more animals

FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER, YOUR CORRESPONDENT WAS THINKING ABOUT FURTHER POTENTIALLY FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS used by the likes of case managers or supervisors in sheltered workshops, Vocational Guidance Counsellors in Vocational Rehabilitation, even Community Mental Health psychiatrists, used as a means to keep our types "in line" (in theory, know) for the sake of "improving our chances of getting work in the community"--especially so during periods of economic uncertainty or otherwise limited job openings.

Not to mention find ways of keeping as many sheltered-workshop clients as possible just to maximise subsidies based solely on their own greed as opposed to a sincere desire to help the disabled find decent jobs in the work market.

In any case, here's a few more I came across:

• "Companies really don't want to add costs; they really want to add value--but are unable to do so because of outdated and unnecessary laws as prevent this."
• "Even with tax credits and incentives to encourage hiring disabled people, employers don't want to deal with a wasteful and unnecessary burden of paperwork just to collect them."
• "Research has shown that disabled people are best suited to work in unskilled, low-profile manufacturing positions."
• "The only employment you really need is such as requires you to use your hands rather than your mind--and to use them wisely and constructively."
• "We could lose precious subsidies and tax incentives if we allowed you to find work on your lonesome. You should let us do the work for you, and save you disappointment."
• "Companies (or consumer protection agencies, or the Better Business Bureau) don't want to deal with your petty frivolous complaints as are long-winded; besides, they don't have time or resources to go through all your nonsense."
• "You would be better off if you just kept your mouth shut and nose clean. Employers don't like to hire troublemakers or rabble-rousers."
• "If you file a complaint, be concise in what you have to say; they don't have time to read long-winded nonsense. If possible, consider using Newspeak."
• "Various employers have been given a book containing certain letters to the editor of yours as a warning that you cannot be trusted with employment without posing a security risk."
• "Consumer-protection agencies already have a number of complaints against whom you're complaining about, whch will only delay things needlessly."

No wonder the traditional sheltered-workshop system is as warped as it has been.

=============

AND TALKING ABOUT THE WARPED POWER AND POTENTIAL OF LIES AND FALSEHOODS, Glenn Greenwald with Salon.com observes where racists are starting to use the Washington Mutual collapse last week for their own sinister and perverted purposes as suggest that only White Male European-American Christians are entitled to control of the "morally superior" American socioeconomic model and paradigm (with two updates as followed its original posting, and emphasis supplied):

National Review's Mark Krikorian notes that (1) Washington Mutual became the largest bank to fail in American history yesterday and (2) its last press release touted the fact that it was named one of America's most diverse employers, having been "honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations"; for being "named [one of] the top 60 companies for Hispanics"; for "attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers"; for having "earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups"; and for being "named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine."

While juxtaposing these two facts--(1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday--the National Review writer headlined his post: "Cause and Effect?" He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays. Is that why Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns and so many others also failed--too racially diverse of a workforce? Ironically, the night before, National Review's Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt agreed with one another that The Atlantic Monthly was forever destroyed as a journalistic entity because it employs Andrew Sullivan, whose writings about Sarah Palin are "a form of mental illness."

At roughly the same time, Law Professor Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds promoted this article by University of Oklahoma Professor David Deming, which described "Obama's thinly veiled hatred for this country's unique culture and institutions" and said he was "a hollow man that despises American culture," and the article predicted that "more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide." Professor Dunning explained that Sarah Palin compares favorably to Obama because she--unlike he--was "unassisted by affirmative action" and "is not embarrassed by being an American." Then, this shining light of the right-wing blogosphere lavished praise on that article in a post entitled "Alien Obama" and explained that "Barack Obama despises America and American values because he has never known or experienced them, as he did not grown up in a normal American culture"; that "Obama is un-American"; and that "[Obama] is not one of us" (Professor Reynolds then linked to that "analysis," too).

Yesterday, The Atlantic's Ross Douthat argued--more or less persuasively--that both presidential campaigns have decided, for different tactical reasons, that it's in their interests to ensure that the election entails no real substantive differences between the two candidates and that the election has therefore become "an election about nothing." Even if that's true, the need to banish the faction that has been driven by drooling, ugly cretins like these--the people whose twisted mentality brought us torture and rampant lawlessness and endless authoritarian destruction and who crave still more of all of that (and economic crises always exacerbate hatemongering extremists and render their bile infinitely more dangerous)--is, by itself, reason enough to care about the outcome.

