanistan, spreading the brutal carnage into Pakistan.

*Not* prosecuting torturers.

*Not* unclenching your "All options!" fists.

Enough?

But before we go, Mr Obama, what about the $US400mio (that we know about; how much more we don't know about) targeted on subverting Iran?
 

wash your mouth out, Aunty!

 .. with soap; words they should not use ...

   .. the 'job' of the AusBC is to neutrally inform ...

     .. *NOT* to make judgments, or slant info in any way

-=*=-

Explication: In order to document AusBC 'indiscretions,' biased remarks, (invalid!) value judgments or other malfeasance - including outright lies - examples may be listed here. Anyone wishing to include such need only submit a comment, including a checkable quote plus working URL and any qualification(s); the instance will be listed in this headline article, a 'push-down' stack.

-=*=-

Date (YYMMDD); transgression; comment:

090620; 'political dissident, ... people ... disappeared;' dissident —adj. disagreeing, esp. with the established government, system, etc. [POD] - It's correct; most of the nominated persons in stress positions are disagreeing with a result declared by the constituted authorities. By now, we all know the implications of 'stress positions.' Another word they (AusBC etc.) like using is insurgent (—adj. in active revolt. —n. rebel. [ibid.]) The (analogous?) usage of 'disappeared' first came to my attention in the aftermath to the (CIA sponsored?) Chilean coup d'état. (Please see Jun 20, 2009 7:19:00 AM below.) What language you deploy, Aunty!

090620; 'unleash their full fury;' unleash v. 1 release from a leash or restraint. 2 set free to engage in pursuit or attack. [POD] fury n. (pl. -ies) 1 a wild and passionate anger. b fit of rage. [ibid.] Dear Ms Barker and/or Aunty; please justify these invalid and/or immoderate inaccuracies/projections, and generally inflammatory language? (Please see Jun 20, 2009 5:51:00 AM below.)

090617; 'despise, hate;' one of Fisk's phrases is "They absolutely despise him," where 'him' is Ahmadinejad. Q: How can Fisk know this? Iran has about 70mio people; has Fisk talked to 35mio+1, all of whom 'absolutely despise?' Fisk is presumed to take $s from the AusBC. Then, Fisk says "they do not hate or dislike the Islamic republic," which is some good news.

090615; 'crack down;' the article title is "Iran declares opposition rally illegal" - one doesn't 'crack down' on anything illegal, one enforces the law.

090606; 'denier;' the phrase is "Obama has bluntly challenged Iran's president to visit a concentration camp and lashed out at Holocaust deniers." Dear Aunty: please present *hard evidence* of any such denial by Ahmadinejad. (Note that this is the very same Obama who advised Iran to "unclench its fists.") IF there is no such evidence, THEN the AusBC should tell us so, alerting us to a quoted lie.

090604; 'atomic weapons, the West;' this article is a 'real bewdy.' One phrase is "Tehran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is a cover for ambitions to build atomic weapons." Q: Who, exactly is 'the West?' A: The mad dog US and illegitimate tail Israel, and any quisling/coerced 'allies?' Q: Where is there evidence of Iran building a bomb? A: None; neither CIA nor IAEA. Only snivelling politicians, often Israeli, make this (invalid!) assertion - and the AusBC parrots it just about every time. Boo! Hiss!

060903; '... Ahmadinejad, who has said openly he would like to wipe Israel off the map.' Said by Tony Jones - got any proof, Aunty?

That one's pretty old now; here's a more up-to-date one:

090211; 'nuclear capability, wipe Israel off the map;' quoting Obama: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region, it pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a nuclear arms race, its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real." ("unclenching his fists." Haw!) Same as above; IF there is no evidence for Obama's statements, THEN the AusBC should tell us so, alerting us to quoted lies.

-=*=-

A 'different' thing is weird language:

090618; 'took a hit;' - what the hell is that supposed to mean? I mean, we can have a guess, but what's wrong with good old plain English?

09mmdd; 'slam;' as in "libs slam" 18 times this year alone, including 9 "ACT libs slam." Hmmm. There are plenty of other choices[2] for 'slam,' invalid due to being a loaded, judgmental term. How about 'pitifully, or whiningly criticised?'

-=*=-

Fazit: The idea is to collect violations of the 'business model' that we fairly & rightly expect, as the bill-payers, that the AusBC should be honouring.

-=*end*=-

PS One 'trick' that AusBC deploys is that they do not supply word-for-word transcripts for all news broadcasts, including the 7:00pm 'news' and RN/b-fast. Sooo, since what they say there can be totally undocumented, so they can abuse such broadcasts - and they do. Another 'trick' is to hide 'sensitive' items, often as 'oncers,' in off-peak or otherwise obscure corners. Again boo! Hiss! Anything that is not strictly non-biased fact should be flagged as such; it would help if the AusBC actually provided the facts, when such are contradicted by someone they quote. That'd be pretty easy for so-called 'professional' journalists, eh?

