Konformist Book Club: Piso Christ

http://pisochristthebook.webs.com/

Introduction to the book 'Piso Christ', by Roman Piso

Hello, and welcome to this website. This site is here to help you to familiarize yourself with the book 'Piso Christ'. We will be giving you some background here and other information regarding the book 'Piso Christ'. Our goal is to help everyone gain a working knowledge of the true nature of the history of the time in which Christianity was created and eliminate any doubt that anyone has about the truth about Christianity.

The book 'Piso Christ' was many years in the making and there have been several people who have helped to make it possible. We hope that you will find this website to be a valuable resource and that you will want to share this information with others. Thank you. Our kindest regards, Roman Piso & Jay Gallus

What Piso Christ is About...

Jay Gallus and I realized that we had to get this information out there so that everyone would finally have access to this information. To understand the whole scope of what happened in the creation of Christianity one must first have a good understanding of the people involved in it, the true context of the time and place, what the motivating factors were, and a great deal more. We are used to seeing programs on TV which tell us about astounding feats from ancient times such as inventions and pyramids, incredible mathematic understanding, astronomy and so forth. But on those programs we are told that this was the work of aliens or of some lost civilization, giving the impression that these things were not accomplished by ordinary human beings. To think that is to not know what was really going on in ancient times.

It is true that many things were known, discovered, and used in ancient times which would seem to us to have been produced before their time. However, when you realize that in the ancient world, there were basically two sets of people, royals and non-royals, you begin to also understand that royals had vested interests to protect and that they, by necessity, devised methods and means by which to retain their status. One of the first things they learned was that they had to preserve knowledge only for themselves. This is because they realized that knowledge is power. So, while all royals enjoyed the best possible education and learned about all the things which had been known, discovered and invented, by the same token, they were doing what they could to keep that information from the general public or non-royals. But even this was not enough. It was not enough to keep the common people uninformed, but they had to make certain that they could not think and reason properly either. And so, they began a process of dumbing-down the masses to insure that they would be ignorant and superstitious.

For thousands of years, among these royals, psychopaths were born. And from within, with all the knowledge and power that royals controlled, these psychopaths carved out the world as they would have it be. They created religion. And perhaps the greatest psychopath of all, Arrius Calpurnius Piso, designed and created Christianity. He was a very ruthless, mean and vindictive person, but he never let anything get the best of him, he was always on top of everything. He was always several steps ahead of anyone else. The book 'Piso Christ' gives some important information about Arrius Calpurnius Piso and his family, and how it was that they had created Christianity. Arrius Piso played the part of Jesus in the New Testament as a way of mocking the person who he felt was his worst enemy; Jesus, son of Gamaliel I. Jesus, the son of Gamaliel I was a High Priest of the Pharisees. He was going to succeed his father as leader of the Pharisees and in a sense, become a real-life messiah. Not one who worked miracles or who claimed the be the son of God, but one who would help institute a profound change in the world. Arrius Piso feared that Nero would leave the Roman Empire in the hands of Jesus. Arrius Piso managed to kill both Nero and Jesus. He probably killed Gamaliel I also.

As most people who know their first century history already know, Nero was killed in 68 CE. Gamaliel I had died in 63 CE, and his son Jesus was slain in Jerusalem in 63 CE. What would have changed had these men lived and were successful with what they planned to do? We may never know completely, but because of all of my research into this, I have some idea. Firstly, the Pharisees were highly ethical and intelligent. You may say that they were not so much religious as they were humanist. They were perhaps the world's first real and true secular humanists. Yes, they pretended to be religious on the surface, but it is my opinion that they had to create that facade in order to survive in that time and place. The true force and thrust of their thoughts were humanist and ethical, not religious.

So what were the Jews (meaning Pharisees and their allies) fighting for? They were against slavery. And so, that is one thing that they would have changed. They knew that it was not right to use and treat other people as anything less than what they are; human beings. They taught this in their ethical teachings. So, they sought an end to slavery throughout the Roman Empire. They helped the slaves throughout the Roman Empire to escape and revolt. They were against torture and inequality, and sought to put an end to that as well. And finally, another way that they would have changed the world is to do away with kings and other rulers who assumed their positions simply through royal birth. They would have given the world the means to thrive and to learn by giving democratically elected representatives a chance at positions which were formally only held by royals. And, of course, all of the accumulated knowledge, wisdom, inventions and the books containing all of that information would have been available to everyone and not only reserved for royalty. All people would have been able to have the best education possible and know about all the things which were done before, all things which had been invented, devised and used. What a different world it would have been.

But Arrius Piso was a psychopath and did not want this to happen. So, he set about to make a plan which would insure that it would not happen. And a large part of that plan included creating a new religion which would prevent people from thinking outside of the little box that he would trap their minds within. Most people today still do not truly understand just what a psychopath is or what they are capable of doing. Many people only have the idea that they are people like serial killers who usually get tripped up, caught and put in prison. This is far from the truth. There are different levels of psychopaths. Some kill people directly and do it themselves. Others do it in other, different ways, sometimes by having others do it for them. And still others, just destroy lives and kill people slowly over the course of time by torturing them to death; sometimes by using marriage in order to do it. Arrius Piso was a most horrid psychopath. And like many psychopaths, he was a megalomaniac and could not help bragging about the things he did and got away with. That is how we are able to piece together the puzzle (the "mystery of the gospels") that he left us about how and why he created Christianity.

The book 'Piso Christ' covers many of the most important things that people should know about all of this. The reader of Piso Christ will learn a great deal about the Piso family and their relatives. They will read about the power play that was going on at the time and which was the reason that Arrius Piso had to create a new religion as a means of controlling and manipulating the minds of the masses. He devised it to be exactly as he needed it to be for his purpose. For instance, he instituted the use of a confessional so that the leaders of the Church could act as informants and give him and his family information on who, when and where their might be a revolt or counter attack in the war that was going on then. It is a completely awful thing once it is exposed to the light of day. And absolutely essential that each and every human being know about. The complexion of Christianity, once the truth is known, changes to the exact opposite of what believers have thought it to be - the world's greatest horror.

What would a ardent Christian believer think if they were to learn that the very person that they looked upon as their savior was actually a psychopathic murderer who upheld slavery, torture, murder and genocide? And so, by the invention of their religion kept the world from progressing and thriving as it should have? Many would resist the thought. But what if it were simply undeniable? Eventually, even if some believers would never consider this to be the case, many would indeed realize that this is actually the truth. And upon learning the truth, would have to agree, as we do, that the "truth shall make you free." I don't just want people to learn about this, I want them to do their own research. I want them to inform others of it. Again, I think of this as essential information which every person should have and know about. It took me many years of study to reach the level of expertise in all of this to confidently state all that I do in the book Piso Christ. The book Piso Christ is only one book of many that I have written on the subject of ancient history. With the help of people like you, we will finally be able to educate the world to this terrible tragedy and reveal Christianity (and religion in general) for what it really is. Let me both congratulate you and thank you for having read this and for reading the book Piso Christ. Please remember to post links on your site/s to let others know about this and tell friends and family what you have learned about Arrius Piso and Christianity.

Best regards, Roman Piso & Jay Gallus

POSTSCRIPT (by Roman Piso)

Why do I think of Christianity as the horrible thing that I do? Because I can't help but think what a wonderfully beautiful world we could have been born into today had it not been for Arrius Piso and Christianity. The progress that it took the world 2,000 years to achieve would have been attained back then. I think of all of the generations of people whose lives were basically wasted believing whole-heartedly in lies while being kept in complete ignorance of all of this. I think of all of the lives, energy, money and resources wasted. I think of all of the people who read the bible and took it literally, who, like non-thinking zombie-like drones "went forth and multiplied" causing the population explosion that we are experiencing today. I think of all of the non-renewable natural resources which were used up, used unwisely and unnecessarily, simply because there are too many people with too little knowledge and wisdom. I think that it is a fantastically horrible thing that religion and Christianity particularly, has done to the world. It is absolutely essential that people wake up to this now; or we may never be able to undo the damage. Of all the years, lives and contributions lost to humanity because of this, we owe it to ourselves to make certain that a) this is learned and understood by all, and b) that we do our best to make up for all that was lost. Think of all the Popes who took, tortured and destroyed lives, of all the wars fought over the issue of religion, of all the division between human beings caused by it and things resulting from it. The world never had to be this way. It was made this way on purpose, by one single psychopath and those who helped him those many years ago.

I ask that you please share this information with those you know. If you are a member of a club or organization, you can print this out and bring it with you to show those who may likewise be concerned.

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

After spend months threatening a veto, the President decides instead to codify the first such bill since the 1950s Glenn Greenwald
Thursday, Dec 15, 2011
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law

In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote about the primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as ”black hole” injustice.

There have been several persistent myths circulating about this bill and President Obama’s position on it that need to be clarified once and for all:

First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean). That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the White House both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers President Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.

