konane's Blog

Fries with that crow????

_______________

" 'Warming' meltdown

"Climate 'consensus' cracks up

Last Updated: 11:59 AM, February 16, 2010Posted: 12:58 AM, February 16, 2010Rich Lowry
Source NYPOST.com

"Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers" -- a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.

A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though: Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.

For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it's a giant leap backward. The rush to "save the planet" can't accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key "consensus" institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mind-set of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry.

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make.

Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia.

It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters -- all nonsense.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one."

The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK

Her accounting of how Hitler was elected in Austria by 98% of the vote is very interesting.

____________

Kitty Werthmann
For the Argus Leader
published: 3/11/2003

Kitty Werthmann, 77, of Pierre, is president of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. She lobbies the state Legislature on family issues. She has lived in the United States since 1950 and has been a U.S. citizen since 1962.
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/states/articles/2003/werthmann-3-11-03.shtml

________

Source Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/x-25060-Fort-Worth-Christianity--Culture-Examiner~y2009m11d29-America-Truly-is-the-Greatest-Country-in-the-World--Dont-Let-Freedom-Slip-Away

Interesting opinion.  Decide for yourself.

_________

In addition to the "global warming" rip-off, you can add another huge international racketeering operation -- the H1N1 "pandemic" of 2009

"Europe to Investigate the UN Over “Pandemic” Scam

By Jim O'Neill     Saturday, January 2, 2010

Source Canada Free Press

“UN report says pandemic may result in anarchy—‘could kill millions’—unless western world pays for antiviral drugs and vaccines!” —From “The Guardian” September 20, 2009

"WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect non-infected patients. — Associated Press—October 25, 2009

In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add another huge international racketeering operation—the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009. 

Both of these ploys were designed to fleece the western nations of billions, possibly trillions, of dollars.  In the case of the H1N1 scam, the western governments have already coughed up billions of dollars for vaccines to prevent a bogus “pandemic.”  That means that we, the taxpayers, have been ripped-off yet again. 

If class action lawsuits aren’t on the way, then they darn well should be.

The European nations have apparently not been paid off to the extent of the U.S. Congress, and have decided to look into things. 

According to a report filed by F. William Engdahl, the Council of Europe Parliament has unanimously proposed to start an investigation this month into “the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign.”

The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate collusion between the “Golden Triangle” of the UN’s WHO (World Health Organization), certain pharmaceutical companies, and academic scientists. 

That scenario should sound familiar, as it’s similar to “global warming’s” collusion between the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), “green energy” corporations, and academic scientists.

Both scams were intended to “redistribute the wealth” globally, while making the Global Elite, very, very rich.  They get to wipe out the middle-class, destroy capitalism, install a UN-run global regime, and get exceedingly wealthy, all at the same time.  It’s a win/win situation all around, for Progressives at least.

The resolution just passed by the Council of Europe Parliament includes the charge that, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines…pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies…to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”

The motion was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg,  Chairman of the European Parliament Health Committee.  He stated that millions of healthy people were unnecessarily “exposed to the risk of poorly tested vaccines,” for no other reason than the purported threat of a flu strain that is “vastly less harmful” then previous flu strains. 

Dr. Wodarg’s talking about the Swine Flu, or H1N1, or “novel H1N1,” or “2009 H1N1,” or whatever they’re trying to pass it off as these days.  You remember—the national emergency?

You ought to remember—after all, you helped to pay for the billions spent on vaccines.  Big Pharma thanks you, and so do their stockholders.  Speaking of which, do you think some of those stockholders just might be Global Elitists?  Just asking.

Dr. Wodarg suggested that, “The Council of Europe and its member-states should ask for immediate investigations and consequences, on their national levels, as well as on the international level.”  Consequences—hmmm, good suggestion.

Why isn’t the U.S. doing the same?  Too many bribes, too many “donations” made to too many politicians, too many deals made with Big Pharma to get Obama-Care passed?  That would be my guess.

Our renowned “people’s watchdog,” the Lame Stream Media, remains ever-vigilantly silent on the subject.  Although I must admit that CBS did, almost, nearly look into malfeasance on the part of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) regarding the Swine Flu scam.

I guess, once again, it’s up to “we the people” to straighten things out.  Anybody know some good class action lawsuit lawyers?

