I was trying to advocate the exposition of political corruption rather than destroying constituents' mechanisms of communication with their representatives. As for DDoS, I still feel that it has its place, though I'm not promoting the Sony type BS by any means. I'm admittedly no expert, but there's power in those attacks that can be deployed effectively and, if appropriately considered, I believe towards a positive end. No specific admonitions, only musings, naive and irritating as they may be to tech people.
Interesting you mention this. It's part of the problem here. To graduate often one must "believe" in whatever the religious du jour is, esp. for dissertations/PhD.
I wish I could remember who said it, but someone mentioned that all banking which isn't boring should be banned, somewhere around 2008, alluding to the never ending "financial instruments" creation and "strategies".
But Economic Armageddon for labor, Americans have been going strong starting in 2000. That said, this report isn't as great as it seems because new orders had zero increase.
That's not only probably against the law, frankly it's really irritating to tech people to suggest something like that.
You want to be able to communicate to your representatives. Crashing servers disables that ability and is also a huge pain, waste of money.
Hackers could basically make sure information that corporations want to keep secret, such as how many jobs they created offshore and how many Americans they fired each month and moved projects offshore...
now *that* would be useful information and frankly since corporations are publicly traded, I don't see how they are allowed to keep that information secret, but they do.
In my experience graduate-level finance courses emphasized derivatives and trading above traditional banking skills. Only basic instruction was provided in "boring" areas like lending, public finance, underwriting, etc. Should TBTF banks be forced into traditional utility operations I wonder whether there will be an adequate supply of management-quality individuals fit to run the smaller organizations? The schools certainly don't train MBA's to think like long-term trustees of clients' wealth.
There are reasons to believe the Arab Spring hits these shores. We went through the drill 4 years back
to show why social revolution was coming. The reasons
were
- Viral nature of internet (once called Treason of the Intellectuals)
- Military Misadventures of the Empire
- Enduring Economic Crisis
- Failure of reform Movements
- Spark or the Symbolic incident
We are familiar with the spark incidents in the Arab Spring. In the past 400 hundred years of social revolution, the list includes, the Winter Palace, Bastille, Lexington-Concorde, the massacre of the Protestants by Charles II.
We have textbook failure of reform in the case of Obama and the Dems. Failures by great reformers have
include Kerinsky (Moscow 1917), Neccar (Paris 1789), William Pitt (London 1775), and the non-Puritan
Protestants of 1640s. Failed reform in the midst of a great crisis like this one is a very big deal. One happy ending was King Christian V of Denmark, who created Danish democracy in 1848.
Anonymous claims to support the protests - and if they actually do they need to start using their talents to help out. Publish encrypted emails from congressional "representatives," executives at the big banks, and anyone in between that sheds light on unethical collaborations. DoS attacks could help, directed toward appropriate systems (disrupting derivatives trading could be a start). I've long wished that hacker networks would do something worthwhile for once.
That deals with the realities of population, immigration to wage, labor arbitrage and how it correlates to stats, esp. employment, labor markets.
So, yes you are right and considering the sad state of U.S. labor it's obscene to watch them try to flood it more, now trying to turn labor economics on it's head, claim up is down and this never ending increased in labor supply isn't causing labor displacement, wage repression.
on the per capita PI, that's divided by population, mid-month, so it's taking the new increase into account, which is why I show the graph on that one.
"If they [three pending FTAs] are actually blocked by Democrats, they [Democrats in Congress] just got a spine." -- Robert Oak
For the FTAs to be blocked is probably more than we can hope for, but at least some are putting up a fight. Unfortunately, the fight may be like the proverbial tree falling in the forest ... unless corporate media begins to pay attention. That being unlikely, I take it to be our duty to report on action in the Congress as fully and accurately as possible.
Dems in Congress, with a few GOP votes, have already blocked the three FTAs since before 2008. There was really no chance for these FTAs in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), a congress that was just short of the full 60 votes in the Senate to amount to a complete Democratic take-over (in November 2008).
Going back to NAFTA, there were more Dems in the House voting NAY than voted for it. NAFTA and the others passed with nearly unanimous GOP support along with support from many Dems, but more particularly, with the support of the Democratic Party machine. However, it's been a two-party thing -- every White House since Reagan has actively promoted the FTA agenda.