UPDATE: Yves Smith posts this informed speculation:

I understand that the explosion in the OIS spread is a reflection of the fear banks have for each others solvency. And it makes sense that it exploded right after the bankruptcy of [Lehman Brothers]--it was not the bankruptcy per se, IMO, but the that $110b of senior LEH debt went from trading .95 to .12 in a matter of days that concentrated the market's attention. If you include the less senior debt that is trading at essentially zero, LEH had $110b hole in its balance sheet. And just days before this, the market was being told and was believing that the $10b disposition of Neuberger was going to solve their funding problems.

Now is there a precedent in this history of bankruptcy--excluding cases of accounting fraud--where bonds collapsed like this once a bankruptcy court opened up the books? I'm thinking the answer is 'no.' Which then makes you re-evaluate the premise that there wasn't fraud at LEH in marking the value of their assets.

Now extrapolate this reasoning across the entire banking system and, voila, you have the seizure of the interbank lending market.

Now this leads me to the question: if the OIS spread represents eminently legitimate fears of inaccurate marks on banks books, how is a commitment from the treasury to buy hundreds of billions of distressed assets from the banks any assurance to a counterparty that that bank will not still become insolvent.

There are all sorts of reasons that led us to this financial crises--including, quite possibly, pervasive fraud at the highest levels of the financial world in how these "assets" were valued and, most certainly, a reckless institutional pursuit of endless profits by exploiting illusory financial instruments. Trying to blame it on the fact that home loans were made to racial minorities--or, worse, that these institutions employed too many racial minorities, as National Review's Krikorian did--is demagoguery so vile and reckless that it defies description.

UPDATE II: Digby has more on the Right's strategy--including from National Review--to blame minorities for the financial crisis, here and here.

And good for conservative Professor Stephen Bainbridge, who says about the likes of Krikorian and Malkin: "They make you embarrassed to be a Conservative" and: "the freezing up of the credit markets doesn't have anything to do with either affirmative action or illegal immigration, and people who believe it does are on a par with the conspiracy theorists who think flouridation is a Chicom plot."

(For "America's unique culture and institutions," think in terms of the idealised vision packaged in 1950's-model TV sitcoms ... and that which is epitomised by Die Bransoner Muzikschaukultur: a white, "European-American" model which unwittingly contains overtures to that which the Nazi regime's Kraft durch Frude ("Strength Through Joy") programme sought to promote in the name of national and racial unity through "folk culture festivals" under its sponsorship and direction, not to mention subsidised short-break vacations in beauty spots and spas.)

more the engrish!

SO MUCH FOR THE ZEALOTS AND TRUE BELIEVERS @ FOX PROLEFEED AND FOX PROLEFEED II INSISTING THAT THE "MORALLY SUPERIOR" AMERICAN ECONOMY is "healthy" when facts suggest otherwise--in particuar unemployment approaching 6% and upwards, and many all the more unlikely to find jobs "despite reasonable efforts" to try finding work "for emotional well-being" as much as to maintain a healthy living.

Meaning, in effect, expect your e-mail to see the likes of hiring calls such as the following, which are unlikely to produce realistic employment for realistic pay or "emotional well-being" within measurable distance--and all because of His Fraudulency's Great Within (know, this is an actual e-mail which Your Correspondent received recently):

Hello,
We are a company that conduct surveys and evaluate other companies. We get hired to go to other peoples companies and act like customers in order to know how the staffs are handling their services in relation to their customers. Once we have a contract to do you would be directed to the company or outlet and you would be given the funds you need to do the job(either purchase things or require services) after which you would write a comment on the staffs activities and give a detailed record of your experience. Examples of details you would forward to us are

1) How long it took you to get services.
2) Smartness of the attendant
3) Customer service professionalism
4) Sometimes you might be required to upset the attendant to see how they react to clients when they get tensed (under pressure).

We turn the information (you gave us) over to the company executives and they would carry out their own duties in improving their services.
Most companies employ our assistance when people give complaints about their services or when they feel there are needs for them to improve their customer service. Your Identity would be kept confidential as the job states (secret shopper) you would be paid $100 for every survey you carry out bonus on your transportation allowance and funds would be given to you if you have to dine as part of the duty.
Your job will be to evaluate and comment on customer service in a wide variety of shops, stores, restaurant and services in your area. No commitment is made on this job and you would have flexible hours as it suits you. If you are interested do send in

(I)Your Full Name:
(II)Your Residence address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
(III)Present work address:
(IV)Home and mobile Phone numbers:
(V)Email address:
(VI)Your Age and Current Occupation:
(VII)Your Gender:

So we can look at your distance from the locations which you have to put your service into, and your address would also be needed for your payments.
Thomas hiring manager.