Laus Deo."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18527

"Poll: 75% 'angry' at government

By ANDY BARR | 2/8/10 11:52 AM EST
Source Politico

"Three-quarters of the nation’s voters are “angry” at the federal government’s policies, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey out Monday.

Of the 1,000 likely voters surveyed Feb. 5-6, 75 percent said they were either “very” or “somewhat” angry with the “current policies of the federal government.” Forty-five percent said they were “very” angry.

Only 19 percent said they were “not very” or “not at all” angry with the government, while 6 percent were not sure.

Nearly two-thirds, 60 percent, agreed with the statement that “neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.”

The Republicans surveyed were angrier than Democrats, but both expressed frustration.

Eighty-nine percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats said they were angry, while 78 percent of independent voters said they were.

More men were angry with the federal government than women, and voters who earned from $60,000 to $100,000 were found to be the angriest.

The percentage of those who said they were angry with the federal government has been on the rise.

In September, 66 percent of those surveyed said they were either “very” or “somewhat” angry, while in November 71 percent said they were.

The poll has a margin of error of plus- or minus-3 percentage points."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32680.html

If memory serves me, believe something of this nature was included in an obscure provision of the CAFTA treaty which is feared will be implemented in the US.  Irony ..... medical marajuana legal, vitamins banned. 

__________

"I attended this past weekend’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, and I came away feeling that I had seen something important.  The Tea Party movement is part of something bigger:  America’s Third Great Awakening.

America’s prior Great Awakenings, in the 18th and 19th Centuries, were religious in nature.  Unimpressed with self-serving, ossified, and often corrupt religious institutions, Americans responded with a bottom-up reassertion of faith, and independence.

This time, it’s different.  It’s not America’s churches and seminaries that are in trouble:  It’s America’s politicians and parties.  They’ve grown corrupt, venal, and out-of-touch with the values, and the people, that they’re supposed to represent.  So the people, once again, are reasserting themselves.

Most of the attention focused on this weekend’s convention seemed to involve the keynote speaker, Sarah Palin.  But though Palin wowed the crowd with red-meat attacks on overspending, weak national defense, and broken promises, the key phrase in her speech was this one: “All power is inherent in the people.”

And the biggest action item that she presented the crowd with wasn’t to support Sarah Palin, as most politicians would have asked, but to challenge incumbents in primary races.  Primary battles aren’t “civil war,” she said.  They’re the kind of competition that produces strength in the end.

This seemed to resonate with what I heard from conference attendees. Over and over again, I heard from Tea Party Activists that they were planning to take over their local Republican (and, sometimes Democratic) party apparatus starting at the precinct level and shake things up.

The sense was that party politics have been run for the benefit of the party insiders and hangers-on, not for the benefit of constituents and ideals.  And most of the conference, in fact, was addressed to doing something about that, not to worship of Sarah Palin, with sessions on organizing, media skills, and the like.

Even the much-hyped counter-Tea-Party protest, featuring three activists from the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition, underscores this point.  Despite their small numbers, they drew a large press gaggle hoping to get some negative energy going.

I watched as Knoxville Tea Party organizer Antonio Hinton -- who drew the largest crowd, perhaps because he is black, or perhaps because he’s an excellent speaker - was asked repeatedly by the press to say something negative about Sarah Palin or the National Tea Party Convention, but he called Palin
“a breath of fresh air.”

And he stressed that he and his cohorts - representing a collection of several dozen Tea Party groups around Tennessee - weren’t so much there to complain about the convention as to point out that there was a lot more to the Tea Party movement than that one meeting.

They were right.  The Tea Party movement is bottom up, not top down. Lots of Tea Party people think well of Sarah Palin, but I doubt that many, even among the attendees at this weekend’s convention, would do much of anything just on her say-so.  People I’ve talked to, both there and at other events, aren’t looking for a charismatic leader.

That’s the Barack Obama model, now somewhat tattered.  Instead, they’ve had enough and they’re taking the reins themselves. Over and over again, I heard people at this convention tell me that they had never been involved in politics before the Tea Party movement. And, having tried it, they’re finding that politics can be fun, and they’re encountering the joys of learning that they’re not alone.

Accustomed to major-media treatment that strongly implied that anyone favoring small government must be some kind of fringe wacko, they’re discovering that lots of people feel the way they do, and that they can wield a lot of power if they try.  I suspect the power-wielding part is just starting.