I’m embedding the video below of the segment I did last night on Cenk Uygur’s TV program where I elaborated on this point: this is not to mitigate how heinous this bill is, as there are real dangers to codifying these powers in law with bipartisan Congressional support as opposed to having the President unilaterally seize them and have some lower courts recognize them. Instead, it’s a reflection of how horrible the civil liberties status quo has become under the Bush and Obama administration. This is the reason why civil libertarians have been so harshly critical of this President. It’s the reason civil liberties groups have been saying things like this even when saying them was so unpopular: it’s because Obama has, for three years now, been defending and entrenching exactly the detention powers this law vests, but doing it through radical legal theories, warped interpretations of the 2001 AUMF, continuities with the Bush/Cheney template, and devotion to Endless War and the civil liberties assaults it entails. See the newspaper excerpts below for more proof of this.

Second, as I documented at length last week, Obama’s veto threat was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.

Even the one substantive objection the White House expressed to the bill — mandatory military detention for accused American Terrorists captured on U.S. soil — was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that — the definitive, conclusive proof — is that Sen. Carl Levin has several times disclosed that it was the White House which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted U.S. citizens from military detention (see the clip of Levin explaining this in the video below). In other words, this was an example of the White House demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraints (the prohibition on military detention for Americans captured on U.S. soil). That’s because the White House’s North Star on this bill — as they repeatedly made clear — was Presidential discretion: they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.

Any doubt that this was the White House’s only concern with the bill is now dispelled by virtue of the President’s willingness to sign it after certain changes were made in Conference between the House and Senate. Those changes were almost entirely about removing the parts of the bill that constrained his power, and had nothing to do with improving the bill from a civil liberties perspective. Once the sole concern of the White House was addressed — eliminating limits on the President’s power — they were happy to sign the bill even though (rather: because) none of the civil liberties assaults were fixed. As Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer explained:

This morning I wrote that by making the mandatory military detention provisions mandatory in name only, the Senate had offered the administration an opportunity to see how seriously it takes its own rhetoric on civil liberties. The administration had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamental American principle. But the administration has decided that fundamental American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over.


That’s because, as Serwer explained in a separate post, Congress — in response to the veto threat — made changes “addressing the security concerns, but not the ones related to civil liberties and the rule of law” (by “security concerns,” the White House means: don’t restrict what the President can do). That the White House cared only about the former (presidential discretion), and not at all about the letter (civil liberties), is proven by its willingness to sign the bill when only objections to the former have been addressed. For more proof on this point — and the perfect encapsulation of it — see this comment here.

Third, the most persistent and propagandistic set of myths about President Obama on detention issues is that he tried to end indefinite detention by closing Guantanamo, but was blocked by Congress from doing so. It is true that Congress blocked the closing of Guantanamo, and again in this bill, Congress is imposing virtually insurmountable restrictions on the transfer of detainees out of that camp, including for detainees who have long ago been cleared for release (restrictions that Obama is now going to sign into law). But — and this is not a hard point to understand — while Obama intended to close Guantanamo, he always planned — long before Congress acted — to preserve Guantanamo’s core injustice: indefinite detention.

I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start.

Totally prior to and independent of anything Congress did, President Obama fully embraced indefinite detention as his own policy. He is a proponent — not an opponent — of indefinite detention. Just review the facts — the indisputable facts — if you have any doubt about that or if you know anyone who does.

This is why even some progressive Senators such as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders ultimately voted to deny funding to the closing of Guantanamo: not because they favored GITMO, but because they wanted first to see Obama’s plan for what would replace it, because they did not want to allocate funds to a plan that would simply re-locate GITMO and its defining injustice — indefinite detention — onto U.S. soil.

Can any rational person review these events and try to claim that Obama is some sort of opponent of indefinite detention? He is one of American history’s most aggressive defenders of that power. As Human Rights Watch put it: “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” There is no partisan loyalty or leader-reverent propaganda strong enough to obscure that fact.

*

Here is the segment I did last night with Cenk Uygur on his new Current TV program; he started off the segment with quite a rant (understandably so), so our discussion begins at roughly the 7:00 mark, though the video of Sen. Levin explaining the White House’s demands for domestic detention power is at roughly the 2:30 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdVdjoPR3Vk

A Rick Perry Christmas Prayer

Greg Palast Saturday, December 10, 2011
GregPalast.com

Rick Perry's right when he says, "Something's wrong when gays can serve openly in the military but kids can't pray openly in school."

What's wrong is that they're missing their copies of Vultures' Picnic. In fact, once my twins took a copy of Vultures' Picnic to school, all the kids began praying openly — for an end to cuts in the school budget!

Want to roast Rick Perry's chestnuts on an open fire?

Then get the man a copy of Vultures' Picnic for Christmas. Make a minimum $60 tax-deductible donation to the Palast Investigative Fund and I will send you a signed copy of the hardbound book the One Percent really doesn't want you to read.

I will sign Vultures' Picnic to you ... or to anyone you are gifting. Send one to "Gov. Rick" or to your pinhead cousin who says over the Christmas turkey, "I don't know why those hippies are sitting in tents on Wall Street and blah blah blah." Just hit him on the head with the hardbound copy (metaphorically speaking) — with the book that Amy Goodman says explains WHY we occupy.

And why not put a little Palast under the Chanukah bush? Take Mike Malloy's advice, "you absolutely MUST get this astonishing book, Palast's best," and, as a thank-you bonus, we'll send you the links to the way-cool companion videos to Vultures' Picnic. Amazon and B&N charge extra for these. But hey, it's Christmas.

Your tax-deductible donation keeps us alive. Did you see our Democracy Now! report on Goldman Sachs beating the hell out of the Occupation's credit union? Our report from the Congo? We DONATE all of these films to Amy Goodman. But it all comes to an end if we can't pay the legal bills and the light bills and for the flights to the Congo.

We really, truly need your gift this holiday time. Check out all the other gifts of books and DVDs. And consider a year-end tax deductible donation.

This year, make your holiday giving make a difference.

Mitt Romney's billionaire, Paul "The Vulture" Singer, is threatening us "We've got a file on Greg Palast." Of course he does. So is Goldfinger's buddy (yes, there really is a Goldfinger and he's in chapter one, which you can download here). The real Goldfinger makes the movie one look like, well, Santa Claus.

Get the file on them: my book, Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High Finance Carnivores.

And let's spend the holiday together. I will be in Burlington, Vermont, this Monday night (Dec 12) and in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday, the end of the Vultures' Picnic tour. Info here.

Greg Palast

Palast's reports can be seen on BBC Television Newsnight, on Democracy Now!, and in The Guardian.

Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts.
Follow Palast on Facebook and Twitter.

Occupy, Big Oil and the U.S. Media with Muckraking Journalist Greg Palast

"Occupy," Big Oil and the U.S. Media with Muckraking Journalist Greg Palast
By Kevin J. Kelley [12.07.11]
Seven Days Magazine

Greg Palast was floating in a kayak off the Alaska coast in 1997 when he had an epiphany. He was working at the time as an investigator for the Chugach native people, whose lands had been slimed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. In the course of his study, Palast uncovered information about Exxon's culpability for the disaster, but he had no way of publicizing it. So he decided to become a journalist.

It's proven a successful second career for Palast, 59, who studied business at the University of Chicago under right-wing economist Milton Friedman. He's won six Project Censored awards for reporting important stories ignored by the mainstream press. He's also the author of two international best sellers, Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

A native Californian, Palast reports regularly for Britain's Guardian newspaper and for the BBC. Nation magazine writer Jim Hightower calls Palast "a cross between Sam Spade and Sherlock Holmes." Corporate executives he's outed as wrongdoers call Palast other things.

Palast spoke with Seven Days in advance of his scheduled talk next week at Burlington's Main Street Landing Film House.

Seven Days: You must be sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street. Do you think it will have a lasting impact on U.S. politics?

Greg Palast: It's not a setback for Occupy to no longer be occupying. No one gives a shit about Wall Street. It's just a piece of tarmac. It was never the point of the movement.

The point has been to expose the 1 percent, the movers and shakers who are moving and shaking us, all those rich motherfuckers. Now we know their names, where they live, how they made their billions.

So yeah, the impact has been huge. And it's just starting. I'm deeply involved with Occupy.

SD: You've got a new book out: Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates, and High- Finance Carnivores. Can you summarize what it's about?

GP: Vultures are financial speculators who seize the assets of the poorest nations by claiming these countries owe money that the speculators try to collect through intimidation, bribery and theft. One guy associated with this is Paul Singer; he's Mitt Romney's top economic adviser. I've been investigating how Romney's "job creator" makes his money, and that's a story Singer doesn't want you to hear.

By the way, I'm totally nonpartisan. Even though Singer owns the Republican Party, I point out that he rents the Democratic Party.

Most of the book is a five-continent investigation of British Petroleum. I'm bringing you the stuff you don't get from CNN or the Petroleum Broadcasting System.

BP's blowout in the Gulf in 2010 was actually the second big disaster it had. There was also a blowout in the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan in 2008, but BP covered it up with a combination of bribery, beatings and blow jobs. [Azerbaijani officials] kept their lips closed and their zippers open.

SD: So your talk in Burlington is part of a book tour?

GP: I'm on a troublemaking tour. My talks are platforms for Occupy activists in their transition away from their fixation with real estate.

SD: You obviously come at stories from a left-wing perspective. Do you ever worry that your ideology might blind you to facts?