(N.B. Please don't contact me if you're enquiring about "mystery shopper" positions per the above; instead, you might want to contact local retailers for referrals to companies that would use "mystery shoppers" from time to time.)

*************

WITH THE ARREST OF PSEUDORELIGIOUS EVANGEL TONY ALAMO THE OTHER DAY FOR CHARGES RELATING TO THE OLD KINDERPORN, and his playing the rather lame-sounding meme of "Christian Persecution! Christian Persecution!" (all in the key of "Ring around the collar!") all the while in trying to excuse himself ... perhaps a psychopathic evaluation might be in order as part of the enquiries.

After all, showing sexual tendencies towards the pre-pubescent is a Serious Mental Disorder. And to have someone using the defence of being a religious to evade responsibility speaks volumes right there.

(Let's not forget where those of the so-called "European-American" community are also fond of playing this same "Christian Persecution!" meme vis-a-vis the "once proud, now persecuted by a Communist-inspired regime" Afrikaner Peoples of South Africa to whip up empathy towards an "evacuation" which could be cancelled just as suddenly as the fundraising appeals started.)

=============

TELL ME THIS DOESN'T SPEAK VOLUMES FOR IRONIC HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLETHINK: White Christian Supremacists who hold dear "healthy and patriotic" anti-Semitism as an article of faith sympathising with the Palestinian Arab cause based on the "enemy-of-my-enemy" argument.

And this notwithstanding these same Archie Bunker/Alf Garnett types seeing Arabs as "inferior peoples" and Islam as "a religion of terrorism and violence" all along!

Can they please explain this doublethink for once, or what otherwise stands in the way?

*************

BRIGHT IDEA FOR THE BLOGOSPHERE FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA AS THE ELECTION ENTERS THE OH-SO-CRITICAL HOMESTRETCH, "October Surprise" department--as can target John McCain in the proverbial Achilles' heel of "public opinion" among the "right-thinking Americans" resident over @ the Park & Flush Trailer Park, never mind their neighbours including certain oversexed pre-pubescent sisters by name of Kanker:

Every few days, John McCain or his campaign lashes out at the news media, often focusing their ire on The New York Times, for alleged bias against the Republican presidential candidate. It's a strange claim coming from the politician who has enjoyed a cozier relationship with the national media than any other in memory.

Patrick Healy's article in this morning's New York Times provides yet another of the countless examples that undermine McCain's claim. Though most public polling--including the Times' own poll--shows that more people have confidence in Barack Obama's ability to handle the economy than in McCain's, and more people think Obama understands their needs and problems, Healy asserted that Obama is "out of sync" with the public and accused him of "convey[ing] a certain distance from the ache that many voters feel."

On Monday, the McCain campaign accused The New York Times of being "150 percent in the tank" for Obama. On Friday, the Times demonstrated the absurdity of that accusation by publishing an article that baselessly asserted that Obama is struggling to connect with the public on economic issues despite the fact that polling shows the exact opposite--it is McCain who is struggling. But that wasn't the only bizarre element of the Times article: Seemingly out of the blue, Healy invoked Obama's race:

He wants to appear fired up over the economy, but he has written before about wanting to avoid appearing like a stereotypical angry black man. Unlike Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders whose fulminations could scare white voters, Mr. Obama is not from and of New York, Detroit, or the segregated South; he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. To some degree Mr. Obama faces the opposite challenge from fiery black leaders who came before him: Is he too cool for a crisis like this one?

So, according to Times reporter Patrick Healy, Jesse Jackson is too hot, and Barack Obama is too cool. Presumably, Healy will let us know when he finds an African-American who is just right.

And this, remember, is the newspaper that the McCain campaign says is "150 percent in the tank" for Obama.

But the week's most striking indication that the media are inadequately scrutinizing McCain rather than, as he claims, unfairly doing so is that in the midst of a banking crisis, there is virtually no media examination of McCain's role in a similar crisis 20 years ago.

