Views on the News
March 19, 2011
Views on the News*
A financial attack on the world economy happened on Monday, September 15, 2008, but we're not supposed to talk about this, and the mainstream media has been ignoring this issue, and the only attention it has been receiving is from talk radio and the blogosphere. On September 15th, Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the Presidency. The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 billion, as being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help by pumping $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. This was an electronic run on the banks, so they decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2 o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy system of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. The day before, as a consequence of the subprime mortgage crisis caused by faulty social assumptions the announcements had been made that Lehman Brothers would file for bankruptcy and that Merrill Lynch would be sold to the Bank of America. There was proven concern that the stability of global markets were in jeopardy. It appears the timing of the bank run of mid-September 2008 was applied to create dynamic disequillibrium, and it succeeded spectacularly. This run shook up the already shaky financial markets, and Obama embraced the fears of an imminent crisis as his narrative, using the word “crisis” a total of 26 times in one speech. Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system. There is sufficient justification to question whether outside forces triggered, capitalized upon or magnified the economic difficulties of 2008, explaining that those domestic economic factors would have caused a “normal downturn” but not the “near collapse” of the global economic system that took place. Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela, or Iran or some combination. By creating a cascade effect that impacted the American economy, the market manipulator succeeded in creating a situation that directly led to political “regime change” in the United States. A far more likely suspect is a man who has been found guilty of insider trading and who is widely known as the man who ‘broke the pound’, after helping force sterling out of Europe's exchange rate mechanism in 1992, has made no secret of his desire for regime change in the United States. His name is George Soros and he has not made any secret of his disdain for Capitalism in its current form, either. George Soros has long sought to wield power in Washington, not by winning elective office, nor by being appointed to an important cabinet post, but achieving power without accountability or oversight, and manipulating the Presidential election to cause a desired outcome does not require a huge stretch in imagination.
(“Who Was Behind the Attack on Our Economy Just Before the Election?” by John Sweat dated February 17, 2011 published by Family Security Matters at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2539/pub_detail.asp
“Financial terrorism suspected in 2008 economic crash” by Bill Gertz dated February 28, 2011 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash// )
The current round of skirmishes between Democrats and Republicans at pretty well all levels of government is a clear illustration of which political party is in favor of change and which wants to maintain the status quo. Democrat legislators from places as diverse as Wisconsin, Indiana, New York and Ohio are eagerly defending public sector unions and advocating higher taxes, rather than cut government spending – status quo. Even the blind can see this for what it is; an effort by the Democrats to preserve the sweetheart deals that unions like the SEIU have managed to negotiate for their members in exchange for continued support at the polls – status quo. The taxpayers are left holding the bag. Probably the best thing that ever happened to America is the recession of 2008 because it exposed just how corrupt and out of touch most politicians were with common Americans. Sadly, this includes Republicans as well as Democrats, whose sense of entitlement causes them to confuse their hold on power as being synonymous with the public interest – status quo. There’s no question that Governor Walker’s remedy is tough medicine to swallow, but he appears to be the only political leader in the nation that’s showing some modicum of intestinal fortitude by following that uncomfortable path to bring about real change - change. The Democrats are mere preservers of the status quo and need to be turfed at the earliest possible opportunity. The Republicans want change, to repair the damage done to the country and ensure a prosperous future because we can not afford the status quo.
(“Fighting to maintain the status quo” by Klaus Rohrich dated march 14, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34345 )
It would be very instructive to evaluate Barack Obama on his management style, such as might be undertaken by an independent business consultant and his many shortcomings uncovered as potential improvement areas. The United States government can be viewed from a business perspective as a service provider. Lacking both the relevant education and experience, were he applying for an executive position in any company, he would in all likelihood be quickly rejected. His refusal to divulge school records and grades would also work against him. If the business to which he applied was involved in any form of sensitive or defense work, his past associations with radicals would result in the denial of any security clearance. In attempting to analyze problems that exist and evolve the correct remedies, consultants typically begin by observing the way in which management, especially top management, leads and interacts with the organization. This would begin with an examination of five key areas:
· Management Style - In classic management theory, Barack Obama would have to be described as an abdicative manager. The abdicative manager evidences a tendency to flee from responsibility and is frequently encountered in situations where he or she never wanted the job in the first place.