GP: I don't have an ideology. There's really only the truth and the not-truth. I'm just an old-fashioned gumshoe reporter.

The worst fucking thing about American journalism, by the way, is its "on-the-one-hand-this, on-the-other-that" approach. It really distorts or omits truth.

I exposed [Florida Secretary of State] Katherine Harris for purging thousands of black voters from the electoral rolls. That cost [Al] Gore the 2000 election. It was stolen from him. I documented it.

I could not get that story into the U.S. media. There was a total news blackout of what had happened. It finally got picked up by the L.A. Times, and they played the story as "Democrats accuse Republicans of removing black voters from the rolls; the Republicans deny that."

Jesus Christ! We don't have balanced news in the United States; it doesn't fucking exist. News here isn't reporting; it's repeating.

SD: Hang on. You write mostly for British outlets. Are you saying the British press is less influenced by corporate interests than the American press? The same financial dynamics are at work, right?

GP: Wrong. The Guardian is owned by a not-for-profit charitable trust. That's allowed it to become the most influential English-language paper in the world.

SD: More influential than the New York Times?


GP: The New York Times is influential in New York. People elsewhere see that it's - what shall we say? - incomplete. The BBC is the gold standard of journalism. It's important to know it's neither corporate owned nor government owned. It's owned by subscribers, the people who pay 100 pounds a year for a TV license.

SD: Yeah, but Britain doesn't have a First Amendment or a Freedom of Information Act.


GP: That's true, but the Brits could borrow our First Amendment, because we're not using it. And have you tried using FOIA lately? Good luck.

It's also true that I don't have any legal protection for stories in the British press. The resulting degree of self-censorship by some reporters is just astonishing.

But it's still not as bad as it is here. The entire front page of the Guardian last week had my coverage of Singer, Romney's biggest funder. There wasn't one mention of his role in the U.S. press.

SD: Staying with journalism for a minute, do you have a journalist hero? George Orwell, maybe?

GP: Only Christopher Hitchens is pompous enough to compare himself with Orwell. My model is Jack Anderson [a Pulitzer Prize-winning modern muckraker who broke scandals involving both Democrats and Republicans].

I also always admired Ron Ridenhour, the soldier who revealed the My Lai massacre [in which 500 Vietnamese villagers were killed by U.S. troops on March 16, 1968]. Ridenhour was the greatest investigative reporter of the last century. He died way too young [of a heart attack in 1998 at age 52].

The TV show "Columbo" had a big influence on me, too. I learned a lot from it about how to do investigations. Lt. Columbo was just totally dogged.

SD: How about Hunter Thompson? You've got an image like his.

GP: People make that connection all the time because we have Rolling Stone in common. But Thompson was a brilliant social analyst, and I'm just a gumshoe guy.

SD: You do look like an old-school reporter with that Humphrey Bogart hat of yours.

GP: I wear the hat because I'm bald and I'll get painfully sunburned otherwise.

SD: Matt Drudge wears the same kind of hat.

GP: Yeah, some people say I'm a left-wing Matt Drudge, but there's a big difference: Drudge is full of shit, and I'm full of information.

SD: You must be embarrassed that one of the first things on Google for "Greg Palast" is a 2009 piece you wrote saying what a great job Obama is doing.

GP: It was right after he took office. And it was nice to see him acting for one week like a real president.

SD: So what happened?

GP: Obama was reminded of who elected him. He brought into power guys like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers - Wall Street operatives and protégés of Robert Rubin, who was Clinton's Treasury secretary [and a Goldman Sachs and Citigroup executive].

Remember, it wasn't Bush who destroyed the economy; it was a guy named Bill Clinton.

They put the arm on Obama. They reminded him he's just a tenant.

SD: Do you worry about your safety?

GP: I very much fear for the safety of my sources. Some of them do end up in jail and/or beaten up. It's insanely dangerous for some of them to talk to me. One of my great sources was just charged with sedition. These guys are insanely courageous. But please don't give the impression that your life will be threatened if you become my source. That wouldn't be helpful.

SD: You're talking about incidents in other countries, right? You haven't had sources jailed or beaten up in the U.S., have you?

GP: Look at Bradley Manning, America's most heroic political prisoner [the U.S. Army soldier accused of supplying a cache of secret diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks]. Lots of Americans are facing the ruin of their careers for whistle-blowing.

Greg Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, released in the US and Canada by Penguin.

Subscribe to Palast's Newsletter and podcasts.
Follow Palast on Facebook and Twitter.

GregPalast.com

Romney's Billionaire Threatens BBC Investigative Reporter

"We have a file on Greg Palast" Greg Palast for Truthout/Buzzflash
GregPalast.com
Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: in Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores. See Palast live on stage in New York, DC and other cities..

Last Monday, a call came in to BBC Television Centre, London, from the office of Mitt Romney's billionaire backer and "advisor" Paul Singer.

Singer, top donor to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee had a message for the news chiefs at the prestigious broadcaster:

"We have a file on Greg Palast."

I bet they do.

The purpose of the Singer call was clear: to smear the reporter whose broadcasts from Africa for BBC Newsnight, The Guardian and Democracy Now! had identified Singer as a "Vulture," a speculator profiteering from misery, mayhem, corruption and civil war.

Apparently, the Republican Presidential front-runner would prefer his sugar-daddies be known as "job creators," not predators.

And the Vulture really, really, doesn't like his starring role in my new book, Vultures' Picnic. I bet he doesn't.

Is BBC going to let Palast continue to investigate? The Romney money man added an unsubtle threat, "Palast has been sued before."

Neither BBC nor The Guardian are backing down, bless'm.

What is in the file Mitt's billionaire has on Greg Palast? I'll show it to you myself, right here, if you have a little patience.

But it's not what's in Singer's file on me that's important — it's what's in my file about him.

You need to know: BBC has identified Singer as the Number One donor of the Republican Party in New York. His fundraising, in coordination with the Koch Brothers through a strange little group of far-right billionaires, is the cash-locomotive of the GOP.

How Singer "The Vulture" got his feathers, got that money that fuels the Romney and Republican causes is not a minor matter. Romney and the whole crew from Newt to Cain are selling us the line that Occupy Wall Street has it all wrong: calling for taxing or controlling the One Percent is a misguided attack on "job creators."

Indeed, one of Romney's demands is that I change the name of my book from Vultures' Picnic to Job-Creators' Picnic. [OK, I made that up.]

Let's begin with how Singer got his feathers.

I didn't give Singer the name "Vulture." His own banker buddies did—with admiration in their voices. Like any vulture, he feasts when victims die. Literally. For example, Singer made a pile buying an asbestos company, Owens Corning, out of bankruptcy. Owens had knowingly allowed thousands of its workers to get deadly asbestosis, then concealed it. You don't want to die of asbestosis. Your lungs turn to mush and you drown inside yourself.

Singer, the Job Creator, used his political muscle to screw down the compensation workers would get. Offered them peanuts. And dying, they took it. With the asbestos workers buried or bought, the asbestos death factories were now worth a fortune ...and Singer made his first "killing."

Then it was on to Peru where Singer had, through a brilliant financial-legal maneuver too questionable for others to attempt, grabbed control of the entire financial system of Peru. Most important, he seized the President's jet. When the scamp of a President, Alberto Fujimori, decided it was a good idea to flee his country (ahead of his arrest on murder charges), Singer, Peru's lawyer told me, let Fujimori escape in return for the Murderer-in-Chief ordering Peru's treasury to pay Singer $58 million.

But that's nothing. What really sent Mitt's man up a wall was my report from the Congos (there are two nations in Africa called 'Congo') where there's a cholera epidemic due to lack of clean water. Singer paid we're told about $10 million for some "debt" supposedly incurred by the Republic of Congo. Congo would pay the $10 million, but Singer had begun seizing about $400 million in the poor nation's assets.

The former Deputy Secretary of the UN said about the vultures, "you are causing babies to die."

It's legal, it's sick, it's Singer.

Well, not legal in most of the civilized world. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said about Singer and his fellow crew, "I deplore the activities of so-called Vulture Funds, [they] are nothing short of scandalous." Britain has outlawed Singer's re-po man seizures (after all, it's ultimately the aid money we give Africa). In the UK, and in much of Europe, Singer is a finance outlaw. But in the USA, he's a "job creator."

Look, I've only scratched the surface from BBC's four-year investigation of Singer who says he'll talk with us, "Never, ever."
* * *
You want to get the whole story—and you damn well should—then read the book. Don't want to pay for it? Alright, I'm putting up most of the Singer material online. Though I don't mean to pick on Singer alone. The whole book is an investigation of the One Percenters, including Singer's sicker buddies in the Vulture club. (Yes, they do have a club.)
* * *
Warning 1: Singer's mouthpiece says that Vultures' Picnic is "chock full of errors." He's refused every opportunity to meet with us. Even the character leaving the threat on the phone won't talk with us. OK, then send me the list of errors. If I'm wrong, I'll change it.

And I want to give you an opportunity, Mr. Singer, to make your case. I am giving a talk in Manhattan, on Monday not far from your penthouse at 7pm. You be there, and I'll share the stage with you. Maybe we'll share a beer and some carrion afterward.