In less than a year, the Tea Party movement has gone from a few spontaneous protests against Obama’s stimulus bill to a nationwide phenomenon rating major media coverage, with several political scalps on its belt.  And these inexpert activists are getting better with practice at what they do, with a lot of room on the learning curve ahead.

It’s fun to put on a protest rally for the first time and have it work out, but it’s even more fun to elect -- or defeat -- a candidate.  Or, as Tea Party activists are beginning to do, to run for office yourself.

Over the next couple of years, these multitudes of virgin political operatives are going to acquire considerably more experience and self-assurance, which means they’re probably going to become considerably more effective, too.  Politics may not be the same when they’re done."

Examiner contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds covered the National Tea Party Convention for PJTV.com.  He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Glenn-Reynolds-Tea-Party-Nashville-was-Americas-Third-Great-Awakening--83762647.html

http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/02/07/you-betcha-palin-campaigns-for-rick-perry-writes-hi-mom-on-her-hand/

February 7, 2010

Source Times Online 

"School bombing exposes Obama’s secret war inside Pakistan

Last week America launched its first multiple drone attack, according to Pakistani security officials. Eighteen missiles were fired from eight unmanned aircraft in Dattakhel village, killing 16 people.

The discovery of the dead US soldiers revealed that America’s shadowy war in Pakistan not only involves drones but also small cadres of special operations soldiers.

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, insisted that US troops were in Pakistan only to provide counter-insurgency training for the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force operating in the tribal areas.

Other sources said there were about 200 US military inside the country. “I’m not sure you could just call it training,” one official said. “They are hardly behind the wire if they are on trips to schools in Dir.”

The three US soldiers, who have been described variously as special operations forces and civil affairs troops, were killed when their convoy was bombed as it travelled to the re-opening of the school. It had been rebuilt with US aid after being bombed by the Taliban last year.

Three schoolgirls, two villagers and a Pakistani soldier were also killed in the attack, for which the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility. More than 100 were wounded, mostly schoolgirls.

It was officially reported that the device was a remote-controlled bomb. It has now emerged that a suicide bomber rammed into the vehicle carrying the Americans. This suggests the bomber had inside information. “This attack was too perfect: they lay in wait for the convoy to pass and knew exactly which vehicle to hit,” a US military officer told the Long War Journal.

One of those killed was Sergeant Matthew Sluss-Tiller, 35, the father of a three-year-old daughter. His mother, Jane Blankenship, said her son had been in Pakistan on a civil affairs mission and had grown a beard for it.

One official suggested the “trainers” may be used to pick up intelligence on drone targets, particularly because the CIA did not trust its counterparts from the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service that has close links to the Taliban.

The Americans insist the drone attacks have been a success, picking off the second and third tier of Al-Qaeda’s leadership. In August they killed Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban. They recently claimed to have killed his successor, Hakimullah Mehsud, but Pakistan’s foreign minister said this had not been confirmed.

To the irritation of Washington, Islamabad has kept up a pretence that drone attacks are carried out without its approval, even though the aircraft are based in Pakistan.

Among the Pakistani public, there has been outcry at the attacks. Surveys constantly show that Pakistanis consider the US a greater threat than the Taliban, despite 3,021 Pakistani deaths in terrorist attacks last year.

If the drones are controversial, the presence of US soldiers on Pakistani soil is far more so. Despite a $1.5 billion (£959m) aid programme, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, had to fly into Pakistan two weeks ago to reassure its military leadership. “Let me say definitively the US does not covet a single inch of Pakistani soil,” he told Pakistan’s National Defence University."

Additional reporting: Daud Khattak"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7017929.ece

Came in email.  Awesome animation, best viewed on a large screen format.

_______________

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Aug03/prWherearetheJobs080103.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Couple of amazing photos. 

________

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

Interesting article, came in email this morning.  Metaphysically I've read that we're all experiencing the "dispensation of responsibility" so this is likely one of many articles we'll see on the subject.  Hope you enjoy.

_____________

"Is There A Hidden Purpose To Victimhood?

"An attitude has swept across practically every person in every country on the globe over the course of the past few decades. This is the attitude of victimhood. Why has it become so popular for people to feel like they are victims and what purpose can this serve?

The Lack of Responsibility
Victims feel they can shirk responsibilities because those fall on the shoulders of the victimizers. Victims feel like they have no control over their own lives. Have a drug problem? It’s your parents’ faults. Uneducated? It’s not your fault. You had to take care of your kid. Single parent? That’s the fault of that no good boyfriend that hit the road as soon as you gave birth.

