NYT / Brooks' Brain Scramble (We want justice for the Bigs, the captains of industry.)
Mort Zuckerman
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov,
brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com,
jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org,
thomas...@usdoj.gov, thoma...@po.state.ct.us,
kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org
Subject: NYT / Brooks' Brain Scramble
Date: Feb 13, 2009 1:51 PM
It's simple.
We want justice for the Bigs, the captains
of industry. We want Yale and all associated
crooks prosecuted. This includes SmithKline
and Kaiser-Permanente, and we want to know
how Mort Zuckerman and the AIG Greenbergs
got involved in the ALDF.com RICO cabal:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ALDF_BOARD.htm
We want to know who the CIA and the CIA of
Bioweapons, the CDC, think they're working
for. We want a recovery of assets lost to the
Bigs.
We want JUSTICE.
When people feel protected by law enforcement -
and the Lyme RICO needs no new legislation -
then they have confidence that they can carry
out the idea of America protected from corporate
crime; the Bigs, the captains of industry,
the CFR and the Trilateral Commission...
It is utterly depressing to think that the
bigger the crooks, the less likely they'll
do time for the likes of homicide from
"medical negligence" - the very thing disclaimed
by the RICO cabal:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHRONOLOGY_RICO.htm
And the NYTimes can get rid of their CDC
plant, Lawrence Altman.
No need to psychologize the idea of fairness.
The idea of America says we're born with
this sense. Additionally, the psychiatric
self-ass-biters self-ass-bit themselves
permanently by proving:
"But as useful as hypocrisy can be, it’s apparently not quite as basic
as the human instinct to do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. Your mind can justify double standards, it seems, but in your
heart you know you’re wrong."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/science/01tier.html
In your heart you know you're wrong.
And in your heart, you know you're a victim
of wrong. For thousands of years humans
knew these things, but they never really
put the means to assuage the need for
fairness until, well...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, free from enforced religions such as sex-worship and
"social engineering"...
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRITISH_PSYCHIATRY.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/AARON_RUSSO.htm
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===========================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13brooks.html?pagewanted=print
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
February 13, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Worst-Case Scenario
By DAVID BROOKS
Between 1990 and 2007, the total mortgage debt held by Americans rose
from $2.5 trillion to $10.5 trillion. This rise was part of a societal
credit bubble that burst in 2008. To cushion the pain of that
collapse, federal authorities decided to replace private debt with
public debt.
In 2008, the Bush administration increased spending by about $1.7
trillion, and guaranteed loans, investments and deposits worth about
$8 trillion. In 2009, the Obama administration spent $800 billion on a
stimulus package, $1 trillion on a second round of bank bailouts and
committed another trillion on health care reform and other bailout
plans.
Americans generally welcomed the burst of public activism. In
“Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about what happens
to a people beset by anxiety: “The taste for public tranquility then
becomes a blind passion, and the citizens are liable to conceive a
most inordinate devotion to order.”
In normal times, Americans would have been skeptical of proposals to
double or triple the size of federal programs, but amid the economic
fear, that skepticism fell away. Wall Street traders hungered for a
huge federal bailout replete with strings. Economists produced models
that assumed that government could efficiently spend huge amounts of
money, and these models were accepted.
The Obama administration was staffed with moderates who found that
there was no reward for moderation. Liberals attacked them for being
tepid. Republicans attacked them because it was enjoyable to see
Democrats attacked. Over time, the administration drifted left and
created what you might call Split Level Technocratic Liberalism.
President Obama defended spending initiatives in broad terms. He had
enormous faith in the power of highly trained experts and based his
arguments on models and projections. The actual legislation was
cobbled together by Democratic committee chairmen, often acting beyond
the administration’s control.
During 2010, the economic decline abated, but the recovery did not
arrive. There were a few false dawns, and stagnation. The problem was
this: The policy makers knew how to pull economic levers, but they did
not know how to use those levers to affect social psychology.
The crisis was labeled an economic crisis, but it was really a
psychological crisis. It was caused by a mood of fear and uncertainty,
which led consumers to not spend, bankers to not lend and
entrepreneurs to not risk. No amount of federal spending could change
this psychology because uncertainty about the future remained acute.
Essentially, Americans had migrated from one society to another — from
a society of high trust to a society of low trust, from a society of
optimism to a society of foreboding, from a society in which certain
financial habits applied to a society in which they did not. In the
new world, investors had no basis from which to calculate risk.
Families slowly deleveraged. Bankers had no way to measure the future
value of assets.
Cognitive scientists distinguish between normal risk-assessment
decisions, which activate the reward-prediction regions of the brain,
and decisions made amid extreme uncertainty, which generate activity
in the amygdala. These are different mental processes using different
strategies and producing different results. Americans were suddenly
forced to cope with this second category, extreme uncertainty.
Economists and policy makers had no way to peer into this darkness.
Their methods were largely based on the assumption that people are
rational, predictable and pretty much the same. Their models work best
in times of equilibrium. But in this moment of disequilibrium,
behavior was nonlinear, unpredictable, emergent and stubbornly
resistant to Keynesian rationalism.
The failure to generate a recovery led to a collapse of public
confidence. President Obama’s promises of 3.5 million jobs now seemed
a sham and his former certainty a delusion. The political climate grew
more polarized. That meant it was impossible to tackle entitlement
debt. That and the economic climate meant it was impossible to raise
taxes or cut spending or do anything to reduce the yawning deficits.
Federal deficits were 15 percent of G.D.P. and growing.
Far from easing uncertainty, the exploding deficits led to more fear.
The U.S. could not afford to respond to new emergencies, like
hurricanes or foreign crises. Other nations sensed American
overextension. Foreign debt-holders grew nervous. Interest rates rose.
Congress indulged its worst instincts, erecting trade barriers,
propping up doomed companies. Scholars began to talk about the
American Disease, akin to the British Disease of the 1970s.
The nation had essentially bet its future on economic models with
primitive views of human behavior. The government had tried to change
social psychology using the equivalent of leeches and bleeding. Rather
than blame themselves, Americans directed their anger toward policy
makers and experts who based estimates of human psychology on
mathematical equations.
Home
* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Automobiles
* Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* Search
* Corrections
* RSS
* First Look
* Help
* Contact Us
* Work for Us
* Site Map