Warning 2: Yes, they have a file on me. It's in Vultures' Picnic. Yes, I was caught going "undercover" on an investigation with a comely young politician to get information. (Got the story ...and my photo on the front page of the Mirror.) There. Read it all and see the photos in Chapter 9. Now you have it. Now I've taken away their favorite bullet: character assassination.

Turkey vultures living in trees defend themselves by vomiting on their attackers. Apparently, so do the Vultures living in penthouses.

Greg Palast is the author of Vultures' Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, released in the US and Canada by Penguin.

Bail-out Bombshell

Fed "Emergency" Bank Rescue Totaled $29 Trillion Over Three Years
J. Andrew Felkerson, AlterNet
Posted on December 15, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/153462/bail-out_bombshell%3A_fed_%22emergency%22_bank_rescue_totaled_%2429_trillion_over_three_years

Speculation about the the Fed’s actions during the financial crisis has made headlines on and off again over the last several years. The latest drama occurred on November 27 when Bloomberg published an article, “Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress," which gives an account of the news agency’s struggle to bring to light the details of the Fed’s emergency programs. Bloomberg throws out some very large numbers, revealing that as of March 2009, the Fed lent, spent, or committed $7.77 trillion worth of aid to the financial system and that banks used the low interest rates charged on these loans to make an estimated $13 billion in income.

On December 6, the Fed struck back, issuing a four page unsigned memo intended to correct recent “egregious errors and mistakes” found in various reports of its emergency lending facilities. The Fed argues that the “total credit outstanding under liquidity programs was never more than about $1.5 trillion.” While Bloomberg wasn’t mentioned explicitly in the Fed memo, it was fairly clear to whom the response was directed. The following day Bloomberg defended its reporting, and the Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel came to the Fed’s defense, characterizing Bloomberg’s methodology as a “great story,” but ultimately not “true.”

All this may sound like controversy, but it’s little more than a tempest in a teacup.

Here’s the hurricane: In reality, no less than $29.616 trillion is the total emergency assistance provided by the Fed to foreign and domestic entities during the Global Financial Crisis. Let’s repeat that: $29 trillion. This astounding number is over twice U.S. gross domestic product, the nominal value of all goods and services produced for the year 2010. This is the total of the bailout as calculated by Nicola Matthews and myself as part of the Ford Foundation project, A Research And Policy Dialogue Project On Improving Governance Of The Government Safety Net In Financial Crisis. We will be presenting the results of our analysis in a series of papers published by the Levy Economics Institute, the first of which, “29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout by Funding Facility and Recipient,” is already available here.

The results we have calculated are presented below, and it is important to note that the totals are cumulative and in billions of U.S. dollars. (The numbers in parentheses indicate amounts still outstanding as of November 10, 2011).

Facility Total Percent of Total
Term Auction Facility $3,818.41 12.89%
Central Bank Liquidity Swaps 10,057.4 (1.96) 33.96
Single Tranche Open Market Operations 855 2.89
Term Securities Lending Facility and Term Options Program 2,005.7 6.77
Bear Stearns Bridge Loan 12.9 0.04
Maiden Lane I 28.82 (12.98) 0.10
Primary Dealer Credit Facility 8,950.99 30.22
Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility 217.45 0.73
Commercial Paper Funding Facility 737.07 2.49
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility 71.09 (10.57) 0.24
Agency Mortgage-Backed Security Purchase Program 1,850.14 (849.26) 6.25
AIG Revolving Credit Facility 140.316 0.47
AIG Securities Borrowing Facility 802.316 2.71
Maiden Lane II 19.5 (9.33) 0.07
Maiden Lane III 24.3 (18.15) 0.08
AIA/ ALICO (AIG) 25 0.08
Totals $29,616.4 100.0%


I want to be clear. These are the totals of Fed lending and asset purchases actually undertaken since the bail-out began. There is no double-counting. And we do not include any credit facilities created by the Fed unless they were actually used. These figures accurately reflect the cumulative totals over the approximately three years actually used by the Fed to prop-up domestic and international banks, shadow banks, central banks, and even some non-financial institutions.

The programs above constitute the crisis prevention machinery rolled out by the Fed to combat the worst financial panic since 1929. All the programs above were designed and implemented to target domestic financial and nonfinancial corporations or foreign central banks or markets, or both. Only one of the facilities, the Term Auction Facility, can be viewed as being consistent with the Fed’s mandate to protect the commercial banking system from systemic failure. The rest are the result of the increasing relevance of the “shadow banking” to our economy—and of the Fed’s attempt to rescue the shadow banking sector.

Shadow banks are highly leveraged financial institutions that perform functions historically relegated to the commercial banking system. It is important to note that these financial concerns do not have access to the conventional means of Fed support. Nor were they ever really regulated or supervised by the Fed. They engaged in extremely risky behavior that in large part led to the global financial crisis. And when it hit, the Fed spent and lent $29 trillion, much of it devoted to rescuing the shadow banking system.

Thus, we see a host of unconventional programs designed to aid these institutions rather than the Fed’s traditional patrons. The information used to calculate the totals above is freely available (thanks in large part to the valiant efforts of a group of lawmakers led by Senator Bernie Sanders) as the result of an amendment inserted into the Dodd Frank bill. Moreover, this information has been freely available since December 10, 2010 on the Fed’s website.

So why didn’t someone else already put the data together in this way?

Obviously, $29 trillion is much bigger than the previous estimates of $7.77 trillion (Bloomberg) or $1.5 trillion (the Fed and the Wall Street Journal). An in-depth account of each of the facilities above is a rather lengthy process as the Levy working paper attests; therefore we will only lay out the reason for the difference between the Bloomberg and Fed numbers. So, how is it that we arrive at such a number? The main difference in our analysis is the variables we identify as essential in understanding the Fed’s response. In our paper we report three measures that we view as essential to capturing the size and magnitude of the bailout. Each of the three measures deals exclusively with programs put into place by the Fed that transcend its conventional lender of last resort function. That is, we only include the emergency facilities the Fed created. We agree with the Fed that only facilities which were actually made operational should be considered in any account of the Fed’s actions. But we take the side of Bloomberg regarding the general lack of transparency by the Fed—the Fed fought tooth and nail to keep the details of its programs secret.

At any given moment inspection of the amount owed to the Fed resulting from nonconventional lender of last resort actions provides a reasonable account of what the Fed was doing in the period leading up to that time. However, looking at this number over time and in the context of the weekly amount lent provides insight into how the Fed’s efforts evolved over the run of the crisis. These two approaches to measurement (a “stock” or outstanding balance and a “flow” or cumulated amount spent and lent weekly) only provide us with details regarding the scope of the Fed’s bailout. To get a clear picture we need some account of the magnitude. We believe that this is captured by looking at the cumulative totals of all programs.

Perhaps the largest difference in our analysis is that we learned our money and banking theory from the late Hyman Minsky. He taught us that the modern economy is essentially financial, and as such, is prone to systemic financial crises that if left unchecked can lead to “bone crunching depressions”. Therefore it is essential to have a LOLR. Thus, any transaction between the Fed and the markets which is not part of conventional monetary operations, such as lending from the discount window or open market operations, represents an instance in which private markets were not able to or were unwilling to engage in the normal financial intermediation process. If it any point in time the private markets were capable (or willing) to carry out business as usual, Fed intervention would not have been required. Thus, we need to account for each extraordinary event, and the best way that we know to do this is by summing each instance--which results in a cumulative total of over $29 trillion dollars.

A figure as large as $29.616 trillion should not be taken lightly, but focus on the specific magnitude of the figure diverts our attention from a larger issue that is at stake: how should the LOLR responsibility to be discharged in the future? With unemployment remaining persistently high and millions continuing to lose their homes to foreclosure as the result of lost income from a poor economy or outright fraud in the mortgage lending and foreclosure process, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the ability of a single institution staffed by unelected officials to carry out such a targeted commitment of the obligations of the United States citizenry. Thanks to the actions of Senator Sanders and other individuals possessing the temerity to question the authority of the Fed we now have access to much of the data regarding what the Fed did during the recent crisis.

But we still need to go through the data from the past three years of bail-outs to answer the following questions: Who got funds from the Fed? How much did they get? And why did they get them? The Fed has not adequately explained why its emergency lending and asset purchases went on for so long and accumulated to such a large number.

J. Andrew Felkerson is a Interdisciplinary PhD student at the University of Missouri- Kansas City

Married Suckers Are Nearly a Minority

Hamilton Nolan
Dec 14, 2011
http://gawker.com/5867972/married-suckers-people-are-nearly-a-minority

Are you married? Sucker. I mean, congratulations. Sucker. In olden times men and women would agree to be joined in matrimony forever—the men receiving a regular source of sexual congress and a valuable allegiance to powerful land-owning families in nearby regions, and the women receiving a new pot and pan. Today: married people are nearly a minority. So close!!!!

Check this one out, all you "I got married to my high school sweetheart at age 24 because it just seemed like the right thing to do" people:

Just 51 percent of all adults who are 18 and older are married, placing them on the brink of becoming a minority, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census statistics to be released Wednesday. That represents a steep drop from 57 percent who were married in 2000...

In 1960, for example, when most baby boomers were children, 72 percent of all adults were married.

