pookapookapookapookapooka

evo kako to kaže ZEITGEIST i evo kako to kaže ORIGINALNI tekst... ja sam podebljao prvi dio onog što je u 'Zeitgeistu' montirano...
Ako vas stvarno zanima liberalna poruka JFK-a, onda je pročitajte u njenom izvornom kontekstu sukoba sa komunizmom, jer čovjek nije bio idiot. Zato su ga i ubili.
A ja sam ljut jer mi je taj STUPIDNI 'Zeitgeist' preporučilo previše ljudi koje smatram UBROJIVIM da bih na to ostao ravnodušan. Evo vam sad PRAVI John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Ja idem spavat.


Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history

'And the scary thing about that is that historically, at times when that has happened, the right has been able to successfully manipulate those who have been beaten down and use their rage to support what they used to call fascism.'

Živ sam. Zdrav sam. Imam krov nad glavom i posao. Bio bih griješnik kad bih očajavao. Volim onu snagu koju čutim iznad sebe. Inače pređem 14 kilometara dnevno. Pošto imamo 0.8 ljudi po rajonu, danas ću malo potegnuti i dignuti broj kilometara prema 20, ali znam da neke stvari nemaju cijenu. Znam i da se vrlo dobro RAZUMIJEMO.

Klein: Coming back to Wall Street, I want to talk a little bit more about this strange moment that we're in, where the rage that was directed at Wall Street, what was being directed at AIG executives when people were showing up in their driveways--I don't know what happened to that.

My fear was always that this huge anger that you show in the film, the kind of uprising in the face of the bailout, which forced Congress to vote against it that first time, that if that anger wasn't continuously directed at the most powerful people in society, at the elites, at the people who had created the disaster, and channeled into a real project for changing the system, then it could easily be redirected at the most vulnerable people in society; I mean immigrants, or channeled into racist rage.

And what I'm trying to sort out now is, Is it the same rage or do you think these are totally different streams of American culture--have the people who were angry at AIG turned their rage on Obama and on the idea of health reform?

Moore: I don't think that is what has happened. I'm not so sure they're the same people.

In fact, I can tell you from my travels across the country while making the film and even in the last few weeks, there is something else that's simmering beneath the surface. You can't avoid the anger boiling over at some point when you have one in eight mortgages in delinquency or foreclosure, where there's a foreclosure filing once every 7.5 seconds and the unemployment rate keeps growing. That will have its own tipping point.

And the scary thing about that is that historically, at times when that has happened, the right has been able to successfully manipulate those who have been beaten down and use their rage to support what they used to call fascism.

...America's Teacher

Koliko je iskrena iskra ili stvarna varnica vašeg života, dragi moji...

'The vehicle you drive may reveal your Web savviness, education, or level of sophistication.'
Georg Wilhelm Fridrich Hegel