· Team Building and Leadership - It is essential that the management team be composed of individuals who are experienced, capable, and able to function together smoothly in pursuit of stated objectives. The President's inner circle has, for the most part, consisted of Chicago machine politicians. It is significant that less than 7% of Obama's appointees have any private sector experience.
· Strategic Planning - Strategic planning sets the mid- to long-term goals of the organization that form the rationale for shorter term and day-to-day activities, It involves allocation of existing resources, planning the corporate infrastructure, developing timely products and services to assure customer retention and expansion, targeting new opportunities, and phasing out systems no longer efficient or profitable. It is difficult to discover any strategic direction in Obama's thinking.
· Crisis Management – Hillary Clinton’s warning about ability to handle the mythical "3:00 a.m. crisis phone call" was indeed prescient. That phone has rung numerous times, and it has gone unanswered with a President waffling on his positions, unsure of his policies, and unable to react to events in a timely manner.
· Financial Acumen - Most chief executives spend time with stockholders, analysts, credit sources, and others discussing the financial status of the organization. At a time when the national debt threatens to destabilize the entire economy, Obama's only suggestion has been to engage in further spending. The lack of a cohesive financial policy has resulted in a global loss of faith in the U.S. dollar, possible economic collapse, and a threat of future inflation.
From a business standpoint, his lack of performance and organizational skills would demand that any ethical consultant approach the Board of Directors with a very strong recommendation that Barack Obama be fired, and perhaps in 2012, he will be.
(“Barack Obama: A Management Appraisal” by Frank Burke dated March 14, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/barack_obama_a_management_appr.html )
The use of a “top ten list” has become a popular method for expressing disapproval of the actions or beliefs of a famous individual, and here are the top ten ways that Barack Obama is attempting to destroy the United States of America. By that I mean of course not that the President desires the physical destruction of the American homeland or the annihilation of its people, but rather I speak of his intention to replace the Constitutional Republic devised by our Founders, which, it is completely evident, Mr. Obama holds in contempt, by a statist, collectivist, egalitarian and universalistic nation as envisioned by Alinsky, Cloward-Piven or Soros. I have no doubt that this President, to whom the American public so foolishly entrusted the ship of state, believes that Madison’s Republic, based on limited government, individual freedom, free market capitalism, the morals of Western Civilization, national sovereignty and the rule of law, is deeply flawed and should be replaced by a more enlightened model according to his radical concept of liberty, equality and universal brotherhood. Based on his actions during the last two years, I present here Barack’s top ten ways of achieving his goal:
· #10. Replace classic American policies, both foreign and domestic, that are focused on what’s best for America and its allies in the world by policies designed to promote a homogenized world of “one” people, global government and open borders.
· #9. Convert (what’s left of) America’s laissez-faire, capitalistic economy into a centrally managed, pseudo-socialistic, crony capitalist system.
· #8. Delegitimize the concept of American exceptionalism. Obama began his Presidency with a world apology tour and he has continued to never miss an opportunity to denigrate US history, emphasize our historical faults and current flaws, bow to foreign leaders (even despots) and to deny that the country he leads has any special role to play in defending freedom at home or around the world.
· #7. Nationalize. Obama has nationalized banks and financial institutions, educational establishments, car companies, parts of the housing and insurance industries and of course the health care system.
· #6. Defang the military. He has cut defense spending, reduced the size of the navy and air force, gutted missile defense, signed a harmful agreement (the new START treaty) with belligerent Russians and attempted to demoralize the armed services by deploying its forces against an enemy that he refuses to name, without adequate resources and intelligence and with one foot constantly out the door.