Joke's on you married people!!! You figured everyone would be doing it sooner or later, so why not get ahead of the curve, right? Well while you were spending all your time with one person, your single peers were sleeping around with a veritable who's who of attractive members of the opposite sex in the prime of their sexuality, experimenting with a diverse menu of sexual techniques that your spouse just "isn't into!" Or at least playing lots of new XBox games, alone. Either way, the message is clear: I don't even want to get married, Julie, so I hope you're really happy with that other dude you married after you dumped me. I really hope so, ha! I'll be having sex with someone extremely drunk this weekend Julie—someone whose hair is much shinier and fuller than yours! Have fun watching Todd resurface the cabinets or whatever! Really happy for you, sure!

Gay marriage, however, is up by infinity percent.

George Takei Asks Star Trek, Star Wars Fans to Fight Against ‘Twilight’

George Takei Asks Star Trek, Star Wars Fans to Unite in Fight Against ‘Twilight’
Michael Söze
December 13, 2011

Actor/Comedian George Takei is calling on all “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” fans to band against a common enemy: The “Twilight” saga.

“What’s needed today, now, more than ever, is ‘Star Peace’ for there is an ominous, mutual threat to all science fiction. It’s called ‘Twilight’. And it is really, really bad,” said the 74-year-old who is most known for playing Hikaru Sulu on the original “Star Trek” TV series.

Takei’s call for peace among sci-fi lovers comes after videos of William Shatner and Carrie Fisher went viral with the former deriding “Star Wars” and the latter taking digs at “Star Trek.”

”Gone is any sense of heroism, camaraderie, or epic battle. In its place we have vampires that sparkle, moan and go to high school,” Takei continued. “Now I’m not above mixing in a little sex appeal to spice up the fantasy, but sci-fi fans be warned, there are no great stories, characters or profound life lessons to be found in Twilight. No, in Twilight the only message that rings through loud and clear is: ‘Does my boyfriend like me?’”

Full Article:
http://www.inquisitr.com/168050/george-takei-broker-of-star-peace-video

Ways to Inflate Your IQ

Your Intelligence Level Can Fluctuate, Studies Show; Battling the Post-Vacation Dip
SUE SHELLENBARGER
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066293669642830.html

Many people think of IQ as a genetic trait, like brown eyes or short legs: You're born with it and you're stuck with it. Now, a growing body of research is showing that a person's IQ can rise—and even fall—over the years.

Scores can change gradually or quickly, after as little as a few weeks of cognitive training, research shows. The increases are usually so incremental that they're not immediately perceptible to individuals, and the intelligence-boosting effects of cognitive training can fade after a few months.

In the latest study, 33 British students were given IQ tests and brain scans at ages 12 to 16 and again about four years later by researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at University College London; 9% of the students showed a significant change of 15 points or more in IQ scores.

On a scale where 90 to 110 is considered average, one student's IQ rose 21 points to 128 from 107, lifting the student from the 68th percentile to the 97th compared with others the same age, says Cathy Price, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the center and co-author of the study, published last month in Nature. Another student's score skidded out of the "high average" category, to 96 from 114.

Swings in individual IQ scores are often written off as the product of measurement error or a test subject having a bad day. But MRIs in this study showed changes in gray matter in areas corresponding to fluctuations in the kids' skills, Dr. Price says. Although the sample size is small, the study drew wide attention because it is among the first to show how changes in IQ scores may be reflected in actual shifts in brain structure.

"There are many myths about IQ, such as the notion that IQ is a fixed number or that it is a crystal ball for future performance," says Eric Rossen, director of professional development and standards for the National Association of School Psychologists in Bethesda, Md.

The first reliable tests of intelligence in the U.S. were published in the early 1900s, says Alan S. Kaufman, clinical professor of psychology at Yale University and co-author of several IQ tests. Scores compare people to others of the same age based on a wide range of cognitive questions and tasks, from processing information and analyzing patterns, to solving age-appropriate math problems and recalling facts or vocabulary. A score in the 90 to 110 range is considered average. A "genius" may score 140 and above, he says.

IQ tests have been a target of ongoing criticism. Their use led to the misclassification of many children as "intellectually disabled" in the 1970s and 1980s. Similar cognitive tests used by employers to screen recruits have been attacked as discriminatory against African-American and Hispanic job candidates.

Today in schools, individual IQ-type tests are limited mainly to helping plan instruction for some children with specific learning disabilities and helping identify students for gifted programs. Kathleen Lundquist, president of APTMetrics, a Darien, Conn., human-resources consulting firm, says cognitive tests in the workplace today are often revised to eliminate adverse effects on minorities and are most often used as a screening tool for entry-level jobs.

There are practical steps people can take to see longer-term IQ changes. A 30-year study at the National Institute of Mental Health found that people whose work involves complex relationships, setting up elaborate systems or dealing with people or difficult problems, tend to perform better over time on cognitive tests. Test scores of people whose jobs are simple and require little thought actually tend to decline, according to the research, published in 1999 in Psychology and Aging.

New tasks stimulate the brain most. When researchers at the University of Hamburg subjected 20 young adults to one month of intense training in juggling, they found an increase in the corresponding gray matter in the brain as early as seven days after the training began. The added gray matter receded when the training was stopped, although the participants were still able to juggle, says the study, published in 2008 in PLoS One.

IQ tests don't measure such abilities as creativity, common sense or social sensitivity. They do assess many kinds of knowledge and abilities, including abstract reasoning skills. Rising scores in abstract reasoning are the main reason average IQ scores have been increasing by about three points every decade since the 1930s, based on studies by James Flynn, a professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. That may be partly because children spend nearly twice as many years in school, on average, than children decades ago, says Wendy M. Williams, a professor in the department of human development at Cornell University.

Schooling in general raises IQ by several points a year, based on research by Stephen Ceci, a professor of developmental psychology at Cornell, and others. "If you look at an IQ test, it asks things like, 'Who wrote Hamlet?' or 'Why do we pay for postage?' You are most likely to come across the answers in school," Dr. Ceci says. Even nonverbal abilities such as solving puzzles and spatial tasks may blossom because math classes today include visual reasoning with matrices, mazes, blocks or designs, he adds.

Intense training can raise scores. Using a method called "n-back," researchers at the University of Michigan had young adults practice recalling letter sequences by flashing a series of letters on a screen and asking them to press a key whenever they saw the same letter that appeared "n" times earlier, such as one or two times.

Training for about 25 minutes a day for eight to 19 days was linked to higher scores on tests of fluid intelligence, with gains increasing with the duration of the training, says Susanne Jaeggi, co-author of the study, published in 2008 in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.

The gains tend to fade after practice stops, based on studies of children, Dr. Jaeggi says. "You need some booster sessions" to maintain improvements, she says. Other research has found training people to switch mental tasks quickly also can lift scores.

Music lessons are linked to higher IQ throughout life, according to research by E. Glenn Schellenberg, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Six years' lessons lifted children's IQ scores an average 7.5 points; those gains eroded to two points by college age, says a study published in 2006 in the Journal of Educational Psychology.

In a study this year, researchers at the University of Kansas found practicing musicians who are active for a decade or more continue to post higher IQs beyond age 60.

Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com

RFK ASSASSINATION: "LONE SHOOTER" SHOT DEAD

New Analysis of RFK Assassination Video Casts Cabal of Setup Men

Albany, NY - December 14, 2011 - A new video analysis of the RFK assassination entitled "RFK Speaks from the Grave" reveals a well-rehearsed cabal of operatives using stealthy pre-arranged signals and timing sequences to walk RFK into a Kill Zone, pointing the Kill Spot out to RFK, and flashing RFK an ancient symbol seconds before he is shot. The findings are gleaned from analyzing the historic RFK assassination film and may be viewed at www.indiegogo.com/rfk. According to discoverer Daniel Forant, the analysis will resurrect RFK'S assassination and rocket the case for a second shooter.

"Two researchers Dr. Robert Joling and Philip Van Praag and other forensic specialists like the ones in a June 2007 ‘Discovery Channel' special argue that the shot that killed Kennedy had to come from the rear. Sirhan was in front of Kennedy," Forant said. "My video exposes a cabal of men pushing RFK like a cheap deer toward other hunters pre-positioned to kill him from behind. The human hunt is on IndieGoGo."

About IndieGoGo

IndieGoGo is the world's largest global funding platform where Forant is raising the money needed to transform his video analysis into a major film documentary. Donators at www.indiegogo.com/rfk receive unique RFK-ish Perks, named after RFK'S eleven children, in exchange for contributions.

It Was a Pleasure to Burn...

Robalini's Note: This story is important, at the least symbolically. While Amazon has never come out and said it, the name of their e-book reader (Kindle) and their new Tablet (Kindle Fire) pay homage to Bradbury's classic tale and are litkely a tribute. Thanks to Amazon (and Barnes & Noble, as well as the Internet itself) we live in an age where literal paper books may eventually become a relic of the past...

