Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of July and August.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Increased Paramilitary and Police Attacks Against San Juan Copala

IMG_5058

Yesterday police, accompanied by state-backed paramilitaries, entered the Autonomous Municipality of San Juan Copala. 

Kristin Bricker has a detailed report:

At approximately 12:15 pm on July 30, over one hundred Oaxaca state police raided the autonomous municipality of San Juan Copala.  Approximately thirty heavily armed members of the Union for the Social Well-being of the Triqui Region (UBISORT, a paramilitary organization) accompanied the police on the raid.  Rufino Juárez, UBISORT's leader, reportedly participated in the raid.

In response, a blockade in front of the federal courthouse and a march to the city center was held in the city of Oaxaca.  A short report back and photos, plus more news and press releases from the municipality and organizations in solidarity with the autonomous project can be seen at El Enemigo Común.

How Lazy Are State Bureaucrats?

This blog post was interesting. A criminal defense attorney made a journal of a typical day in court.

Count the actual number of hours of trial. 8:30-9:30, 10:30-11:30, 2 hours for lunch(!), 1:30-3:30, 4:00-5:00.

In a full day of work, the judge only actually worked for 5 hours! That's a pretty sweet deal. Is it normal for judges to take a 2 hour break for lunch every day?

The blogger's attitude was "ho-hum boring". My attitude was "WTF? The judge works 5 hours a day?"

Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!

Sarbanes-Oxley is a failed financial reform law. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed after the Enron fraud, to prevent executives from lying about earnings. Sarbanes-Oxley failed to prevent financial fraud at Lehman Brothers. Similarly, the recent financial "reform" law will not prevent the banksters from stealing.

Lehman Brothers used the "Repo 105" accounting trick to hide shaky assets off their balance sheet. Loans were disguised as sales. Lehman Brothers did $50B of Repo 105 fraud. Lehman Brothers raised approximately $50B in capital while lying about their earnings.

If there's no Sarbanes-Oxley prosecution for Lehman Brothers, then State thugs might as well repeal the law. Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs are $3M+ per year, for both small and large public corporations. Sarbanes-Oxley is a huge regressive tax on small public corporations.

Lehman Brothers' CEO Dick Fuld was not prosecuted for accounting fraud. Sholom Rubashkin was convicted for accounting fraud, which wasn't the original reason State thugs raided his business and seized his records. There are two justice systems in this country. There's one for insiders and one for non-insiders. It is hypocritical for State thugs to prosecute non-insiders but not insiders.

A pro-State troll says "Enron's fraud is completely different from Lehman Brothers' fraud." Enron used off balance sheet partnerships to hide losses. Lehman Brothers used the "Repo 105" trick to hide losses. There's no similarity at all.

Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs $3M+ per year. The compliance cost is nearly the same for small corporations and for large corporations. If a corporation has $5B+ in revenue, then $3M is negligible. If a small public corporation has $100M in revenue, then $3M is a huge cost.

The CEO of a large corporation likes Sarbanes-Oxley. It's a tax on smaller competitors. Many small corporations have been "taken private" to avoid the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance cost. Some small corporations were bought out by larger corporations, due to Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley particularly hurts the software startup market. Before Sarbanes-Oxley, a startup could "go public" with a valuation of $1B. This enables the VCs and founders to cash out their investment. Now, small startups must sell to a larger corporation or stay private.

Knowing that small startups can't go public, large corporations offer lower buyout prices. Sarbanes-Oxley had a huge chilling effect on software startups. Now, a startup needs to be almost as successful as Google to be a public corporation. Facebook is not a public corporation, partially due to Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a failed reform law. The "financial reform" law is no different. The State explicitly encourages and rewards fraud by insiders. There are many ways that the State encourages accounting fraud.
  • Negative real interest rates encourage executives to load up on as much debt as they can. Then a bankruptcy or bailout occurs during the next recession.
  • Limited liability incorporation provides a free put option for executives to declare bankruptcy and cheat creditors.
  • "Too big to fail" means that there's no risk when lending money to a "too big to fail" organization.
  • There's the Principal-Agent problem. A CEO is gambling with other people's money. Therefore, he takes unreasonable risks to maximize short-term profits.
  • Government regulations and government violence shield insiders from competition. With a fake free market, there's no penalty for inefficiency and waste and fraud.
Sarbanes-Oxley and the financial "reform" law are evil fnords. These laws provide the illusion of accountability, while insiders may continue to loot and pillage. The biggest State evils are the Federal Reserve and income tax. They are politically untouchable. Too many insiders profit from the corrupt way things are now. They will never allow real reform. Instead, fake reform is sold to the public as real reform.

If there isn't a Sarbanes-Oxley conviction for Lehman Brothers, then that law may as well be repealed. That law is a huge tax hike, due to excessive compliance costs. Small corporations and startups are hurt the most by Sarbanes-Oxley. That's exactly the way insiders like it.