Paying alimony? Yeah, you decided to get married to that person, but you didn’t know they were going to divorce you and make you pay them. These excuses really do seem to make things easier. No reason to feel guilt or self-doubt. You did your best. Life happened to you.

Life happened to everyone. Your sister. Your friends. They all tell you the same thing. That no good mother is such you-know-what she wouldn’t let me keep living in her house, they say. Why do all of these various people do these horrible things to everyone? They’re just mean. They have grudges. They’re jealous. They are “haters.” They hate me because I’m beautiful. When viewed through an objective lens, most of these motives would seem flimsy, even silly, but through the eyes of a victim, these motivations seem to make perfect sense.

Victims Only Think About Themselves
When feel you are constantly being victimized in your life, you are actually being selfish. All you can think about is how terrible you’ve been wronged and how you are going to show those that victimized you.

Victim-hood leads to many negative emotions, pushing out any positive emotions that might have overtaken the victim. When you are so focused on yourself, you don’t think of other people and whether or not they are doing okay. You don’t think about how you can help them. Why would you? You’re the victim. You have problems. It slips your mind that everyone has problems. If you helped another person with their problems, it might actually cheer you up a little and give you some confidence. Can’t have that.

Helplessness Leads to Hopelessness
Victims are helpless. Someone that feels victimized typically feels no responsibility for the unpleasantness that has befallen them. With no responsibility in creating your own personal disaster, you were helpless to do anything to stop it. Therefore, you’re still helpless. You want, no, you need for someone to help you, to make everything better.

The longer this goes on, the less in control of your own life you feel. You’re completely helpless to do anything. There’s absolutely no hope for you, anymore. When there’s no hope, nothing matters. You get reckless. You do things just to make yourself happy for a few ephemeral moments. You spend money you don’t have. Your mind runs on and on with nonsense. You have nothing left. There’s no joy in your life. There’s no more reason to live. You have no future.

Why Has This Become Popular?
Victimhood has become the default state of a great many people around the globe. Why would so many choose a state of such utter sadness and disappointment? No one can say for sure. A popular view is that the the rise of the welfare state, shows like Jerry Springer, shifting cultural norms, and media in general are to blame.

Many victims would say it’s not a choice to be a victim. Once you are victimized, you have no choice, but to be a victim. That is the victim mentality in a nutshell. You have no choice. Anyone can, all of a sudden wrong you. Sure, this happens, but most of the time, you share some responsibility. If you were beaten and mugged, there’s no reason for that, but you were in that area at that time for a reason. You chose to be there. You didn’t know you’d be mugged, but you willfully decided to go to that place at that time.

Random bad things do, of course, happen, from time to time, where you don’t have much responsibility. But part of the responsibility of being alive is knowing that bad things are going to happen to you and that you are going to have to deal with them and move on. Say you’re laid off from a job do really well. Not fun, but there’s no reason to dwell on it. Yes, you were wronged by the company to which you contributed so much effort, but all you can do is move on and find another job.

If you can’t find another job, like so many Americans and others in today’s challenging times, take the opportunity to do your own thing and become one of the liberated self-employed. The freedom of never again answering to a condescending abusive boss is a blessing that is many times only facilitated when one loses the perceived safety and security of steady employment. Hardships are meant to provide the catalyst for positive change, but change scares most people. That’s why hardships are required to facilitate these changes.

Self-employment seems iffy to most people, but when you have no other choice, it’s a pretty good option. Once you’re confident in your ability to make money without depending on a boss, you’d be insane to ever want to go back to your old way of life. However, would you ever have really quit your well-paying job to strike out on your own? Probably not. Getting laid off, might have been the best thing that ever happened to you.

If you recede into victim-hood, asking why something so terrible ever happened to you and wondering why no one will help, you’re not going to realize the positive developments that will come from your trouble. Life isn’t an exciting challenge, anymore, it’s a monster springing out from behind a tree to slice you and dice you! You’re stuck. You’re a deer in the headlights. The car is going to kill you, and you can’t move a muscle. You aren’t going to figure out a way to become self-employed. You’ll get a minimum wage working for a boss who no one can stand.

You Have A Choice
Humans aren’t naturally victims for very long. Why is this such a pervasive attitude in today’s culture? People in power want you to feel helpless so they can control you. That’s why. Plain and simple. Who would work a low-paying, disrespectful service or outgoing call job, otherwise? But, have hope. No one can be a victim forever.