· #5. Subvert the rule of law. Obama blithely ignores the Constitution when it suits him or, he invokes it to justify clearly unconstitutional activities (e.g., Obamacare). He ignores court orders (e.g., Judge Vinson in Florida) and refuses to enforce the law of the land (DOMA) when it conflicts with his views.
· #4. Renounce American leadership. The list is long and includes: celebrating thugs like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Putin; betraying loyal friends (Israel, Britain, Taiwan, the Czech Republic and Poland); curtseying to Islamic princes; refusing to commit the US to action unless part of a broad coalition of “equals”; abrogating agreements negotiated by previous administrations and apologizing for America’s role as the unique world superpower.
· #3. Trash American culture. Obama and his minions have worked tirelessly to: disparage historical American culture – especially its Christian components; promote multiculturalism; rescind DADT; and encourage abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and all manner of perversions to undercut the American family.
· #2. Expand the government. The left seeks to increase the role of the Federal Government in every conceivable aspect of American society. ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank are of course the most egregious examples; but Obama is pushing hard to have the Feds take command of American education, energy, transportation and finance. When legislation is out of reach, expanded regulation plays an equally important role in the effort (the EPA declaring carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant being a prime example).
· #1. Spend, borrow and tax until the dollar is worthless, the economy is in shambles and the economic future of our children and grandchildren is totally compromised. Barack has run up the deficit and exploded the national debt. He is debasing the currency, courting severe inflation, causing high unemployment, and willfully ignoring the oncoming economic chaos that his policies are guaranteed to produce.
Obama has been diligently working his way up and down the list. In a few places, he has succeeded quite well; in many others, his success has been much less pronounced; and here and there, he has experienced serious blowback from the American people. We are perilously close to the “tipping point”; the place at which the transformation of our society will have progressed so far, that it will be impossible to return it to its Constitutional moorings; so it is imperative that we fight further erosion of our liberties at each and every instance and pray for deliverance by the next administration.
(“Obama’s Top Ten” by Ron Lipsman dated March 12, 2011 published by The Land of the Free at http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2011/03/12/obama%E2%80%99s-top-ten/ )
The Republican Party is undergoing a messy but unmistakable 20-month transformation from fanatically anti-Obama to fanatically anti-spending, providing top party officials a new and intriguing playbook for recapturing the White House in 2012. Republicans in Congress, key states such as Wisconsin and around the country are all consumed with one thing: cutting spending at the federal, state and local levels. The defining question for the GOP is simple: can Republicans maintain this focus on spending without going too far, too fast or getting spooled up with conventional fights over social issues, and turning off the swing voters it won over in November? The TEA Party, treated at first by the media as exotics, forced Republicans to focus almost exclusively on the size of government. By the time the 2010 elections rolled around, TEA Party activists and most independent voters were completely aligned on the need to cut, cut, cut. Midterm election results showed that this approach offers the GOP its best hope of keeping the interests of independents and TEA Party activists aligned enough to beat Obama. The new litmus tests for GOP presidential hopefuls are support for repealing “ObamaCare” and taking a cleaver to government spending. If a Presidential candidate could harness the smaller-government conservatism, temper it enough to avoid a blatant overreach and articulate a vision for a prosperous future for the country, it’s not hard to imagine swing voters finding such a person appealing. Social conservatives are resigned to this emphasis on spending, rather than their passions of abortion, gay rights and other cultural concerns. One of the lessons of the 2010 election was that TEA Party freshmen have way more incentive to listen to activists than placate the establishment. There are proposals available to solve not all but maybe half of the problems of the American political world, in a way a majority of the public will buy into. Good policy and good messaging can meet, creating really good politics and eventually good governance. The trick is to fit the proposals into the narrative, as part and parcel of the story; without the narrative, which must spring from a candidate's individual worldview, the proposals may not catch fire. The budget fights in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, all governed by Republicans, are unlikely to fade for months as well. This has created a bull market nationally for Republican presidential candidates with serious budget-cutting credentials. Republicans are aware of the danger of coming across as too dour, and a senior administration official said that could be the one trap in their new strategy. A conundrum for Republicans is that if they look too narrow and vindictive, they won’t get credit for whatever recovery there is. The nightmare scenario for Obama would be a fragile, job-poor economy, and Republicans nominate someone who is competent and is able to offer a comprehensive vision and narrative of economic recovery.