It's less a matter of getting a spine than it is a matter of the count of those with spines plus those whose stomachs weaken the more they look at the FTAs. The wonder is that we can even be discussing the possibility that the FTAs perhaps cannot survive a vote on cloture because of opposition from 40 senators with spines! That would really be Great News!
Historically, the action on FTAs was always in the House rather than in the Senate. This probably has something to do with that members of the House get to run for re-election every two years, although cases of US representatives deciding to retire in comfort after voting for FTAs are not uncommon. However, in this year 2011, Boehner managed a 'voice' (or 'secret') vote on GSP/TAA (7 September 2011) -- which shifted the battleground to the Senate, where only one out of three seats are subject to re-election in 2012.
Having said that, it's true that anti-FTA forces were routed in the 1990s. Meanwhile, anti-FTA members of the Congress have generally done well in elections, even though they are almost invariably underfunded against well-funded adversaries.
The corporate media has systematically under-reported the anti-FTA faction of the congressional Democrats, saying that they are just going along with the demands made on them by their biggest contributors, the Unions -- and we all know that what's good for the Unions is bad for everyone else!
Corporate media has been doing everything possible to hide or disguise the popularity of protectionism. While the 'free trade' agenda never was enthusiastically supported by a majority of the American people, it is now clear that a majority of the electorate are unabashedly in support of protectionism.
What we are seeing currently in Congress can hardly be described without resorting to the 'F' word ... FEAR. Not so much fear that the three pending FTAs won't be passed, but actually that they will be passed ... with disastrous results in 2012 for those members of Congress who vote for them. The old hands who have stood against the FTAs all along (for example, Peter DeFazio of Oregon) are the only ones who can ride through this storm with any sense of integrity.
In the Capitol, especially since Boehner was apparently able to pull off a 'voice' (or 'secret') vote on GSP/TAA (7 September 2011) with virtually no media or populist notice, the assumption is that the three FTAs will float on through like balloons hoisted on their own petards -- petards stinking mostly with the thought of 'inevitability." We get FTAs because we can be talked into the idea that any and all FTAs are 'inevitable' -- such that we, the People, are powerless.
Back in the 1990s, all you needed to discredit anyone who dared to oppose the 'free' trade agenda, was to hint that it was a populist idea, and populism, of course, was next to racism. In the Memory Hole of SuperAmerica, the cross-group populism of Ross Perot has been bleeped out, leaving George Wallace and the Dixiecrats as the defining historical context for 'populism'. (Not to condemn Wallace, the point here is that there was once an association between 'populism' and 'racism' that has been used to discredit the populist defense of protectionism.)
Now, especially since CAFTA, popularity of protectionism extends far beyond the Unions and progressive-populist Democrats or a precious few 'maverick' Republicans like Ron Paul. (Ron Paul's declared trade platform advocates USA leaving the WTO but at the same time unilaterally eliminating all tariffs and other trade barriers -- ???)
What's remarkable at this time is that there was no outcry from the famous 'Tea Party' about the voice vote in the House (a vote with no record as to how any member voted) -- clearly an indication that the 'Tea Party' movement has been bought and sold.
Meanwhile, most Democrats who think of themselves as 'progressive', are just now waking up to the economic consequences for USA of the WTO world system. It's just now occurring to them that, no matter what 'Rooseveltian' may once have comprehended, it can no longer apply to anything because the world has changed in ways that make it impossible to reach the Rooseveltian goals using the 'Rooseveltian' means.
Many of the anti-FTA people in Congress are as Rooseveltian as you can get, but they never did confuse the Rooseveltian goals with the FTA-WTO agenda. Those who honestly confabulated the Rooseveltian with the corporatist approaches to the goals of world peace and universal prosperity have had cause to repent.
The Preface to the famous Communist Manifesto of 1848 begins with these words:
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Today, while there is no specter of communism haunting America, there is the specter of protectionism. Just as with communism in 1848, so today 60 years later, all the powers of the World have entered into a holy alliance to exorcize this specter: the multi-cultural Church and the multi-national Corporation, the international central bankers, the drug lords of Columbia, the oil lords of the Persian Gulf, the CIA and the Communist Party of China.