PPS The intention is to keep 'floating' this article to the 'top' of the blog. Naturally enough, as a truth-seeker site, anyone may 'argue the toss.' Also, if anyone has better examples than those already published, please feel free to send 'em in.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] neutral
adjective
1 not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides, especially states at war; impartial: during the Second World War Portugal was neutral.
n
belonging to an impartial party, state, or group: on neutral ground.
n
unbiased; disinterested: neutral, expert scientific advice. [Oxford Pop-up]

[2] slam
3 (informal) he was slammed by the critics for his first-half performance
CRITICIZE, attack, censure, condemn, denigrate, pull to pieces, give a bad press to; pillory, maul, lambaste, flay, savage, revile, vilify; informal knock, pan, bash, take apart, crucify, hammer, do a hatchet job on, throw brickbats at, lay into, roast, skewer; Brit. informal slate, rubbish, slag off; N. Amer. informal trash, bad-mouth, pummel, cut up; Austral./ NZ informal bag, monster; archaic slash; rare excoriate.
-opposite(s): PRAISE. [ibid.]
 

Family First? No

I've been thinking about Stephen Fielding's current stance on the future for our families. Fielding's a Victorian Senator, the Federal parliamentary leader of the Family First Party in Australia, and at present he stands opposed to a potential part-solution to the most pressing problem faced by our families now and in our future. He stands against introduction of a carbon pollution reduction scheme.

I'm working through what his logic must most likely be. I assume he thinks he's putting the interests of families first and I'm trying to figure what his probable rationalisation of that would be.

My own logic runs: IF one is putting families first, ... THEN one acts to protect the interests of families in the long term, i.e. one acts to serve the interests of families both now and into the future.

Fielding's illogic (IMHO) appears to run: IF one is putting families first, ... THEN one acts to serve only their immediate short-term interests, i.e. forget about their likely future situation.

My logic is based on an ethic of concern for long term sustainable human existence on this planet. It's based on the simple logic: IF we don't trash our habitat, ... THEN it continues to be habitable.

Fielding's logic is apparently based on concern for what? IMHO, his chief concern is for his own situation, his political career, and perhaps the perks available after a certain number of years in the Senate.

In recent days, Fielding has effectively stated that he does not accept a correlation between the increased CO2 emissions generated by human activities and change in the climate on our planet. He's going to freeze there like a stick in the mud and refuse to act on reduction of CO2 emissions, unless the correlation is proved to his satisfaction.

I'm at a loss to see how Fielding's stance could be serving the long term interests of families because:

1. IF there is indeed a true and strong correlation between CO2 emission increase rates and global average temperature, but its proof is simply not deemed sufficient by Senator Fielding (erroneously), ... THEN he's got it wrong and, by standing against implementation of a CPRS, he stands to cause families to suffer in future (for generations) due to the impacts upon them of increased frequency, duration, and destructive power of various catastrophic events caused by climate change, e.g. droughts, crop failures, fires, storms, floods, and so on.

2. Given there already is increased frequency, duration and/or destructive power of various catastrophic events at current climatic conditions, IF there is not a strong, but a weak correlation between CO2 emissions and climate change, ... THEN there will still be reason to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce its effects as a factor contributing to the occurrence of these events ... PLUS THEN we will need to hasten and act to discover and deal with whatever might be the major/other contributory factors.

3. Given there already is increased frequency, duration and/or destructive power of various catastrophic events at current climatic conditions, IF there is not even a weak correlation between CO2 emissions and climate change, ... THEN we will still need to hasten and act to discover and deal with whatever might be the actual contributory factors combining to cause these events and/or learn to live in ways that reduce the impact of such events. The energy-saving result of implementing a carbon pollution reduction scheme still goes toward the longer lifespan of non-renewable resource reserves (i.e. shifting out the peak gives us the benefit of the resources for longer) and thus it is beneficial to families as they'll enjoy some longer run boost to living standards in the future. That boost from the energy saving dividend is likely to be needed in order to offset whatever drag on living standards comes as a result of addressing the presumably unknown true causes of the damaging events we've been through more often now than ever in our known history.

Whichever way I look at it families are more likely to enjoy some longer term, longer lasting benefit if a CPRS is implemented.

green revolution (Iran; 'the fix')

never trust any statistic ...

 .. that you didn't forge yourself ...

   .. "They'd have to say that, wouldn't they?"

     .. yet another c-theory - this time hardly joking at all

-=*=-

Q: How did the Mousavi rampagers get the idea the election was 'fixed' anyway?

A: They tried to put the fix in themselves, but were outfoxed and (possibly) counter-fixed.