(“GOP’s 2012 playbook: Custs blaze trail” by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen dated March 11, 2011 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51099.html
“Presidential Epic” by Quin Hillyer dated March 11, 2011 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/11/presidential-epic )
Republican have a dark, foreboding feeling that America is in decline; the nation is hurtling in the wrong direction, and worse, on the brink of losing its unique place in the world and this sentiment is hardly new to American politics, but it’s one that’s been reanimated by the Presidency of Barack Obama. Some see him as hostile to the notion of American exceptionalism. It’s not that culture wars and tax revolts are about to be displaced in GOP presidential politics by an abstract discussion on what ails Uncle Sam. Rather, the very issues that have typically energized GOP primary voters, such as abortion, faith, gay marriage, debt, military power, are being subsumed into a larger debate about a country in decline. It’s the idea, held by many conservative activists, that America is becoming too European, weak, feckless and faithless, a spendthrift nation in hock to China and led by an irresolute President who is accelerating the process, either by design or effect. This widespread lament over the loss of the nation they once knew is already provoking a response from GOP presidential prospects. The candidates are tailoring their rhetoric to tap into a fear that is apocalyptic in tone, expressed by a base that is gripped by a sense of deep disappointment with the national GOP and worry over a Democrat President they see as intent on making America more like France. “America was the land of opportunity, where the circumstances of birth are no barrier to achieving one’s dreams,” Mitt Romney said. “The spirit of enterprise, innovation, pioneering and derring-do propelled our standard of living and economy past every other nation on earth. I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag.” Tim Pawlenty has added “Just because we followed Greece into democracy doesn’t mean we need to follow them into bankruptcy.” Herman Cain got a rousing ovation with his signature closing line, “The United States of America is not going to become the Unites States of Europe! Not on my watch!” One common refrain I’m hearing from Republicans is there will be a greater sense of deliberation because they understand, having seen four years of an Obama administration, now they tangibly understand what that means to America and that we can’t have four more years. The danger for Republican candidates is that some conservative activists will demand expressions of contempt for Obama that, while playing well in some quarters on the right, won’t help the party with the political center. We want a country we can be proud of and stand up and say ‘God Bless America’ and not be ashamed to say it.
(“GOP sounds alarm over American ‘decline’” by Jonathan Martin dated March 15, 2011 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51309.html )
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid "progressives" and militant "greens" have an aggressive, multi-layered, no-holds-barred energy policy whose overarching goal is quite clearly that of Less Energy At Higher Prices -- LEAHP for short with its corresponding consequences: ever-increasing oil imports; skyrocketing gasoline prices, and enormous energy-related job losses. While Barack Obama and his entourage foretell a bright future of "energy independence" and of millions of new "green" jobs, there are many elements of this strategy that result in “outforcing" of American jobs (especially high-carbon mining, refining and manufacturing jobs) and of urgently needed capital investment:
· Strident NIMBY (not in my backyard) opposition to most new industrial sites,- especially petrochemical and heavy manufacturing facilities.
· Overly stringent environmental and "environmental justice" regulations, restrictions, and even outright prohibitions on both new and existing plants.
· Excessive taxation -- in addition to threats of a value-added tax (VAT), prospects of ever-higher (a) corporate taxes (already the second-highest in the world); (b) "excess profits" taxes; (c) personal income taxes; (d) capital gains and dividends taxes; (e) "Cap and Trade" taxes, fees, and penalties; (f) excise taxes; (g) death and inheritance taxes; and (h) multiple Obama health care taxes, fees, penalties, and compliance burdens.