1099 Reporting and Healthcare Reform

There was a particularly evil clause buried in the healthcare “reform” law. All businesses are required to issue a 1099 form for EVERY transaction of $600 or more. It’s $600 aggregate per year, so two $301 transactions are still reportable.I didn’t…

Continue reading at FSK's Guide to Reality …

Blagojevich’s Lawyer Censored

This story was interesting. The judge in the Blagojevich corruption trial made a bizarre ruling. During his closing arguments, Blagojevich’s defense attorney is barred from referring to witnesses the prosecution refused to call. Blagojevich claims t…

Continue reading at FSK's Guide to Reality …

39 Lawyers

I was offended by pro-State trolling on the 4th of July. They were celebrating “The anniversary of the birth of our country and the Constitution.”The 4th of July has nothing to do with the Constitution. The 4th of July celebrates a group of people de…

Continue reading at FSK's Guide to Reality …

and on the other side of motherhood: New York State signs ASFA Expanded Discretion Bill

and, once you get past the birth process, there's still the fact that mothers in prison risk losing their children. Because parenting still falls primarily on women, legislation such as ASFA (the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act) impacts incarcerated mothers five times more than it does incarcerated fathers (who usually have a female relative willing to take care of his children while he is in prison):

In June, Gov.

read more

and more about shackling pregnant women in labor

NPR recently ran a story about this horrific practice. Although this is not new news to many of us, I am glad that this is getting more public attention and public outcry.

read more

Shawanna Lumsey wins lawsuit, loses job

I wrote about Shawanna Lumsey's lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Corrections in Resistance Behind Bars. I am, of course, glad that the state lost its appeal, but am saddened (but sadly not surprised) that the publicity had such an averse effect on Shawanna.

From Legal Services for Prisoners With Children:

Shawanna Lumsey lives in Arkansas and was pregnant while in prison there. She gave birth in shackles and sued the state and won.

read more

Shirley Sherrod

This story is interesting. Shirley Sherrod was employed as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture. She gave a speech at a recent NAACP meeting.

Many people are angry that the NAACP accused the Tea Party movement as being "racist". Andrew Breitbart posted an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech at the NAACP meeting. That made her seem very racist. Andrew Breitbart said it did it to highlight racism in the NAACP.

Having seen this clip, some White House executives pressured Shirley Sherrod to resign. They were really eager to get her resignation. She was in her car, and they asked her to stop driving and send a formal resignation letter on her BlackBerry. Like a good slave, Shirley Sherrod complied with her masters' demand.

The forced resignation seems silly. Why didn't Shirley Sherrod say "Go ahead and fire me!"? Why is it important for her to resign, rather than being fired? Disgraced State insiders usually resign, rather than getting fired. The ex-insider resigns to emphasize the legitimacy of the State and her bosses.

Then, the whole clip of her NAACP speech was viewed. The entire speech seemed less racist. She seemed to be saying "This was a racist thing I did a long time ago. I'm not that bad now." (However, I didn't watch either the edited version or the whole thing.)

Even if Shirley Sherrod said something inappropriate at the NAACP meeting, that isn't a valid reason to fire her. This is an important State principle. "If you say something wrong, then you're disgraced and your career is over." State insiders must be continually on guard, lest they say something wrong and their career is over. Most State parasites have no useful skills. After getting fired from their cushy State job, they will have a hard time earning a comparable living. This enables State insiders to keep the lower-ranking parasites in line.

I liked this quote:
the murder of black people occurred periodically and in every case, the white men who murdered them were never punished
You can make a current version of this quote:
the murder of non-policemen occurred periodically and in every case, the policemen who murdered them were never punished
Some State insiders are angry at Fox News. Allegedly, they hyped the edited video and caused the resignation demand. Fox News claims they only heavily promoted the interview after her forced resignation.

Some State insiders are angry at Andrew Breitbart, for posting that video clip on his blog. The real problem is that State insiders overreacted and fired her.

Some State insiders are demanding that Fox lose its broadcast permit. Some State insiders are demanding that Fox News lose its press credentials. State insiders are taking a "State vs. Fox News" attitude. In turn, this leads to Fox News expressing more anti-State sentiment! Ironically, Fox News is now the most freedom-oriented mainstream news channel.

This is somewhat hypocritical. "The White House will fire someone, based on what a blogger writes or based on what Fox News says." That makes no sense at all.

Shirley Sherrod may file a libel lawsuit against Fox News or Andrew Breitbart. That would another example of State legal extortion. "Libel laws" are usually interpreted as "censorship laws".

Obama tries to look like the hero. He meets with Shirley Sherrod and apologizes. He has plausible deniability, because one of his subordinated demanded her resignation.

The entire "Shirley Sherrod incident" is an example of insane State bureaucrats. It is wrong to fire someone, just because they said something stupid. State insiders overreacted and demanded she resign, and then retracted the demand. Overall, this incident is an embarrassment for State insiders. I already know that the State is one big scam, but incidents like this help explain things to other people.