This specter haunting America potentially can unite Americans across class and other political-identity lines. I don't know what anyone should do about this specter, if anything ... but I do know that it's out there and it can't be denied, especially if the USA economy continues its downward trajectory.
There is a specter haunting American politics ... the specter of Protectionism.
1. Population is increasing by about a quarter of a million per month. This is not an act of God, its government policy to increase population rapidly to keep competition for jobs high, wages low, and profits high. Surely this deserves a mention.
2. As far as per capita income, remember, because of government mandated increases in population, stable per-capita income is not neutral. With a stable population a stable per-capita income would be OK. With a rapdly increasing population you need per-capita income to be increasing even faster, because new people need massive new capital investments. That's why with 1%/year population growth, the United States needs 4%/year economic growth just to keep even.
The simplest way I can describe our economic situation is if you put a bunch of rats in a a cage and slowly decrease their amount of food they will end up eating each other. Capitalism has reached it's peak. The poker game is over. The rich folks are not lending any more money so we can stay in the game. They are now taking their winnings and leaving the room and trust me they will survive. When the families of America have run out of tricks ( both parents working. Racking up credit cards to pay bills. Tapping into home equities to get by) then the game is over. Now it is survival time folks. President Obama is ahead on this game. Take from the rich and give to the poor. May not seem very noble but it's either that or we all end up eating each other.
If the protesters were serious, they would be storming the Harold Pratt House, 58 E. 68th St. at Park Avenue, New York, NY (Headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations) and the New York Fed,33 Liberty Street New York, NY.
But they won't be led to confront the gods on Mount Olympus by their Judas goats and shills. David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger might be held up from lunch at 21.
For both supporters and opponents of the Occupy Wall Street protests who seek more incisive background in understanding what has been really going on behind-the-scenes with the Wall Street corporate and financial elites, check out the two items below:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory216.html
"In a Relationship, and It's Complicated," by Anthony Gregory
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
"Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy," by Murray N. Rothbard
Both articles "name names," and are forthright, direct, and pull no punches.
NC linked to this post and I am glad. I actually missed this report (sorry) and when I read it, decided to write up an overview, pretty much two days late.
It really ain't good at all here, and while a month is simply a month, yet another indicator of declining disposable income for consumers is truly not a good thing.
Goods also dropped more than services, which to me shows people are stones, simply no extra money after making rent and filling their gas tanks.
Folks, if you watch anything, stream the AmeriFam above. The skit is like it is tailor made for this site and I know you'll all not only laugh but say dead on for this one.
One can say the U.S. middle class is being screwed with graphs, texts, data and also humor and this one hits the nail on the head.
The Wall Street Protests are hitting nationwide. It helps to get over 700 people arrested trying to take the Brooklyn Bridge. To me there is no clear message, i.e. these are the solutions we want right now, very specific, but regardless, people are desperate, broke and most of the screw jobs has been inflicted by corporations running the United States (into the ground), Banksters and so on.
I'm more surprised why it has taken this long for people to hit the streets and have wondered why the U.S. isn't more like Greece, with social unrest, chaos.
That's the plan by these people, to do an Egypt. Can't argue, while we're getting shafted and screwed at every turn....by our supposed representatives, the press and government cover Egypt like it's this great thing, Democracy in action, meanwhile we have the same failed banks writing legislation, getting whatever they want and G.E. literally in the White House and more bad trade agreements which have been analyzed already to show they will lose U.S. jobs in droves.
So, bottom line, you've got to try something, even if you know your FAX goes into the trash.
There are some issues where Congress doees seem to at least pause and that is when the protests shut down the Congressional phone and fax system and crash their servers.
Pause, true, they just go ahead and vote in crap that no one wants anyway, but it does at least cause a pause.
why do people only comment on perceived spelling and grammar mistakes? I believe it's because they cannot understand article content.
There are three main data pieces in this report, none good. The title simply lists two of them and is a government statistical economic data release overview.
I was trying to advocate the exposition of political corruption rather than destroying constituents' mechanisms of communication with their representatives. As for DDoS, I still feel that it has its place, though I'm not promoting the Sony type BS by any means. I'm admittedly no expert, but there's power in those attacks that can be deployed effectively and, if appropriately considered, I believe towards a positive end. No specific admonitions, only musings, naive and irritating as they may be to tech people.
