Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Hard money, inflation, and your wallet
Economics can be dry to some people, but there is a serious economic crisis that has been brewing for some time and is rapidly coming to a head, and it already affects us tremendously. Here are a couple of good youtube clips of Ron Paul speaking with the Fed Chairman this morning. He briefly covers some of the concerns that we should all be aware of.
Getting Buried
It's not even March and NH has already had more snow than we've had for over 100 years - nearly 100 inches. (Average is more like 45 inches per year.) Here are a few pics:
I guess it'll be awhile before we can use this door.
The swingset is disappearing!
And the boys are clearing the deck for the umpteenth time.
I guess it'll be awhile before we can use this door.
The swingset is disappearing!
And the boys are clearing the deck for the umpteenth time.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Stagflation
From an AP article:
Worries grow for worse 'stagflation'
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - It's a toxic economic mix the nation hasn't seen in three decades: Prices are speeding upward at the fastest pace in a quarter century, even as the economy loses steam.
Economists call the disease "stagflation," and they're worried it might be coming back.
Already, paychecks aren't stretching as far, and jobs are harder to find, threatening to set off a vicious cycle that could make things even worse.
The economy nearly stalled in the final three months of last year and probably is barely growing or even shrinking now. That's the "stagnation" part of the ailment. Typically, that slowdown should slow inflation as well — the second part of the diagnosis — but prices are still marching higher.
The latest worrisome news came Tuesday: a government report showing wholesale prices climbed 7.4 percent in the past year. That was the biggest annual leap since 1981.
But nowhere in the article is there a discussion of one of the fundamental problems: the government's ability to print money out of thin air, rather than have it backed by gold. Yet another issue that Ron Paul stands alone in talking about.
Update (2/28/08): Pres. Bush and Fed. Chairman Bernanke assure us we are not headed for a recession or stagflation. Phew! Okay, everybody go back to watching American Idol. But seriously...I hope they are right, but I'm not comforted by the government's track record on being right.
Worries grow for worse 'stagflation'
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - It's a toxic economic mix the nation hasn't seen in three decades: Prices are speeding upward at the fastest pace in a quarter century, even as the economy loses steam.
Economists call the disease "stagflation," and they're worried it might be coming back.
Already, paychecks aren't stretching as far, and jobs are harder to find, threatening to set off a vicious cycle that could make things even worse.
The economy nearly stalled in the final three months of last year and probably is barely growing or even shrinking now. That's the "stagnation" part of the ailment. Typically, that slowdown should slow inflation as well — the second part of the diagnosis — but prices are still marching higher.
The latest worrisome news came Tuesday: a government report showing wholesale prices climbed 7.4 percent in the past year. That was the biggest annual leap since 1981.
But nowhere in the article is there a discussion of one of the fundamental problems: the government's ability to print money out of thin air, rather than have it backed by gold. Yet another issue that Ron Paul stands alone in talking about.
Update (2/28/08): Pres. Bush and Fed. Chairman Bernanke assure us we are not headed for a recession or stagflation. Phew! Okay, everybody go back to watching American Idol. But seriously...I hope they are right, but I'm not comforted by the government's track record on being right.
Monday, February 25, 2008
It's not a test!
The way many people describe voting, it's like they think it's a test. Somehow it's wrong to vote for someone who doesn't look like they "have a chance" to win.
From LewRockwell.com:
More Political Inanities
Posted by Butler Shaffer at February 25, 2008 04:20 PM
A network news channel was interviewing a Texas voter the other day. This man was very troubled by the current state of politics and thought it was time for a change. When he was asked about voting for Ron Paul, this man replied that he really liked what Paul had to say but that he wasn't going to get elected president. Because McCain had the nomination all sewn-up, he added, he concluded that he would be voting for McCain - even though he would have to hold his nose to do so.
This is the kind of mindlessness that politics generates. If this man doesn't like McCain, and prefers Paul, but then concedes that McCain will get the nomination anyway, why on earth vote for McCain? Does this man feel such a need to have voted for the winning candidate that he must "hold his nose" to do so? If so, what's the point? What better opportunity for him to express his criticism of present conditions - as well as his support for Ron Paul - than to vote for Ron Paul?
From LewRockwell.com:
More Political Inanities
Posted by Butler Shaffer at February 25, 2008 04:20 PM
A network news channel was interviewing a Texas voter the other day. This man was very troubled by the current state of politics and thought it was time for a change. When he was asked about voting for Ron Paul, this man replied that he really liked what Paul had to say but that he wasn't going to get elected president. Because McCain had the nomination all sewn-up, he added, he concluded that he would be voting for McCain - even though he would have to hold his nose to do so.