· Excessive paperwork, OSHA, Workman's Comp, and enviro- and other "compliance."
· Excessive union-driven fringe and overhead costs, often exceeding wages.
· Blocking tort reform and major "class action" reform at state and federal levels.
· Attacking and undermining state "right-to-work" laws.
· Widely expanding Davis-Bacon wage rates, including to all "Stimulus" projects.
· Trying to expand Big Labor's power via "Card Check" voting rules in union affairs.
· Fomenting such an uncertain atmosphere of anti-profit, anti-credit, and anti-investment policies and practices as to keep normally energetic small business virtually comatose.
While no single one (or even two or three) of these anti-business and high-tax factors is fatal to the U.S. economy, the cumulative disincentives they impose on job retention, job creation, and capital formation are plainly "headed in the wrong direction" at best, and suicidal at worst. Importantly, both this group of job- and capital investment-killers and an equal number of energy-specific items presented below are traceable entirely to the Pelosi-Reid-Clinton congressional Democrats, and to a "progressively" worse President Barack Obama. Next come the deadly job-killing aspects of the Obama Democrats' steady downforcing of virtually all major domestic energy supplies, except for the marginal ones of wind, solar, geothermal, and enormously subsidized ethanol, which are as follows:
· Either inhibiting or forbidding oil and gas exploration and production (a) from the ANWR Coastal Plain; (b) from the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve; (c) from all new "offshore" waters -- and some vital existing ones, as well; (d) from many previously-leased Western Federal Lands; (e) from Rocky Mountain shale oil deposits; and even (f) from Canadian oil sands, which are vital to us for exports.
· Restricting most coal-fired (even "clean coal") power plants, and blocking surface mining of the coal needed to power them.
· Opposing new nuclear power plants and centralized nuclear waste storage for over thirty years, along with the total defunding of the Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada,
· Blocking all new petroleum refineries (except one) for over thirty years, and many petrochemical plants, as well.
· Opposing new hydropower plants, and talking about bypassing some existing ones.
· Imposing a highly restrictive assortment of "carbon footprint" edicts, penalties, and fines in order to achieve the so-called "greening" of America, no matter the cost.
· Proposing in the FY 2012 budget to eliminate many tax code incentives for increased domestic oil and gas production.
· Subtly impeding rapid development of vast newly discovered natural gas resources via the new "fracking" method.
Under these onerous circumstances, the empty Obama-Pelosi-Reid drumbeat of "jobs, jobs, jobs" needs four more words inserted therein: jobs outforced, jobs downforced, jobs forsaken, and jobs aborted. In the final analysis, it is those zealots of what should be called the "Branch Carbonian Cult," now in lockstep with the Code Pinks and the Van Jones-style communists, who are threatening to bring this great nation to its knees via the unforgiving nature and tactics of this name:
o "Branch" because it is a radical, pseudo-religious offshoot from the main body of science-based environmentalism.
o "Carbonian" because of its mistaken fear of carbon dioxide as a primary cause of the alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
o "Cult" because of its self-evident structure and practices, which are in full accord with most elements of the typical religious cult, whether Branch Davidian, Branch Jim Jonesian, or Branch Barack Obamanoid.