Ray Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451' is released as e-book
Carolyn Kellogg
November 29, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/11/simon-schuster-releases-ray-bradburys-fahrenheit-451-as-an-ebook.html

Simon & Schuster released an e-book edition of Ray Bradbury's science fiction classic "Fahrenheit 451" on Tuesday. First published in 1953, "Fahrenheit 451" is a dystopia in which reading is banned and it is the job of firefighters to burn books. 451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper burns.

The irony of releasing an e-book edition of a novel built around the death of print books was not lost on Bradbury, which is why he resisted the e-book idea. The Associated Press reports that the author was dismissive of the form, saying that e-books "smell like burned fuel." Bradbury, a noted futurist who at one time was a consultant for NASA, told the New York Times in 2009 that the Internet is "meaningless; it's not real.... It's in the air somewhere."

But the 91-year-old author has since changed his mind -- about e-books, at least. Hence "451" is available to digital readership.

“It’s a rare and wonderful opportunity to continue our relationship with this beloved and canonical author and to bring his works to new a generation of readers and in new formats,” Simon & Schuster publisher Jonathan Karp said in an announcement.

"Fahrenheit 451" has sold more than 10 million copies. It has been published in 33 languages in 38 countries and has never gone out of print. Simon & Schuster will also release a new paperback version of the novel in January, followed by new paperback editions of Bradbury's short story collections "The Marian Chronicles" and "The Illustrated Man" in March. “We are honored to be the champion of these classic works,” Karp said.

The e-book edition of "Fahrenheit 451" is now on sale for $9.99 from all major e-book retailers. It may be the perfect book to read on your Kindle Fire.

The Death of the Fringe Suburb

CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER
November 25, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/opinion/the-death-of-the-fringe-suburb.html

DRIVE through any number of outer-ring suburbs in America, and you’ll see boarded-up and vacant strip malls, surrounded by vast seas of empty parking spaces. These forlorn monuments to the real estate crash are not going to come back to life, even when the economy recovers. And that’s because the demand for the housing that once supported commercial activity in many exurbs isn’t coming back, either.

By now, nearly five years after the housing crash, most Americans understand that a mortgage meltdown was the catalyst for the Great Recession, facilitated by underregulation of finance and reckless risk-taking. Less understood is the divergence between center cities and inner-ring suburbs on one hand, and the suburban fringe on the other.

It was predominantly the collapse of the car-dependent suburban fringe that caused the mortgage collapse.

In the late 1990s, high-end outer suburbs contained most of the expensive housing in the United States, as measured by price per square foot, according to data I analyzed from the Zillow real estate database. Today, the most expensive housing is in the high-density, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods of the center city and inner suburbs. Some of the most expensive neighborhoods in their metropolitan areas are Capitol Hill in Seattle; Virginia Highland in Atlanta; German Village in Columbus, Ohio, and Logan Circle in Washington. Considered slums as recently as 30 years ago, they have been transformed by gentrification.

Simply put, there has been a profound structural shift — a reversal of what took place in the 1950s, when drivable suburbs boomed and flourished as center cities emptied and withered.

The shift is durable and lasting because of a major demographic event: the convergence of the two largest generations in American history, the baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and the millennials (born between 1979 and 1996), which today represent half of the total population.

Many boomers are now empty nesters and approaching retirement. Generally this means that they will downsize their housing in the near future. Boomers want to live in a walkable urban downtown, a suburban town center or a small town, according to a recent survey by the National Association of Realtors.

The millennials are just now beginning to emerge from the nest — at least those who can afford to live on their own. This coming-of-age cohort also favors urban downtowns and suburban town centers — for lifestyle reasons and the convenience of not having to own cars.

Over all, only 12 percent of future homebuyers want the drivable suburban-fringe houses that are in such oversupply, according to the Realtors survey. This lack of demand all but guarantees continued price declines. Boomers selling their fringe housing will only add to the glut. Nothing the federal government can do will reverse this.

Many drivable-fringe house prices are now below replacement value, meaning the land under the house has no value and the sticks and bricks are worth less than they would cost to replace. This means there is no financial incentive to maintain the house; the next dollar invested will not be recouped upon resale. Many of these houses will be converted to rentals, which are rarely as well maintained as owner-occupied housing. Add the fact that the houses were built with cheap materials and methods to begin with, and you see why many fringe suburbs are turning into slums, with abandoned housing and rising crime.

The good news is that there is great pent-up demand for walkable, centrally located neighborhoods in cities like Portland, Denver, Philadelphia and Chattanooga, Tenn. The transformation of suburbia can be seen in places like Arlington County, Va., Bellevue, Wash., and Pasadena, Calif., where strip malls have been bulldozed and replaced by higher-density mixed-use developments with good transit connections.

Reinvesting in America’s built environment — which makes up a third of the country’s assets — and reviving the construction trades are vital for lifting our economic growth rate. (Disclosure: I am the president of Locus, a coalition of real estate developers and investors and a project of Smart Growth America, which supports walkable neighborhoods and transit-oriented development.)

Some critics will say that investment in the built environment risks repeating the mistake that caused the recession in the first place. That reasoning is as faulty as saying that technology should have been neglected after the dot-com bust, which precipitated the 2001 recession.

The cities and inner-ring suburbs that will be the foundation of the recovery require significant investment at a time of government retrenchment. Bus and light-rail systems, bike lanes and pedestrian improvements — what traffic engineers dismissively call “alternative transportation” — are vital. So is the repair of infrastructure like roads and bridges. Places as diverse as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Charlotte, Denver and Washington have recently voted to pay for “alternative transportation,” mindful of the dividends to be reaped. As Congress works to reauthorize highway and transit legislation, it must give metropolitan areas greater flexibility for financing transportation, rather than mandating that the vast bulk of the money can be used only for roads.

For too long, we over-invested in the wrong places. Those retail centers and subdivisions will never be worth what they cost to build. We have to stop throwing good money after bad. It is time to instead build what the market wants: mixed-income, walkable cities and suburbs that will support the knowledge economy, promote environmental sustainability and create jobs.

Christopher B. Leinberger is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor of practice in urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 26, 2011, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: The Death of the Fringe Suburb.

A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment

http://sanders.senate.gov/

Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decision in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Saving American Democracy Amendment states that:

•Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.

•Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.

•Corporations may not make campaign contributions.

•Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

'Dismal' prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income

12-15-11
Full Article:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income

Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."

Gingrich Morality

“See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality... That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t.”
Newt Gingrich explaining in 1996 why he supported the death penalty for possession of marijuana even though he was an admitted pot smoker in college...

Elvis Found Alive

Directed and Produced by Joel Gilbert
http://www.elvisfoundalive.com/

ELVIS has been FOUND, ALIVE! After visiting Graceland, Director Joel Gilbert made a Freedom of Information Act request for US government files on Elvis Presley. Incredibly, documents arrived from the FBI revealing an address for Federal Agent "Jon Burrows," Elvis' 1970's alias, in Simi Valley, California. After a brief confrontation, Elvis agreed to chronicle the secret history of his life and "death" in an exclusive interview.

In Elvis Found Alive, Elvis reflects on his early life and career, and describes his admiration for his look-alike, comic book hero Captain Marvel Jr. He explains that social unrest in the late 1960's and terrorism by the Weather Underground drove him to ask President Nixon to make him a Federal Agent. "If I could help save America, maybe it was my true destiny that God had prepared me for."

Elvis reveals that he battled Weatherman Bill Ayers and the Mafia crime families during the 1970's, leading to a faked death to go undercover. What followed was a long struggle to return to his singing career, and an Obama administration that is preventing it to this day. Elvis Presley remains the single most influential and respected figure in the history of Rock and Roll music. Today he is a symbol of America, as recognizable as the flag. Get ready, he's back!

Robalini's Week 16 NFL Picks

Here's my results for week 15 W-L-T record: 4-3-2
Season record: 62-51-5

Indianappolis Colts (+6) Over Houston Texans

I was eyeing this game even before Indy beat Tennessee for their first victory. The win should only inspire the Colts further in a home game, and the Texans just aren't as good without QB Matt Schaub. Houston may still win, but six points is a good buffer for the not-so-locked future home of Andrew Luck...

Kansas City Chiefs (-1) Over Oakland Raiders

The Chiefs issue with QB is solved thanks to getting Kyle Orton (who was pushed out of Denver behind a wave of Tebowmania.) They should play inspired at home in their first game after beating the previously undefeated Packers, and the Raiders should play flat after a disappointing last-minute one point loss against the Lions...

Denver Broncos (-3) Over Buffalo Bills

I admit it: I'm seduced by the charm of the Tebow cult. That said, the Bills are clueless now, with a seven-game losing streak with four of the games by more than two touchdowns. Meanwhile, Tebow is rapidly improving as a passer...

Cincinnati Bengals (-4 1/2) Over Arizona Cardinals

The Bengals only losses come against teams with winning records, something the Cards don't have. They're also an indoor team in a warm city unprepared for the Cincinnati cold...

New England Patriots (-10) Over Miami Dolphins

The Dolphins are just the kind of team the Patriots like to beat up and abuse...

Carolina Panthers (-7) Over Tampa Bay Buccaneers

The Bucs look like they're out of their, and Cam Newton is ready to cement his Rookie of the Year status...

Detroit Lions (-2 1/2) Over San Diego Chargers

Maybe a tad risky since the Chargers look in gear, but the Lions are at home and have their act together as well...