Interesting you mention this. It's part of the problem here. To graduate often one must "believe" in whatever the religious du jour is, esp. for dissertations/PhD.
I wish I could remember who said it, but someone mentioned that all banking which isn't boring should be banned, somewhere around 2008, alluding to the never ending "financial instruments" creation and "strategies".
But Economic Armageddon for labor, Americans have been going strong starting in 2000. That said, this report isn't as great as it seems because new orders had zero increase.
"Economic Armageddon has been postponed," -- Robert Oak
What, again? Just when it was getting good!
That's not only probably against the law, frankly it's really irritating to tech people to suggest something like that.
You want to be able to communicate to your representatives. Crashing servers disables that ability and is also a huge pain, waste of money.
Hackers could basically make sure information that corporations want to keep secret, such as how many jobs they created offshore and how many Americans they fired each month and moved projects offshore...
now *that* would be useful information and frankly since corporations are publicly traded, I don't see how they are allowed to keep that information secret, but they do.
From what I've witnessed much of the entire bail out has been about making sure these banks got bigger and stayed TBTF.
I can see the American consumer forcing some to break up by simply refusing to use such predatory financial services, but the government?
Where would they get their campaign cash from then?
In my experience graduate-level finance courses emphasized derivatives and trading above traditional banking skills. Only basic instruction was provided in "boring" areas like lending, public finance, underwriting, etc. Should TBTF banks be forced into traditional utility operations I wonder whether there will be an adequate supply of management-quality individuals fit to run the smaller organizations? The schools certainly don't train MBA's to think like long-term trustees of clients' wealth.
There are reasons to believe the Arab Spring hits these shores. We went through the drill 4 years back
to show why social revolution was coming. The reasons
were
- Viral nature of internet (once called Treason of the Intellectuals)
- Military Misadventures of the Empire
- Enduring Economic Crisis
- Failure of reform Movements
- Spark or the Symbolic incident
We are familiar with the spark incidents in the Arab Spring. In the past 400 hundred years of social revolution, the list includes, the Winter Palace, Bastille, Lexington-Concorde, the massacre of the Protestants by Charles II.
We have textbook failure of reform in the case of Obama and the Dems. Failures by great reformers have
include Kerinsky (Moscow 1917), Neccar (Paris 1789), William Pitt (London 1775), and the non-Puritan
Protestants of 1640s. Failed reform in the midst of a great crisis like this one is a very big deal. One happy ending was King Christian V of Denmark, who created Danish democracy in 1848.
The Storm is coming.
Anonymous claims to support the protests - and if they actually do they need to start using their talents to help out. Publish encrypted emails from congressional "representatives," executives at the big banks, and anyone in between that sheds light on unethical collaborations. DoS attacks could help, directed toward appropriate systems (disrupting derivatives trading could be a start). I've long wished that hacker networks would do something worthwhile for once.
That deals with the realities of population, immigration to wage, labor arbitrage and how it correlates to stats, esp. employment, labor markets.
So, yes you are right and considering the sad state of U.S. labor it's obscene to watch them try to flood it more, now trying to turn labor economics on it's head, claim up is down and this never ending increased in labor supply isn't causing labor displacement, wage repression.
on the per capita PI, that's divided by population, mid-month, so it's taking the new increase into account, which is why I show the graph on that one.
"If they [three pending FTAs] are actually blocked by Democrats, they [Democrats in Congress] just got a spine." -- Robert Oak
For the FTAs to be blocked is probably more than we can hope for, but at least some are putting up a fight. Unfortunately, the fight may be like the proverbial tree falling in the forest ... unless corporate media begins to pay attention. That being unlikely, I take it to be our duty to report on action in the Congress as fully and accurately as possible.
Dems in Congress, with a few GOP votes, have already blocked the three FTAs since before 2008. There was really no chance for these FTAs in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), a congress that was just short of the full 60 votes in the Senate to amount to a complete Democratic take-over (in November 2008).