Misita je znao da mu je taj hangar doslovno pao s neba. Ipak nije to želio priznati na sudu jer je hangar poklopio župno groblje pa su mu hangar oduzeli, a on je podnio privatnu tužbu da je hangar ukraden nekoj pravnoj osobi koju je on često viđao kako dovodi velečasnog da blagoslovi taj hangar. Velečasni mu je bio svjedok jer je Misita zadržao hangar iznad groblja pa je tako njegova župa jedina imala hangar-groblje u kojem su se sprovodi mogli obavljati bez obzira na vremenske neprilike. Kad je sudac upitao popa tko je ta pravna osoba, ovaj se našao u neprilici pa je morao izmisliti da mu je ta pravna osoba priznala tko je tijekom ispovijedi pošto je počinila neka velika nedjela u ovoj i susjednoj državi te da on kao svećenik ne smije otkriti identitet ispovjednika. Na hangar su naljepili obavijest da ga pravna osoba u čijem je posjedu mora ukloniti u roku od sedam dana ili će hangar biti uklonjen o trošku države koja će podnijeti prekršajnu prijavu protiv te nepoznate pravne osobe. Pod neuobičajenim okolnosti nekoliko dana ranije poginula je žena županijskog državnog odvjetnika. Prema službenom izvješću ženu je ubio grom dok je mjesečarila i vukla za sobom kabel za uzemljenje na koji je naišla na obližnjem gradilištu. Kabel za uzemljenje je veselih boja, a mjesečari mjesečare otvorenih očiju pa je stručnjak za kriminalističke oblike somnabulencije zaključio da se ženi omilio taj kabel za uzemljenje koji je, na žalost, stvarno bio uzemljen na jednom svom kraju. Županijski državni odvjetnik nije vjerovao u takav rezultat očevida pošto je posjedovao informacije da mu je žena imala aferu sa šefom zločinačke organizacije koja je bila u bliskoj suradnji sa upravom HEP-a te da je istog ucjenjivala da će otkriti gdje je Pavelićevo zlato. Dotični šef zločinačke organizacije je baš kao i županijski državni odvjetnik shvatio da mu je ljubavnica potpuno luda i nije sebi smio dopustiti takvu blamažu u medijima, za razliku od državnog odvjetnika koji je jedva čekao da mu žena napravi neki nered pa da se on pozove na teško psihičko stanje zbog bolesti supruge i tijekom tog teškog psihičkog stanja slučajno zapali svoju kancelariju punu nerješenih slučajeva. Uz ovakav razvoj situacije otvorila mu se mogućnost da dovede u vezu svoju mentalno oboljelu ženu, šefa zločinačke organizacije koji ju je koristio ne bi li doznao neke informacije u vezi sa istragom o sebi i upravu HEP-a koja je bila u bliskoj suradnji sa tom zločinačkom organizacijom. Ako bi mu uspjelo dokazati da je ljubavnik njegove žene istu ubio simulirajući udar groma tako što je sa obližnjeg deset kilovoltnog dalekovoda odvojio jedan kabel i sa njime udario po glavi odvjetnikovu ženu koja je simulirala mjesečarenje i u tajnosti tražila Pavelićevo zlato i da je to zlodjelo počinio uz pomoć djelatnika HEP-a, koji su kasnije kabel diskretno vratili na dalekovod, možda ne bude morao paliti kancelariju iako se baš sad mogaopozvati na teško psihičko stanje zbog gubitka žene i eventualnu palež lako je mogao opravdati nenamjernom nepažnjom. Predsjednik uprave HEP-a bio je i kum i stric od šefa zločinačke organizacije pa se i tu moglo nešto iskombinirati tako da je županijski državni odvjetnik išao prema groblju zaokupljen planovima kako će stati na kraj pronevjerama u javnim poduzećima i organiziranom kriminalu i to sve jednim udarcem. Nakon toga nikoga neće zanimati zašto je od početka godine sto i devet ljudi poginulo na neoznačenom željezničkom prijelazu ili zašto je netko uz pomoć ultra tihe i maskirne mješalice za beton zabetonirao skoro sve bunare u općini. A onda je ugledao hangar nad grobljem i obavijest da se isti mora ukloniti o trošku države. Pitao je lokalnog suca o čemu je riječ, a ovaj mu je odgovorio da je u sve to najvjerojatnije upleten Vatikan i neka od onih njihovih organizacija tipa 'Opus Dei'. Ušli su zajedno u hangar i oprezno gazili po nižim grobovima ne bi li došli do velečasnog i ostalih koji su jedini držali velike svijeće sa hrvatskim grbovljem i pružali kakav takav orijentir u mrklom mraku golemog hangara. Sprovod je trajao kratko jer velečasni nije mogao čitati u mraku, a naokolo su jaukali ljudi koji su pali preko nadgrobnih spomenika skrivenih u tami. Nastao je metež pa je županijski državni odvjetnik kao najbliži rod rekao da će sanduk zakopati kad se hangar ukloni o trošku države jer da sad nisu ispunjeni sigurnosni uvjeti za zatrpavamje mrtvaca. Tako su svi krenuli prema izlazu iz hangara kad se na njemu pojavio Misita kojem su iz čela izrasli rogovi, a umjesto noga imao je papke. Iza njega je polako hodao neki fino uređeni poslovni čovjek, elegantan i naočit. Nosio je tanku aktovku i Blackberry u drugoj ruci.
'Dobar dan, ožalošćeni narode... dozvolite da se predstavim... ja sam pravna osoba u čijem je vlasništvu ovaj hangar i sve što se nalazi u njemu jer specifikacije za ovaj tip hangara zahtijevaju obavezne temelje koji su neodvojivi dio samog hangara. Nedavno sam se velečasnom potužio da mi je hangar otuđen iz susjedne države zajedno sa sadržajem o kojem ne smijem ništa reči jer me na to obvezuje poslovna tajna. Pošto velečasni nije na moje inzistiranje urgirao da se hangar ukloni sa zemljišta u vlasništvu Katoličke crkve, ja sam ishodovao pravomoćnu uredbu Ministarstva obrane kojom je od trenutka njenog potpisivanja vlasništvo nad ovim hangarom, vašim grobljem i 70 metara dubokim bunarom ispunjenim betonom koji se nalazi u sklopu groblja prenešeno na ime moje pravne osobe te će biti uklonjeno o trošku države jer ne postoji pravna regulativa kojom se obuhvaća problematika fiksnih skladišnih objekata sa sporadičnim, neperiodičnim lokacijskim implementiranjem, pogotovo ne u domeni međudržavnih odnosa pošto je ovaj fenomen specifičan za ovaj dio Europe. Molim vas da napustite objekat i da se sa svojim eventualnim upitima obratite odvjetničkom društvu Budak,Handžar i Kundak. Hangar će zajedno sa pripadajućim grobljem biti izuzet iz hladnog pogona, odnosno sporadičnog lokacijskog razmještaja specijalnih skladišnih prostora te će u najkraćem roku biti vračen na svoju izvornu lokaciju.
Ljudi su izašli iz hangara, začuđeni i nijemi... Misiti su se uvukli rogovi i djelovao je pogubljeno, a otmjeni gospodin mahnuo je šoferu luksuznog terenca da ga dođe pokupiti.
'Ali groblje... s kojim pravom izuzimate groblje iz čestice u vlasništvu Svete majke Crkve, za ime Božje!?' - pitao je glasno župnik.
'Čujte... Velečasni... ne želim vam se opet ispovijedati... valjda me razumijete... do vraga!' - ljutito mu je odbrusio poslovni čovjek. Terenac je došao i pokupio ga. Groblje je tijekom noći nestalo. Županijski odvjetnik je zapalio kancelariju, a šef zločinačke organizacije slučajno je, bez da je itko od njegovih suradnika primjetio, upao u zadnji prazni bunar u tom kraju, zajedno sa tri tone kancerogenog otpada koji je potom bio zaliven betonom. Velečasni se zavjetovao na doživotnu šutnju i izdržao dva i pol dana. Misita je završio na psihijatriji i tamo uvjeravao doktore da se koncentracioni logori ponovo organiziraju i formiraju funkcionalan sustav. Uprava HEP-a uklonila je stare transformatore koji su koristili iznimno toksično, kancerogeno, mutageno i teratogeno ulje kao sredstvo za hlađenje i zamijenili ih novim, ekološki daleko prihvatljivijim transformatorima te na miru nastavila tajne pregovore o budućoj privatizaciji energetskog sektora.
A Pavelićevo zlato nije nikad ni bilo Pavelićevo.