San Franciso 49ers (-3) Over Seattle Seahawks

The 49ers have cemented themselves as a team to be taken seriously...

Dallas Cowboys (-2 1/2) Over Philadelphia Eagles

The Cowboys at home should win against Philly thanks to the arm of Tony Romo...

Green Bay Packers (-12) Over Chicago Bears

Twelve points is a lot, but the Packers are ticked and ready to take it out on the Bears...

New Orleans Saints (-6 1/2) Over Atlanta Falcons

The Saints are on fire...

All bets are placed at Station Casinos:

http://www.stationcasinos.com/

To check Las Vegas odds, The Konformist recommends VegasInsider.com:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/

The Konformist College Playoff Bowl III: Part 3

Robert Sterling
Konformist.com
http://robalini.blogspot.com/

Yesterday, The Konformist released the results of the opening round in our third annual college playoff simulation. So let's continue with a simulation (courtesy of WhatIfSports.com) of the big four bowl games, played on January 2nd & 3rd...


Rose Bowl
TCU (16) - Wisconsin (9, Big Ten)

The Big Ten champs face of against the winner of Playoff Bowl I:










Wisconsin Badgers 14 3 3 14 34
TCU Horned Frogs 0 3 10 18 31

In a tight close match, Wisconsin holds off on a TCU comeback and enters the final four...


Cotton Bowl
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12) - Louisiana Tech

Oklahoma State goes against the upset winners against number one LSU:










Louisiana Tech Bulldogs 7 3 10 0 20
Oklahoma State Cowboys 14 21 0 10 45

The Bulldogs play admirably, but are no match for the Cowboys...

Orange Bowl
West Virginia (23, Big East) - Southern Miss (22)

The Big East winners go against the non-BCS Southern Miss, which is actually ranked higher than West Virginia...










Southern Miss Golden Eagles 0 0 7 7 14
West Virginia Mountaineers 14 13 7 3 37

The Mountaineers, who didn't make it into the playoffs until the final week, are in the Final Four...

Sugar Bowl
Alabama (2) - Boise State (8)

Last year's Playoff Bowl champ Boise State goes against the highest ranked team remaining...










Boise State Broncos 0 7 7 7 21
Alabama Crimson Tide 17 17 14 16 64

The non-BCS teams go 0-4 in the quarterfinals as the Crimson Tide advance...


Final Four

January 12, 2012
Alabama (2) - West Virginia (23, Big East)










West Virginia Mountaineers 3 0 10 0 13
Alabama Crimson Tide 7 13 0 0 20

January 13, 2012
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12) - Wisconsin (9, Big Ten)










Wisconsin Badgers 0 10 13 17 40
Oklahoma State Cowboys 14 10 21 7 52


Playoff Bowl III
January 21, 2012
Alabama (2) - Oklahoma State (3, Big 12)

In the real world, the big debate was whether Alabama or Oklahoma State deserved to play LSU in the BCS Championship. In this simulation, they are both the deserved finalists...










Oklahoma State Cowboys 14 7 7 3 31
Alabama Crimson Tide 0 21 14 17 52

The Crimson Tide get a decisive win. The only SEC team to make it to the big four bowls, they still manage to cement the conference's deserved rep as the best in the NCAA.

That does it. See you next year!

The Konformist College Playoff Bowl III: Part 2

Robert Sterling
Konformist.com
http://robalini.blogspot.com/

Previously on Konformist.com, we had released the upper and lower brackets for a simulation of a college football playoff. Here are the brackets:

LSU (1, SEC)
Alabama (2)
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12)
Stanford (4)
Oregon (6, PAC-12)
Wisconsin (9, Big Ten)
Clemson (14, ACC)
West Virginia (23, Big East)

Arkansas (7)
Boise State (8)
South Carolina (10)
TCU (16)
Southern Miss (22)
Arkansas State
Northern Illinois
Louisiana Tech

The teams are then pair off in eight opening round playoff games, with the one seed playing the 16, two playing 15, etc. Below is how it'd look this year, with the simulation results, according to WhatIfSports.com:


Fiesta Bowl (Phoenix) Pac-10 Host
Oregon (6, PAC-12) - TCU (16)

Oregon managed to win the PAC-12 over Stanford, and faces a tough opponent in TCU, the top-ranked non-BCS conference winner (and the winner of College Bowl I.) The end results:










TCU Horned Frogs 7 10 10 7 34
Oregon Ducks 0 10 10 7 27

Despite TCU's success in recent years, this is a definite upset!


Florida Citrus Bowl (Orlando) Big Ten Host
Wisconsin (9, Big Ten) - South Carolina (10)

Wisconsin managed to win the Big Ten, while South Carolina is the last of the four teams from the SEC to make the playoffs. Both are top 10 teams, so this should be a good match:










South Carolina Gamecocks 0 10 0 0 10
Wisconsin Badgers 7 28 0 17 52

Or maybe not. The Badgers totally dominate the Gamecocks...


Gator Bowl (Jacksonville) SEC Host
LSU (1, SEC) - Louisiana Tech

LSU is the top-ranked team, the only undefeated team, and the winner of the SEC, the toughest conference in college football. Still, their opponent, Louisiana Tech, is the best sixteen seed by far in the three years of this simulation. Is that enough to win against their same-state opponent?










Louisiana Tech Bulldogs 0 21 3 7 31
LSU Tigers 9 7 7 3 26

Wow! An even bigger upset than the loss of Oregon. It only took three years for the top seed to lose in the opening round...


Liberty Bowl (Memphis) Big East Host
West Virginia (23, Big East) - Arkansas (7)

It took them a little help, but West Virginia squeezed into the playoffs by winning the Big East conference in the last week of play. They face a real tough opponent in number seven Arkansas...










Arkansas Razorbacks 14 7 14 17 52
West Virginia Mountaineers 7 13 14 19 53

In a stunner and a high-scoring game, the Mountaineers, who trailed by a point at the start of the 4th quarter, win the game by a point in a 53-52 battle!


Peach Bowl (Atlanta) ACC Host
Clemson (14, ACC) - Boise State (8)

Last year's upset College Bowl champ Boise State is a top 10 team once again (despite not winning their conference for a second year in a row. They face the ACC champs of Clemson:










Boise State Broncos 0 10 14 10 34
Clemson Tigers 3 3 7 7 20

In what is not a big surprise, Boise State joins fellow non-BCS member TCU in the big four bowl games for the third straight year...


Sun Bowl (El Paso) Big 12 Host
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12) - Arkansas State

Arkansas State, like Louisiana Tech, is a quality unranked team. Can they upset the Big 12 winners of Oklahoma State?










Arkansas State Red Wolves 0 6 10 0 16
Oklahoma State Cowboys 23 14 7 16 60

Nope...


Alamo Bowl (San Antonio)
Stanford (4) - Southern Miss (22)

Stanford was a loss against Oregon from an undefeated season. Southern Miss got into the playoffs by winning over undefeated Houston...










Southern Miss Golden Eagles 7 13 7 14 41
Stanford Cardinal 0 17 0 14 31

Wow! The fourth non-BCS team gets into the big bowls by upsetting Stanford!


Hall of Fame Bowl (Tampa)
Alabama (2) - Northern Illinois

Alabama's only loss came against LSU and play Northern Illinois in the final round of 16 game...










Northern Illinois Huskies 3 3 0 7 13
Alabama Crimson Tide 10 3 7 3 23

Close by the Huskies, but not close enough. The Crimson Tide win, the only SEC team to make it to the big bowls...


Yes, this is a simulation, but simulations are often very revealing, as it is in this case. Among supporters of a college playoff, there is a debate if it should include 8 or 16 teams. The argument for a 16-team playoff is that every conference winner would get a chance to be crowned champions, with an extra five teams to ensure no team is unfairly excluded. The argument for the 8-team playoff is some of the teams not only don't deserve a shot at the championship, but would lead to unwatchable blowouts. Yet this year according to the simulation, four of the eight quarterfinalists came from non-BCS schools, proving that if given an opportunity, they could at least surprise their opponents and upsets aren't as implausible as some might think.

So what are the matchups for the Big Four Bowl Games? Wisconsin, at the Big Ten winner, goes to the Rose Bowl; Oklahoma State, as the Big 12 champ, goes to the Cotton Bowl; West Virginia, the Big East winner, goes to the Orange Bowl; and Alabama gets the Sugar Bowl as the SEC rep after LSU's upset defeat. TCU, the highest ranked West Coast conference winner, gets the PAC-12 slot in the Rose. Louisiana Tech, the other West Coast conference winner, gets the Cotton Bowl. Southern Miss, an East Coast conference champ, takes the ACC slot in the Orange, and that leaves Boise State in the Sugar. Here's how it looks:

Rose Bowl
TCU (16) - Wisconsin (9, Big Ten)

Cotton Bowl
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12) - Louisiana Tech

Orange Bowl
West Virginia (23, Big East) - Southern Miss (22)

Sugar Bowl
Alabama (2) - Boise State (8)


Tomorrow we'll have the results of the playoffs. Stay tuned!