Sure, the Keating Five has been mentioned in news reports during this campaign. But when McCain's involvement in the scandal comes up in the media, it tends to be a brief mention--and often one that paints McCain in the best possible light. On Monday, Politico reporter Ben Smith gave a telling response to the Obama campaign's complaints that insufficient attention has been paid to McCain's relationship with Keating:

The Keating Five scandal, though, is hardly a secret. Indeed, the story is central to McCain's political narrative. He's called his actions a mistake, and the episode is what transformed him into a self-stylled [sic] reformer.

"He has basically dedicated his career since that moment to the cleaning up of Washington," McCain aide Douglas Holtz-Eakin told me last week.

As Smith's reaction demonstrates, the version of the Keating Five story the media typically tell is the version that is "central to McCain's political narrative"--that the experience turned McCain into a political Mr. Clean, rampaging against corruption in the nation's capital. We are told McCain's tale of redemption--but little of what he did to make redemption necessary.

Take, for example, one of the most damning--and under-reported--facts of the case: Not only did McCain take campaign contributions and free Bahamas vacations from Keating, but his wife also invested more than $350,000 in a Keating real estate development shortly before McCain met with federal banking regulators on Keating's behalf.

Yes, John McCain's wife -- in whose houses McCain lives and entertains throngs of adoring reporters -- had a direct financial relationship with Keating. And according to The Boston Globe, one of the regulators who felt like he was pressured by McCain to go easy on Keating believes McCain intervened in part because of Cindy McCain's investment with Keating.

A New York Times editorial earlier this year touched on the investment in arguing for the release of Cindy McCain's taxes:

There is no question that Mr. McCain--the candidate--has reaped considerable benefits from his wife's wealth, including discounted use of her company's corporate jet to fly from state to state during this campaign.

Voters also deserve to know whether any of Senator McCain's official actions have benefited his wife, family members, or their business associates, as they did in the case of Charles Keating, the Arizona developer and savings and loan operator at the center of the Keating Five scandal two decades ago. A year before Mr. McCain's 1987 meetings with bank regulators on Mr. Keating's behalf, Mrs. McCain and her father invested more than $350,000 in a strip mall developed by Mr. Keating.

[...]

Senator and Mrs. McCain should show that they're both committed to open government and release Mrs. McCain's returns.

But Cindy McCain's tax returns still have not been released. And the news media (which obsessively demanded the release of Bill and Hillary Clinton's tax returns) have all but ignored the topic. And the fact that Cindy McCain was a business partner of Keating's has been treated as a state secret by the national news media. Since January 1, 2007:

• The New York Times has not mentioned the investment in a single news article, even though the paper's editorial board has explained its significance.

• The Washington Post has not mentioned the investment -- not once. The Post has run two separate profiles of Cindy McCain that mentioned the Keating Five controversy, each of which ran more than 2,500 words. But, incredibly, neither article mentioned the strip mall investment. Nor has any other Washington Post article during the campaign.

• Neither USA Today nor Time magazine has mentioned the investment.

• Neither ABC, nor CBS, nor NBC has mentioned the investment -- not a single time.

CNN has mentioned the investment in profiles of McCain that have aired several times. In one, the cable channel even aired video of one of the Keating regulators who felt pressured noting that "Senator McCain was unique among the five senators in having a direct financial conflict of interest involving direct investments.... On judgment, ethics and truthfulness, he failed this test as badly as you can fail." But CNN has been an exception among national media, not the rule.

In 1990, in the midst of the Keating Five investigation, the Phoenix New Times noted that the scandal had scuttled McCain's hopes at national office:

The stakes are incredibly high for McCain. There was a time, before the Keating bubble burst, when he was reportedly being considered for a spot on the Republican ticket as vice president.

Those days are over.

Now, with the nation in the midst of another banking crisis caused in part by deregulation, John McCain is running for president--and the national media are keeping the details of his involvement in the Keating fiasco a secret.

So why the need for keeping the interconnexion vis-a-vis John McCain and Charles Keating all the more secret heading into what may be THE single most important election America faces in its 232 years as a soverign entity, 220 such under the same Constitution--an election as could make all the difference in whether we remain a "gangster state" in the hands of low-lying Fascisti or whether we can reclaim liberty?

So, dear bloggers: Remind your readers that John McCain was among the "Keating Five" as sent the savings-and-loan community into outright ruin and disgrace. And insist that he come forward, fully explaining his involvement and interconnexions. The facts--pure, unadulterated facts. No exaggerations. No drunken fantasies. Hold back nothing.