This is the kind of mindlessness that politics generates. If this man doesn't like McCain, and prefers Paul, but then concedes that McCain will get the nomination anyway, why on earth vote for McCain? Does this man feel such a need to have voted for the winning candidate that he must "hold his nose" to do so? If so, what's the point? What better opportunity for him to express his criticism of present conditions - as well as his support for Ron Paul - than to vote for Ron Paul?
It's Not Dead Yet!
This picture was taken this past weekend at a rally in Austin, TX
Most in the mainstream media would have you think that Ron Paul's campaign is over, but the funny thing is people keep giving money and showing up in droves to cheer him on.
Most in the mainstream media would have you think that Ron Paul's campaign is over, but the funny thing is people keep giving money and showing up in droves to cheer him on.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Prescient
"Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show, democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is, by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel. In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity."
H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1920
H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1920
Monday, February 18, 2008
Presidents' Day
Here's an excerpt from a different and interesting look at the institution of the Presidency by Anthony Gregory:
Americans shouldn’t look to the president for their self-respect, patriotism and cultural identity. The presidency in its current form is entirely too powerful and thus an inherently corrupting and inhumanely destructive thing. The presidency as it supposedly should be, under the Constitution, is a relatively humble office overseeing the executive branch, one of three composing a radically restrained government with very limited enumerated powers. Today, the presidency overshadows the other branches, the states, and all Constitutional and statutory limits on its power. In any event, why should 300 million people, and to a great extent the rest of the world, have to live under one all-powerful law enforcement official? The whole idea seems like some kind of insanity. How did this become the American way? If we are to restore our freedom, we need our compatriots to snap out of this trance. The silver lining in the Bush administration has been the disgust he has elicited so universally, especially among the left and center. This has constrained his actions somewhat. I am not looking forward to the many Americans turned off by the obvious horrors of the Bush administration once again respecting and trusting the president.
Here's the whole article.
Americans shouldn’t look to the president for their self-respect, patriotism and cultural identity. The presidency in its current form is entirely too powerful and thus an inherently corrupting and inhumanely destructive thing. The presidency as it supposedly should be, under the Constitution, is a relatively humble office overseeing the executive branch, one of three composing a radically restrained government with very limited enumerated powers. Today, the presidency overshadows the other branches, the states, and all Constitutional and statutory limits on its power. In any event, why should 300 million people, and to a great extent the rest of the world, have to live under one all-powerful law enforcement official? The whole idea seems like some kind of insanity. How did this become the American way? If we are to restore our freedom, we need our compatriots to snap out of this trance. The silver lining in the Bush administration has been the disgust he has elicited so universally, especially among the left and center. This has constrained his actions somewhat. I am not looking forward to the many Americans turned off by the obvious horrors of the Bush administration once again respecting and trusting the president.
Here's the whole article.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Shiny Trees and the Icicle of Damocles
(Note: These pictures are much more impressive if you click to see the larger view!)
Whenever we have freezing rain followed by a sunny day, we are treated to some particularly beautiful "shiny" trees!
And we had this mighty impressive icicle.
I say "had" because after this photo the kids threw ice chunks at it to break it off.
Whenever we have freezing rain followed by a sunny day, we are treated to some particularly beautiful "shiny" trees!
And we had this mighty impressive icicle.
I say "had" because after this photo the kids threw ice chunks at it to break it off.
More Gratuitous Kitten Stuff
This just never gets old for us.Bubba is no longer the boss of his bed.
Blatant, pt. 4
Ah! Here's someone addressing this directly (see my previous 3 "Blatant" posts about the main-stream media's treatment of Ron Paul's campaign).
From a National Public Radio interview with Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in response to a caller's question about the media blackout of Ron Paul -
"It raises obviously one of the fundamental questions: is press coverage a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can a candidate who doesn’t get press coverage win votes, or do you need the exposure, the oxygen of attention? Last week, the week before Super Tuesday, the coverage that ended Feb. 3, Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in zero percent of the stories that we analyzed, 600 stories across 48 different news outlets.
Andrew [the caller] is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. The fundraising success that he’s having is one of the traditional metrics that journalists use to test viability. If someone is raising money, usually that translates into some attention.
For a variety of reasons, some of them are obvious and some of them are mysterious, Ron Paul gets less coverage than he does raise money, and he gets less coverage than he gets votes. We can go on and on about this. There is no doubt, it’s an objective fact, that the press has decided Ron Paul is not a viable candidate."