Keep Hope Alive
Sooner or later, everyone realizes they are the only ones with control over their own lives. Once you realize that you are never a victim, you can do incredible things. All of these people will have this epiphany after dealing with the bleak consequences of feeling helpless. They will take control of their own lives, and the world will be a wonderful place. A place full of confident, loving people doing everything they can to help other people to be as happy as they are."

http://www.dreammanifesto.com/hidden-purpose-victimhood.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-there-a-hidden-purpose-to-victimhood

"The Gang of Five, and How They Nearly Ruined Us

The little-known reason why investment banks got too big, too greedy, too risky, and too powerful.

From Slate

Source The Big Money

"The surviving investment banks are bristling at efforts aimed at recouping taxpayer losses and forestalling a repeat of the panic of 2008: congression­al proposals to tax bonuses, President Obama's planned tax on large banks' liabilities, and his suggestion that banks be prohibited from using taxpayer-insured funds for proprietary trading. That last proposal would "restrict lending, increase risk, decrease stability in the system, and limit our ability to help create jobs," says Steve Bartlett, CEO of the Financial Serv­ices Roundtable, the trade group for megabanks.

But if the banks want us out of their business, they should get out of our business first. We've (barely) lived through a 40-year period in which investment banks haven't imposed themselves on us. They effectively moved into our house, raided our fridge, and set the joint on fire. Now they're complaining that our renovation efforts are cramping their style.

The genesis of the problem was the transformation of investment banks from private partnerships into publicly held companies. The process began when Merrill Lynch went public in 1971. It was followed by the four other horsemen of the 2008 credit apocalypse: Morgan Stanley (MS) (1986), Bear Stearns (1985), Lehman Bros. (1994), and Goldman Sachs (GS) (1999). The Gang of Five went public so they could compete with the international banking giants that were encroaching on their core business of underwriting stock offerings and advising firms and so they could boost their activities in risky, capital-intensive businesses like proprietary trading. "In order to have a capital base that would support the funding they needed, they had to be public," says Roy Smith, a former Goldman Sachs partner and a professor of finance at New York University.

Going public allowed investment banks to get bigger, which then gave them the heft to mold the regulatory system to their liking. Perhaps the most disastrous decision of the past decade was the Securities and Exchange Commission's 2004 rule change allowing investment banks to increase the amount of debt they could take on their books—a move made at the request of the Gang of Five's CEOs. Before Lehman crashed, it had amassed more than $600 billion in debt. No partnership or private corporation could have accomplished that feat.

The shift to public ownership also replaced the accountability of partnerships—when there are no profits, there are no partner bonuses—with the dangerous fecklessness of public boards. In theory, boards are supposed to oversee the activities of CEOs. In practice, they act as expensive rubber stamps. "These companies had board members who either weren't paying attention or, at Lehman in particular, were deliberately selected because they were unqualified or out of it," says John Gillespie, a former investment banker at Lehman and Bear ­Stearns and co-author of the new book <snip> Gillespie notes that in 2008, Lehman's compensation committee included actress Dina Merrill, an heiress to the E.F. Hutton fortune who was 85 years old.

By the time Lehman ended its 14-year run as a public company with a "bagel" (a stock worth zero), some $45 billion in shareholder value had been destroyed. Shareholders didn't do much better with the other four. Bear ­Stearns was rescued from bageldom when JPMorgan (JPM) bought it at a fire-sale price with the help of the Federal Reserve. Morgan Stanley and Goldman managed to remain independent and solvent, but only because huge subsidies were made available to them. In late January, Morgan Stanley's stock stood where it did in early 1998.

Shareholders may have suffered, but employees and executives didn't. At investment-­banking partnerships, compensation is contentious—epic brawls would take place each December as partners argued over bonuses. But they would take place in private, and the process essentially involved rich people taking money out of one another's pockets. Now it's a zero-sum game, with executives and employees essentially taking billions from shareholders.

The public—as aggrieved owners, taxpayers, and savers—has every right to question the banks' methods and practices. If they don't want us poking around their businesses, they can shrink their balance sheets, replace government-subsidized debt with market-rate debt, stop relying on the Federal Reserve for funding, and get out of our index funds. As film mogul Samuel Goldwyn once said: "Include me out!"

Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek."

 http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/moneybox/2010/01/29/gang-five-and-how-they-nearly-ruined-us?page=full