Even if it means aggravating McCain to the point of spontaneously going into Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang mode, using Billingsgate without warning on live TV (especially so on Fox Prolefeed)--which, to the Great Unwashed, will be proof enough of just how much of a clear and present danger the McCain/Palin ticket may pose to Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity as a Pecuilar Among the Nations.

Said danger even reaching the level where the "New World Order" can suddenly usurp said Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity all the easier.

more animals

NO WONDER HIS FRAUDULENCY HAS LOST WHATEVER SENSE HE MAY HAVE HAD ABOUT THE ECONOMY in his calling upon a post-9/11 America to go about their everyday routines in the name of preventing further Infamous and Notorious Terrorist Attacks--let alone maintaining a socioeconomic status quo with respect to funding the ur-RAHOWA Against Terrorism; again, with an eye towards "preventing further terrorist attacks."

The irony of which, in contrast with the clear and present danger of socioeconomic collapse which the so-called "New World Order" could quickly exploit to the point of "undermining Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity as a Nation," or so the "patriot" platitude hath it, is not lost upon Jon "Daily Show" Stewart of Comedy Central (hat tip to Brilliant @ Breakfast), as found parallels between His Fraudulency's 2003 pronouncements on the ur-RAHOWA and the recent such on the socioeconomic crisis-in-waiting:

As if that weren't enough, Think Progress' The Wonk Room offers this flashback (and then some) to "October Surprise" remarks just before the 2004 elections by way of a (supposed) al-Qaeda propaganda message which made clear their intentions to bankrupt America in service to His Fraudulency's Great Within as can be excused to maintain a theoretical war footing or otherwise justify a National Emergency (emphasis supplied):

As Congress considers a $700 billion way out of the current economic crisis, it’s hard not to notice that this sum closely resembles the amount that the U.S. has spent so far in Iraq. (We will have spent far more than that by the time we withdraw.)

Many will remember Osama bin Laden’s November 2004 straight-to-video release where he discussed Al Qaeda’s stratey against the United States, saying it was “easy for [Al Qaeda] to provoke and bait this administration“:

All that we have to do is to send two Mujahedin to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qa’ida in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human economic and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits to their private companies. […]

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. […]

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahedin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan with Allah’s permission… And it all shows that the real loser is… you. It’s the American people and their economy.

Anticipating the likely release of a new Al Qaeda video starring either bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri — both of whom remain at large, more than seven years after George W. Bush promised to bring them in “dead or alive” — we should remember that, as Ron Suskind reported in The One Percent Doctrine, the CIA’s strategic assessment that “bin-Laden’s [Nov. 2004] message was clearly designed to assist the President’s reelection“:

At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: “Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.”

McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table. Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, suggested that the al-Qaeda founder may have come to Bush’s aid because bin-Laden felt threatened by the rise in Iraq of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; bin-Laden might have thought his leadership would be diminished if Bush lost the White House and their “eye-to-eye struggle” ended.

But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.

“Certainly,” the CIA’s Miscik said, “he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years,” according to Suskind’s account of the meeting.

John McCain has been very clear that when it comes to national security, he would like to keep doing what Bush has been doing for a few more years. That is, he would like to keep jumping at the bait. Remember that when that new AQ video drops.

And let's not forget the possibility that these "al-Qaeda tapes" as come out from time to time could easily be forgeries cooked up by the CIA under lettres de cachet from His Frauduelncy's Great Within "just to keep the American people scared," and deliberately, into voting Straight Republican. And, in the process, suggesting that voting Straight Republican is one with G-d, Country and Family.

Never mind that the current Straight Republican line is calling for nothing short of pure, unadulterated Fascism as would make Benito Mussolini proud. Or, for that matter, Dr. B.F. Malan, Hendrik Verword and all the rest in apartheid South Africa.

more animals

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHENVER YOU HEAR ON THE NEWS ABOUT HOW THE LATEST POLL NUMBERS ARE TURNING IN INDECISION 2008--as in a lesson from history on how and why poll numbers can't always be trusted as credible or may show signs of bias of prejudice:

Modern scientific polling techniques can be attributed, in large measure, to the fallout from the star-crossed Literary Digest Presidential Straw Poll in the 1936 Presidential elections, which predicted that then-Republican Presidential candidate Alf Landon would deny incumbent Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt a second term. But, as things turned out, FDR won a second term, while Landon took only Maine and Vermont--an outcome which the upstart pollster George Gallup correctly predicted just days before The Literary Digest pulled its whopper, using his newly-developed scientific approaches to polling as relied on using random samples spread across various parts of the country and with reasonable representation across the several demographic groups.