From a National Public Radio interview with Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in response to a caller's question about the media blackout of Ron Paul -
"It raises obviously one of the fundamental questions: is press coverage a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can a candidate who doesn’t get press coverage win votes, or do you need the exposure, the oxygen of attention? Last week, the week before Super Tuesday, the coverage that ended Feb. 3, Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in zero percent of the stories that we analyzed, 600 stories across 48 different news outlets.
Andrew [the caller] is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. The fundraising success that he’s having is one of the traditional metrics that journalists use to test viability. If someone is raising money, usually that translates into some attention.
For a variety of reasons, some of them are obvious and some of them are mysterious, Ron Paul gets less coverage than he does raise money, and he gets less coverage than he gets votes. We can go on and on about this. There is no doubt, it’s an objective fact, that the press has decided Ron Paul is not a viable candidate."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Making Good Friends Around the World
Using our military to "spread democracy" or any other "positive" goal is crazy, in my opinion. The military is good at two things: killing people and breaking things, and should be used only when necessary in our nation's defense.
More than three decades after we left Vietnam, and our impact is still felt:
"Not only are Vietnamese still maimed from treading on unexploded bombs, they are also victims of this insidious scourge that poisons water and food supplies, causing various cancers and crippling deformities. Eighty million litres of Agent Orange were sprayed on the jungles of Vietnam, destroying swathes of irreplaceable rainforest through massive defoliation and leaving a toxic trail of dioxin contamination in the soil for decades. The legacy of this chemical warfare can even be inflicted on the unborn, with Agent Orange birth deformities now being passed on to a third generation."
(Rest of the article is here.)
More than three decades after we left Vietnam, and our impact is still felt:
"Not only are Vietnamese still maimed from treading on unexploded bombs, they are also victims of this insidious scourge that poisons water and food supplies, causing various cancers and crippling deformities. Eighty million litres of Agent Orange were sprayed on the jungles of Vietnam, destroying swathes of irreplaceable rainforest through massive defoliation and leaving a toxic trail of dioxin contamination in the soil for decades. The legacy of this chemical warfare can even be inflicted on the unborn, with Agent Orange birth deformities now being passed on to a third generation."
(Rest of the article is here.)
Evangelicals and Ron Paul
Ron Paul has had the poorest showing in the bible belt states, even though he is a pro-life Christian! Here's an interesting piece by a Christian talk show host about why.
And here's another article about how many Christians are considering supporting the Constitution Party because they are so unhappy with McCain's probable nomination. Ahem - what about Mr. Constitution himself, Ron Paul?!? I suppose they don't approve of his unwillingness to force his morality on others (at home or abroad) using the force of government.
And finally - a bit from Anthony Gregory (who is pro-life and anti-state) in reference to some people's criticism of Ron Paul's stance on the Federal govt's role re: abortion:
"Ron Paul thinks the first step the president should take in his official capacity on abortion is to admit he has no say on it, no jurisdiction — it should not be up to the emperor of the "free world" to eradicate sins even as egregious as Ron views abortion. And yet he does speak out against it — which is an appropriate and completely non-invasive way for politicians to try to influence popular opinion and, thus, change society. And he's indeed the only candidate proposing a way to actually circumvent Roe v. Wade -- through simple Constitutional congressional action -- rather than holding it out as carrot to keep the religious right supporting his campaign. If conservatives were really pro-life, and pro-Constitution, his would be the only candidacy they could back. Of course, they aren't."
And here's another article about how many Christians are considering supporting the Constitution Party because they are so unhappy with McCain's probable nomination. Ahem - what about Mr. Constitution himself, Ron Paul?!? I suppose they don't approve of his unwillingness to force his morality on others (at home or abroad) using the force of government.
And finally - a bit from Anthony Gregory (who is pro-life and anti-state) in reference to some people's criticism of Ron Paul's stance on the Federal govt's role re: abortion:
"Ron Paul thinks the first step the president should take in his official capacity on abortion is to admit he has no say on it, no jurisdiction — it should not be up to the emperor of the "free world" to eradicate sins even as egregious as Ron views abortion. And yet he does speak out against it — which is an appropriate and completely non-invasive way for politicians to try to influence popular opinion and, thus, change society. And he's indeed the only candidate proposing a way to actually circumvent Roe v. Wade -- through simple Constitutional congressional action -- rather than holding it out as carrot to keep the religious right supporting his campaign. If conservatives were really pro-life, and pro-Constitution, his would be the only candidacy they could back. Of course, they aren't."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