"The time will come when we have to tighten," Bernanke said late Thursday. "We will look at the broad outlook to decide" the timing and pace of exiting currently loose policy."

...pop goes the bubble if he says that thing more than once a week... sorry, not the bubble... it's just a tiny liquidity fueled rally driven by fucking risk junkies who completely forgot what happened six months ago while still enjoying absolute freedom in a financial world basicly intact by any kind of regulatory intervention... ok, ok... I'm overreacting... NOTHING REALLY CHANGED (except 28-years high unemployment rate, consumer spending trashed, delinquencies and defaults still go up but not as much as in those doom days, investments wiped out, GDP levitating above zero, obvious deflation dispite of quite generous quantitative easening, trillion or two worth of derivates yet to become mature, world wide acceptance that greenback is heading towards history as a reserve currency, two ongoing wars and one volatile enough to scare the hell out of the oil future contracts subculture... and Obama got the Nobel prize for peace, just like Arafat did...) so why worry? It's all over! The economy is heating up! Inflation is behind the corner! It's all like in our textbooks... it's just a monetary thing. Let's consider exit strategies NOW!
Greenspan kept saying that it was not FED's job to prevent or pop the bubbles. Bernanke left that option open. So why don't they do it, do it in relatively controled conditions... 70% market hike in seven months with nothing changed in fundamentals, with real sector in deep shit... who's gonna bail them out this time? People's Republic of China?
I'm not wrong.
It's better this way... let's start from scratch.

...NIGHTMARE

...NAIRU AND SHOVE IT!

...EMPLOYMENT

...THIS LATVIAN WAY!!!






We who have so much to you who have so little
to you who don't have anything at all
We who have so much more than any one man does need
and you who don't have anything at all, ah
Does anybody need another million dollar movie
does anybody need another million dollar star
Does anybody need to be told over and over
spitting in the wind comes back at you twice as hard
Strawman, going straight to the devil
strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman
strawman
Strawman
strawman, yes
Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket
does anyone need a 60,000 dollars car
Does anyone need another president
or the sins of Swaggart parts 6, 7, 8 and 9, ah
Does anyone need yet another politician
caught with his pants down and money sticking in his hole
Does anyone need another racist preacher
spittin' in the wind can only do you harm, ooohhh
Strawman, going straight to the devil
strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman
strawman
Strawman
strawman
Does anyone need another faulty shuttle
blasting off to the moon, Venus or Mars
Does anybody need another self-righteous rock singer
whose nose he says has led him straight to God
Does anyone need yet another blank skyscraper
if you're like me I'm sure a minor miracle will do
A flaming sword or maybe a gold ark floating up the Hudson
when you spit in the wind it comes right back at you
Strawman, going straight to the devil
Strawman, going straight to hell
Strawman, going to the devil
Strawman, strawman
strawman, ...., ah
Strawman
strawman

ZNAM TKO JE KRIV!

...TRI KNJIGE

Unfortunately, says Mr Skidelsky, this intellectual evolution has paid far too little attention to Keynes’s other big insight, which regards “radical” or “irreducible” uncertainty as the root cause of economic instability. This immeasurable uncertainty, he argued, explains why people hoard cash, why investment is volatile and why financial markets are inherently unstable.