(In the case of The Literary Digest, their polling technique was fatally flawed right from the get-go: They relied on their own subscriber mailing list, as well as purchased lists of automotive registrations and telephone subscriptions--some 10 million names in all, of which they got back some 2 million responses, for a response rate of 20%--to come up with a rather broad statistical sample for their "straw poll." Broad--and, as it turned out, biased socioeconomically in favour of such who had stable incomes by Great Depression standards and, hence, were likely to vote Republican all the more come November, as the prevailing thinking went.)

Once the final result showed that FDR had won a second term for his "New Deal," The Literary Digest, itself a rather prestigious and respected weekly review of the news, arts, literature and drama, wound up with the proverbial egg on its face and promised that things would be better next time around.

Only there would be no next time for The Literary Digest: Fallout from the Presidential Straw Poll debacle translated into loss of subscribers and advertisers, forcing Funk & Wagnalls, who published same since 1890, to discontinue its publication within a year's time.

Something to think about before falling for some "opt-in poll" such as the likes of NewsMax advertises across the Information Stuporbahn with some slogan like "Is Obama Finished? Vote Here Now!"

*************

COULD IT BE THAT WALLY WORLD IS ENGAGING IN DELIBERATE SICK HUMOUR @ THE EXPENSE OF PARENTS SHOPPING FOR SCHOOL SUPPLIES by way of "back-to-school shopping lists" as turn out being inaccurate or otherwise misleading?

The Wale Up Wal-Mart blog thought so back in August, just as the "back-to-school" shopping was starting in many areas of the country:

So apparently Wal-Mart has been forging back to school shopping lists complete with details making it look like an official school list. One imagines that this was an attempt to get parents to buy a few extra supplies, but why in the world did they think they could get away with this? Perhaps the best detail of this story is that the fake list included items banned from schools.

The full story is posted below from Kelby Carr. Enjoy!

My daughter is about to start kindergarten, so naturally we did some back to school shopping. Our state sales tax break weekend happened recently. When we noticed the local Wal-Mart had shopping lists not only specific to school and grade level, but to teacher, we were thrilled. We started tossing items in the cart to spend, spend, spend.

Weren’t we a little surprised to learn afterwards that Wal-Mart invented those lists. Not only were we a bit surprised to learn they did not, in fact, base the lists on anything remotely suggested by the school. Wal-Mart, in fact, put items on the list that are BANNED from being brought to school.

Our daughter’s school said Wal-Mart makes up those lists on their own, and a number of items (such as crayons) are on a list from the school. A list of items parents are specifically told not to have their child bring to school. Seriously?

The real back to school list also featured several items that are not on Wal-Mart’s list.

So these lists are, in essence, a trick to get parents (and I can only assume, being that it’s a discount store like Wal-Mart, a great many parents who are on a tight budget) to drop cash on unnecessary purchases. That really aggravates me. It isn’t a big deal if I buy a few extra supplies. I can afford it, and I am sure we will use these items elsewhere. I wouldn’t have bought them otherwise, but it isn’t the end of the world.

But what if I was broke? Or a single mom living on a low income? Or both? I truck over to Wal-Mart thinking I will stretch my precious dollars, only to drop cash on crap I don’t need just because I am trying hard to be sure my poor child isn’t embarrassed by missing needed supplies. That part of it sickens me.

[***]

I can imagine they would say that they are making these lists as suggestions to assist shopping parents. (In fact, Wal-Mart officials can feel free to comment and explain the rationale here. I will definitely approve your comments, and would frankly love to hear your explanation).

Here is the problem with that, however. I have done things like create registries and so forth. Often there is a suggested list of items to get or add to the list. Always, it is clear to me these items are not necessary. So, for example, Wal-Mart could make a list that is titled something like, “Suggested Back to School Items for Kindergartners.” Shoot, even then I would make the top of the page have a statement along the lines that these are suggestions and are not an official list from the school.