Robalini's Week 15 NFL Picks

Here's my results for week 14 W-L-T record: 5-4
Season record: 58-48-3

Dallas Cowboys (-7) Over Tampa Bay Buccaneers

The Cowboys, even with Tony Romo's great play this year, have failed to live up to their potential to be a great team. That shouldn't matter against the Bucs, who appear pretty hopeless...

New York Giants (-6 1/2) Over Washington Redskins

The Giants at home against the Skins? Fuggedaboudit...

New Orleans Saints (-6 1/2) Over Minnesota Vikings

My love affair with the Saints continues...

Seattle Seahawks (+3 1/2) Over Chicago Bears

Normally warm-weather or indoor teams don't do well at really cold places in late December. But Seattle is well-coached and are fundamentally sound on both offense & defense, while the Bears have scored only 33 points in the 3 games they've had without Jay Cutler. I call this an upset, if it is one...

Buffalo Bills (-2) Over Miami Dolphins

Like I said, warm-weather teams don't do well at really cold places in late December. When you add the Dolphins have an injured QB and just fired their coach, it looks pretty good for the Bills...

Carolina Panthers (+6) Over Houston Texans

The Texans keep defying the odds by winning without star QB Matt Schaub. But I'm going to bet against them again...

Cincinnati Bengals (-7) Over St. Louis Rams

The Bengals have a poor record against teams with a winning record. The Rams aren't a team with a winning record...

Detroit Lions (-1) Over Oakland Raiders

Ndamukong Suh is back, and he's ready to go psycho against the Raiders, leading his talented but undisciplined defense to victory...

Baltimore Ravens (-2 1/2) Over San Diego Chargers

The Ravens look to cement themselves as the best team in the AFC with this win...

All bets are placed at Station Casinos:

http://www.stationcasinos.com/

To check Las Vegas odds, The Konformist

recommends VegasInsider.com:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/

Robalini's Week 14 NFL Picks

Here's my results for week 13
W-L-T record: 5-4
Season record: 53-44-3

Cincinnati Bengals (-3) Over Houston Texans

The Bengals have proven themselves to be a serious team, and the Texans still don't have a real quarterback...

Green Bay Packers (-11) Over Oakland Raiders

I've bet five weeks in a row against the Packers, and have gone 2-3 on those bets. I'm pulling out and calling this a victory. The Packers are the best team in football right now, and Aaron Rodgers is not only the NFL MVP, he is on pace to have the best season of any quarterback in history. I still doubt they can go undefeated, and they may still not win the Super Bowl, but losing won't begin at home against the confused Raiders who aren't used to Green Bay Decembers...

New York Jets (-8 1/2) Over Kansas City Chiefs

The Jets aren't as bad as the haters believe. The Chiefs are as bad...

New Orleans Saints (-4) Over Tennessee Titans

Drew Brees is on a roll...

New England Patriots (-8) Over Washington Redskins

The Pats aren't as hot as they were a few weeks ago, but they're still hot enough to beat the Skins...

San Francisco 49ers (-4) Over Arizona Cardinals

The 49ers aren't scared of the Cards...

Denver Broncos (-3 1/2) Over Chicago Bears

Tebow probably won't need last minute magic to beat a team with no real QB...

San Diego Chargers (-6 1/2) Over Buffalo Bills

The Chargers look back on track and the Bills don't...

Seattle Seahawks (-10) Over St. Louis Rams

Ten points are a lot, but not with Seattle at home against the lowly Rams...

All bets are placed at Station Casinos:

http://www.stationcasinos.com/

To check Las Vegas odds, The Konformist recommends VegasInsider.com:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/

The Konformist College Playoff Bowl III: Part 1

Robert Sterling
Konformist.com
http://robalini.blogspot.com/

December is here, and it's time for The Konformist annual push for a college football playoff to decide a champion over the current BCS system.

Let's give the BCS some credit this year: since The Konformist has covered this story in 2007, this is actually the least controversial solution for who should play in the BCS championship. LSU, the nation's only undefeated FBS team even while playing in the toughest conference, is as non-controversial choice you can have, and Alabama, who had its only loss against LSU, has a strong case as well. Certainly Oklahoma State (who won its conference, something Alabama can't claim) has a great argument it its favor, but as BCS outrages go, it's pretty minimal, Furthermore, there are no undefeated non-BCS conference teams, and none of the non-BCS conference champs have less than two losses. For this year, then, the most offensive nature of the BCS system, that it violates anti-trust laws by depriving certain teams any opportunity to play in the college championship, is not an issue. (In fact, in the first two years of a playoff simulation, the winners, TCU in 2009 and Boise State in 2010, were non-BCS conference teams.)

This doesn't excuse the BCS system. If this is the least objectionable solution over the last five years, and the solution still has the controversy over Alabama or Oklahoma State, that is pretty indicting. Likewise, this year's results are a decided aberration, and overall the system is still decidedly unfair, unjust and in violation of federal anti-trust laws.

The solution still is a playoff, which is how every other major sport (professional and college) decides its annual champ. The Konformist playoff plan meets the four main goals The Konformist laid out in 2007:

1. Respect the traditions of the big four bowl games as much as possible, even more so than the current system does;
2. Make sure that the big four bowls actually are a central part of crowning the championship;
3. Allow bowl games with notable histories of their own to be included in the mix; and, perhaps most important:
4. Create a playoff system that produces an actual season championship.

With that in mind, here's how the playoff plan would work out in 2011, aided by game simulations made via WhatIfSports.com, in the third annual college football playoff.

The playoff would involve sixteen teams, so the champions from all eleven conferences can be included. The other five spaces would include Notre Dame if it's in the top 25, then the top AP ranked teams that aren't conference winners, limited to one per conference unless the team was in the top 10. This year, it would be Alabama, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise State and South Carolina. (USC is number 5, but was barred from playing any bowl games this year. Though the NCAA is a politically biased group, the penalty will be honored in this playoff. Meanwhile, the SEC, cementing its rep as the toughest conference is college football, earns three of the five wild-card teams.)

For the first round (held the week ending December 17th) the sixteen teams would be put in upper and lower brackets. In the upper bracket would be the winners of the six BCS conferences, the highest ranked non-BCS conference champ and the highest ranked non-Conference winner. The two brackets would then be placed in order of their AP ranking.

In a surprise move, West Virginia protests, and argues that Stanford, being one of the top four teams, deserves the upper bracket more than TCU, which is ranked 16th. (West Virginia would rather play Arkansas than Stanford.) After a debate, it is ruled in favor of West Virginia that a top four wild card should earn an upper bracket over a non-BCS conference champ with a lower ranking. (As precedent it is cited the top four have had an insider track to BCS games.)

So here's how it would look in 2011:

LSU (1, SEC)
Alabama (2)
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12)
Stanford (4)
Oregon (6, PAC-12)
Wisconsin (9, Big Ten)
Clemson (14, ACC)
West Virginia (23, Big East)

Arkansas (7)
Boise State (8)
South Carolina (10)
TCU (16)
Southern Miss (22)
Arkansas State
Northern Illinois
Louisiana Tech

The teams would then pair off in eight opening round playoff games, with the one seed playing the 16, two playing 15, etc. Below is how it'd look this year:

Alamo Bowl (San Antonio) Stanford (4) - Southern Miss (22)

Fiesta Bowl (Phoenix) Pac-10 Host
Oregon (6, PAC-12) - TCU (16)

Florida Citrus Bowl (Orlando) Big Ten Host
Wisconsin (9, Big Ten) - South Carolina (10)

Gator Bowl (Jacksonville) SEC Host
LSU (1, SEC) - Louisiana Tech

Hall of Fame Bowl (Tampa)
Alabama (2) - Northern Illinois

Liberty Bowl (Memphis) Big East Host
West Virginia (23, Big East) - Arkansas (7)

Peach Bowl (Atlanta) ACC Host
Clemson (14, ACC) - Boise State (8)

Sun Bowl (El Paso) Big 12 Host
Oklahoma State (3, Big 12) - Arkansas State

Not that it changes anything in the simulation, but the sites for the bowls have changed this year. The biggest change: the Fiesta Bowl has been downgraded from one of the big four bowls, replaced by the Cotton Bowl. (This is both due to corruption by the Fiesta Bowl administrators and as punishment for Arizona passing an anti-Latino racial profiling law.) So now the eight game hosts for the playoff opening round are the Fiesta Bowl and the five minor bowls founded before 1970, plus the two most economically succesful bowls remaining: the Alamo Bowl (replacing the Holiday Bowl) and the Hall of Fame Bowl (aka the Outback Bowl: sorry, I refuse to recognize bowl names that are due to corporate sponsorship.) These sites are free to host other bowl games afterwards if they want, but it at least recognizes these sites as places of historical importance. (The NCAA would no doubt come up with its own plan on where these games would be played, probably based on the highest bidder, but it wouldn't look too different than this. In any case, this is our simulation, so The Konformist decides where the games are played.)

From top down, this is the most competitive group of teams since we've started this simulation. Even the bottom team, Louisiana Tech, at 8-4, is a talented team with an outside chance of upsetting its neighbor LSU. Four of the games look extremely competitive, with the host playing a top 20 team. So who are the winners?

Stay tuned for part two, when we reveal the winners of round one...