Going back to NAFTA, there were more Dems in the House voting NAY than voted for it. NAFTA and the others passed with nearly unanimous GOP support along with support from many Dems, but more particularly, with the support of the Democratic Party machine. However, it's been a two-party thing -- every White House since Reagan has actively promoted the FTA agenda.
It's less a matter of getting a spine than it is a matter of the count of those with spines plus those whose stomachs weaken the more they look at the FTAs. The wonder is that we can even be discussing the possibility that the FTAs perhaps cannot survive a vote on cloture because of opposition from 40 senators with spines! That would really be Great News!
Historically, the action on FTAs was always in the House rather than in the Senate. This probably has something to do with that members of the House get to run for re-election every two years, although cases of US representatives deciding to retire in comfort after voting for FTAs are not uncommon. However, in this year 2011, Boehner managed a 'voice' (or 'secret') vote on GSP/TAA (7 September 2011) -- which shifted the battleground to the Senate, where only one out of three seats are subject to re-election in 2012.
Having said that, it's true that anti-FTA forces were routed in the 1990s. Meanwhile, anti-FTA members of the Congress have generally done well in elections, even though they are almost invariably underfunded against well-funded adversaries.
The corporate media has systematically under-reported the anti-FTA faction of the congressional Democrats, saying that they are just going along with the demands made on them by their biggest contributors, the Unions -- and we all know that what's good for the Unions is bad for everyone else!
Corporate media has been doing everything possible to hide or disguise the popularity of protectionism. While the 'free trade' agenda never was enthusiastically supported by a majority of the American people, it is now clear that a majority of the electorate are unabashedly in support of protectionism.
What we are seeing currently in Congress can hardly be described without resorting to the 'F' word ... FEAR. Not so much fear that the three pending FTAs won't be passed, but actually that they will be passed ... with disastrous results in 2012 for those members of Congress who vote for them. The old hands who have stood against the FTAs all along (for example, Peter DeFazio of Oregon) are the only ones who can ride through this storm with any sense of integrity.
In the Capitol, especially since Boehner was apparently able to pull off a 'voice' (or 'secret') vote on GSP/TAA (7 September 2011) with virtually no media or populist notice, the assumption is that the three FTAs will float on through like balloons hoisted on their own petards -- petards stinking mostly with the thought of 'inevitability." We get FTAs because we can be talked into the idea that any and all FTAs are 'inevitable' -- such that we, the People, are powerless.
Back in the 1990s, all you needed to discredit anyone who dared to oppose the 'free' trade agenda, was to hint that it was a populist idea, and populism, of course, was next to racism. In the Memory Hole of SuperAmerica, the cross-group populism of Ross Perot has been bleeped out, leaving George Wallace and the Dixiecrats as the defining historical context for 'populism'. (Not to condemn Wallace, the point here is that there was once an association between 'populism' and 'racism' that has been used to discredit the populist defense of protectionism.)
Now, especially since CAFTA, popularity of protectionism extends far beyond the Unions and progressive-populist Democrats or a precious few 'maverick' Republicans like Ron Paul. (Ron Paul's declared trade platform advocates USA leaving the WTO but at the same time unilaterally eliminating all tariffs and other trade barriers -- ???)
What's remarkable at this time is that there was no outcry from the famous 'Tea Party' about the voice vote in the House (a vote with no record as to how any member voted) -- clearly an indication that the 'Tea Party' movement has been bought and sold.
Meanwhile, most Democrats who think of themselves as 'progressive', are just now waking up to the economic consequences for USA of the WTO world system. It's just now occurring to them that, no matter what 'Rooseveltian' may once have comprehended, it can no longer apply to anything because the world has changed in ways that make it impossible to reach the Rooseveltian goals using the 'Rooseveltian' means.
Many of the anti-FTA people in Congress are as Rooseveltian as you can get, but they never did confuse the Rooseveltian goals with the FTA-WTO agenda. Those who honestly confabulated the Rooseveltian with the corporatist approaches to the goals of world peace and universal prosperity have had cause to repent.
The Preface to the famous Communist Manifesto of 1848 begins with these words:
Today, while there is no specter of communism haunting America, there is the specter of protectionism. Just as with communism in 1848, so today 60 years later, all the powers of the World have entered into a holy alliance to exorcize this specter: the multi-cultural Church and the multi-national Corporation, the international central bankers, the drug lords of Columbia, the oil lords of the Persian Gulf, the CIA and the Communist Party of China.