Led first by the dour, tree-hugging Al Gore and his EPA secretary and "ghostwriter" Carol Browner, the Cult is guided now by the Elmer Gantry-style Barack Obama and his own "energy czar," Carol Browner (same name, same game!) with this lady's latest masterwork having come to the Obama White House via Socialist International, to which she may now be returning. And of course, these perpetrators are doing all of this in the "progressive" spirit of President Obama's loudly proclaimed "Audacity of Hope." which in this case is actually an audacity of hype about a vital trace gas (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere which over the last century and a half has risen from a normal 1/4,000 to an "alarming" 1/3,000 of the whole. Obama's policy is simply "none of the above." America will reap the rewards of its energy policy under Obama and Energy Secretary Chu. With no additional nuclear facilities under development, with the withering away of domestic coal-power production, and with no access to major new Alaskan and offshore oil supplies, America faces a future energy shock of unprecedented proportions. Obama's failed energy policy will have devastating consequences. Americans will pay much higher prices for energy in the future, as high as $12 a gallon for gas and four times the current price of about 15 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. More important yet, high energy prices will sap economic growth, and slower growth will result in structurally high unemployment, declining living standards, and a weakening of our national defense. According to these Branch Carbonians and their prophet's "Great LEAHP Backward" on both jobs and energy, only a stringently lower (and therefore suicidal) carbon footprint will save the planet, even if it destroys the U.S.'s economy and national security in the process… and we can’t let this happen!
(“Obama’s Great LEAHP Backward” by Jim Guirani dated March 12, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obamas_great_leahp_backward.html
“None of the Above on Energy” by Jeffrey Folks dated March 15, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/none_of_the_above_on_energy.html )
Despite some low-level threats related to radiation, nuclear power is still far safer than its critics have claimed and the Japanese nuclear reactor shutdown was proof that nuclear power is safe and can be controlled even under catastrophic conditions. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will have an expensive clean up to deal with, but the health risks to the Japanese people remain minimal. While authorities initially warned that radiation levels at the plant had increased, they now say that there are no health dangers posed by the plant. First of all, the reactors at Fukushima were designed to withstand a massive earthquake. They’re built on bedrock, their primary containment vessels are massive, and there are multiple back-up systems. When the earthquake hit, all of the primary and secondary containment vessels survived undamaged. Water flowing through the vessels keeps the temperature and pressure in the vessels at safe levels. When the earthquake hit, primary power to the water pumps was lost. No problem because the backup diesel generators cut in to take up the load and keep water flowing. Then the tsunami hit, a much bigger tsunami than designers anticipated, and this blow knocked out the back-up generators, which effectively shut down the pumps. TEPCO then took steps to stop nuclear reactions in Units 1, 2 and 3, but you can no more bring a nuclear reaction to an immediate halt than you can instantly stop a car going 60 miles an hour. Thus, all of the frenetic news coming out of Fukushima is really nothing more than coverage of a controlled shut down in abnormal conditions. Disaster is not looming around the corner, but the mainstream media loves to create drama. The explosions that have occurred are a result of what happens when liquid water dissociates at high temperatures, forms hydrogen and oxygen, and those two elements then recombine explosively. It’s spectacular and the explosions have destroyed non-vital parts of structures, but those explosions haven’t resulted in the release of any radiation or damage to the primary containment vessels. When pressures in the vessels did climb too high, TEPCO vented excess gas to ensure that primary containment structural integrity would not be compromised. The small amounts of radiation released were vented through a filter that removed that tiny bit of radioactivity. TEPCO has introduced sea water into Units 1 and 3 (Unit 2 is doing fine) to further cool the fuel rods until the nuclear reactions stop. There is not, and never has been, any danger of a catastrophic fuel rod explosion as happened at Chernobyl. The Japanese nuclear reactor shutdown is just another “Three Mile Island” moment for the nuclear power industry: a “disaster” in which nobody is killed, nobody gets hurt and nobody is in any real danger. Hyperbole seems to rule the day when it comes to nuclear energy, at least in the way that the media and politicians react. It’s ironic, because few industries can boast the kind of safety record that the nuclear power industry can offer. Fukushima is proof that engineers know how to design nuclear plants to withstand virtually any problem, and it should serve as the ultimate reassurance that nuclear technology is mature and as safe as any energy source we have.
(“Nuclear Disaster in Japan?” by Rich Trzupek dated March 15, 2011 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/15/nuclear-triumph-amid-natural-disaster/ )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:
· Education at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/education.php
· Environment at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/environment.php