Instead, there is no way to describe these lists except as ones that are trying very hard to look official. They have a fax send line at the top of the page (who on earth faxed these, if not the schools?). They not only state the school, but also the grade level and they have various lists based on teacher. Each teacher has slightly different supplies required. If that doesn’t look like something official from the school, I’m not sure what would. Perhaps adding a medieval wax seal to each list?

I also presume other retail stores are doing the same thing, but I honestly haven’t checked.

Either way, be sure you get your back to school shopping list from the school itself. And let me know what’s on it. Because right now I have a shopping bag packed with crap I don’t need. Classy.

(In the interest of fairness, it might be worth knowing that Kmart, ShopKo and Target all provide official, school-specific shopping lists directly from the schools themselves during the relevant season in these parts.)

=============

SPEAKING OF "DROPPING CASH ON UNNECESSARY PURCHASES," ESPECIALLY HEADING INTO THE HOLIDAY SEASON, may I remind all of you about my previous suggestion to consider giving Savings Bonds or other Treasury securities instead, what with the star-crossed Paulson Plan to Save Our Socioeconomic Model and Paradigm likely to cost tax money--and the Zealots and True Believers of Neo-Conservatism-cum-Fascism forever insisting that low taxes=jobs=social stability and order perhaps needing to start waking up to Reality.

Even if it takes a steaming bowl of menudo (a Mexican tripe stew traditionally regarded as effective against hangovers) to accomplish such ends, with the inevitable Tex Averyesque reactions.

Meanwhile, the Chinese tainted milk scandal ensueth all the further, what with the European Union's 27 member states en bloc banning sale of milk-based products from China, especially so milk powder, infant formula and "White Rabbit" brand creamy candies. Likewise with China's two Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau ... Taiwan ... Australia ... New Zealand ... and, most unlikely of all, Suriname, where a sizable ethnic Chinese community exists, which has imposed a ban on said "White Rabbit" sweets. (The United States, of course, doesn't see too many powdered milk products from China on sale; however, just to be on the safe side, consumers are being advised to be wary of online stores selling Chinese powdered milk products.)

more animals

MR. O'REILLY, AND OTHERS AMONG THEIR DROOGS @ FOX PROLEFEED WHO STILL INSIST ON DEFENDING CAPITALISM WITH AMERICAN CHARACTERISTICS as one with the defence of Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity, and vice versa, may want to consider remarks by French President Nicolas Sarkozy which, though directed @ the French economy, could be equally reflective of the "morally superior" American model (via The New York Times, ultimately via the AP; emphasis added):

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Thursday the world came within ''a whisker of catastrophe'' during the recent financial crisis and that those responsible for the crisis must be identified and held accountable.

In his first major public address since the start of the crisis, Sarkozy also criticized ''abuses and scandals'' involving executive pay, and pledged to intervene to halt these practices unless executives come up with their own solution.

''Self-regulation as a way of solving all problems is finished. Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished,'' Sarkozy said.

''The world came within a whisker of catastrophe. We can't run the risk of it happening again,'' Sarkozy, a conservative, said in an address in the southern Mediterranean port city of Toulon.

Sarkozy warned that the ongoing crisis ''will have consequences in the coming months on growth, on unemployment and on spending power.''

''The crisis is not finished ... its consequences will be lasting,'' Sarkozy said.

The president said the crisis made it necessary to accelerate his labor and fiscal reforms, to improve France's competitiveness and help small businesses. He said the ranks of the country's huge corps of civil servants would be shaved by 30,600 next year, not replaced as they retire.

Speaking a day before the French government presents its 2009 budget to Parliament, Sarkozy promised not to impose an ''austerity plan'' that would, according to him, ''deepen the recession.''

France's economy shrank by 0.3 percent in the second quarter, but French government ministers including Prime Minister Francois Fillon and Finance Minister Christine Lagarde have denied the country was in recession, saying it was only a slowdown.

In a wide-ranging speech that touched on both the global economy and France's domestic economy, the president said, ''We must identify those responsible for this disaster and they must be punished, at least financially.''

Saying there had been ''too many abuses and scandals'' involving executive pay, Sarkozy warned business leaders that ''either they agree on acceptable practices, or the government will regulate it before the end of the year.''

The president said executives' pay ''should be indexed to the real economic performance'' of their companies.

Executive pay has emerged as a hot button issue in the crisis, with the U.S. Congress forcing the administration to accept limits on Wall Street pay packages as part of its proposed $700 billion bailout of the American banking system.