This specter haunting America potentially can unite Americans across class and other political-identity lines. I don't know what anyone should do about this specter, if anything ... but I do know that it's out there and it can't be denied, especially if the USA economy continues its downward trajectory.
There is a specter haunting American politics ... the specter of Protectionism.
Well said, but missing a few details.
1. Population is increasing by about a quarter of a million per month. This is not an act of God, its government policy to increase population rapidly to keep competition for jobs high, wages low, and profits high. Surely this deserves a mention.
2. As far as per capita income, remember, because of government mandated increases in population, stable per-capita income is not neutral. With a stable population a stable per-capita income would be OK. With a rapdly increasing population you need per-capita income to be increasing even faster, because new people need massive new capital investments. That's why with 1%/year population growth, the United States needs 4%/year economic growth just to keep even.
The simplest way I can describe our economic situation is if you put a bunch of rats in a a cage and slowly decrease their amount of food they will end up eating each other. Capitalism has reached it's peak. The poker game is over. The rich folks are not lending any more money so we can stay in the game. They are now taking their winnings and leaving the room and trust me they will survive. When the families of America have run out of tricks ( both parents working. Racking up credit cards to pay bills. Tapping into home equities to get by) then the game is over. Now it is survival time folks. President Obama is ahead on this game. Take from the rich and give to the poor. May not seem very noble but it's either that or we all end up eating each other.
If the protesters were serious, they would be storming the Harold Pratt House, 58 E. 68th St. at Park Avenue, New York, NY (Headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations) and the New York Fed,33 Liberty Street New York, NY.
But they won't be led to confront the gods on Mount Olympus by their Judas goats and shills. David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger might be held up from lunch at 21.
For both supporters and opponents of the Occupy Wall Street protests who seek more incisive background in understanding what has been really going on behind-the-scenes with the Wall Street corporate and financial elites, check out the two items below:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory216.html
"In a Relationship, and It's Complicated," by Anthony Gregory
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
"Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy," by Murray N. Rothbard
Both articles "name names," and are forthright, direct, and pull no punches.
NC linked to this post and I am glad. I actually missed this report (sorry) and when I read it, decided to write up an overview, pretty much two days late.
It really ain't good at all here, and while a month is simply a month, yet another indicator of declining disposable income for consumers is truly not a good thing.
Goods also dropped more than services, which to me shows people are stones, simply no extra money after making rent and filling their gas tanks.
Folks, if you watch anything, stream the AmeriFam above. The skit is like it is tailor made for this site and I know you'll all not only laugh but say dead on for this one.
One can say the U.S. middle class is being screwed with graphs, texts, data and also humor and this one hits the nail on the head.
The Wall Street Protests are hitting nationwide. It helps to get over 700 people arrested trying to take the Brooklyn Bridge. To me there is no clear message, i.e. these are the solutions we want right now, very specific, but regardless, people are desperate, broke and most of the screw jobs has been inflicted by corporations running the United States (into the ground), Banksters and so on.
I'm more surprised why it has taken this long for people to hit the streets and have wondered why the U.S. isn't more like Greece, with social unrest, chaos.
That's the plan by these people, to do an Egypt. Can't argue, while we're getting shafted and screwed at every turn....by our supposed representatives, the press and government cover Egypt like it's this great thing, Democracy in action, meanwhile we have the same failed banks writing legislation, getting whatever they want and G.E. literally in the White House and more bad trade agreements which have been analyzed already to show they will lose U.S. jobs in droves.
So, bottom line, you've got to try something, even if you know your FAX goes into the trash.
There are some issues where Congress doees seem to at least pause and that is when the protests shut down the Congressional phone and fax system and crash their servers.
Pause, true, they just go ahead and vote in crap that no one wants anyway, but it does at least cause a pause.
as soon as we get some representatives that just might work.
why do people only comment on perceived spelling and grammar mistakes? I believe it's because they cannot understand article content.
There are three main data pieces in this report, none good. The title simply lists two of them and is a government statistical economic data release overview.
Isn't the title technically a double-negative?
Pages