We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, July 14. 2011
"Wow, that Sarah Palin sure is hot!"
"Okay, everyone, let's get down to work. Jim, you're fired. Now, before we begin, let's all keep our main goal in mind. Just as we did in 2008, we want to make sure the winner of the Republican primary is the person least likely to win the general election. Mary, you and your people did a superb job last time. Taking some loser who got his ass shot down by the enemy and turning him into a 'war hero'? Absolutely brilliant."
"Thanks, boss. We admit they make it easy. What those idiots know about winning elections wouldn't fill a thimble."
"And lucky for us. Okay, today we're going to be focusing on the Witch. She's starting to pull ahead in the polls, so let's knock her down a peg or two. Anyone got anything? Steve?"
"Got just the thing, boss."
"Outstanding! Nothing like a little dissension among the ranks, eh? But we'll need someone to back him up."
"Perfect! We'll have to print her response, of course, but let's make it sound kind of weak and insipid. Ideas? Yes, Jane?"
"Feast your eyes upon this, boss."
"Outstanding! 'Who needs executive experience?' That probably cost her a percentile point right there. Good work! Yes, Jim?"
"I'm thinking we should also stamp the Intolerant label on her. It would dovetail nicely with her being so unqualified."
"Good idea. Shirley, that's your department. Got anything for us?"
"Of course, mein leader!"
"Wow, nice piece of misdirection! But the few people who actually read the thing will see it's her husband's clinic. Can we get any more dirt on him?"
"Boss, you're talkin' to pros!"
"And that's a video, boss, just full of heartbreaking stories from people who had barely broken free of this mad cult before the damage had been done. We made hubby come across as the reincarnation of Edgar Allen Poe; pit, pendulum, ravens and all."
"Shirley, you and your team never fail to impress. Have we got anything on the Witch, herself? Yes, Mack?"
"I've been saving this gem for months, chief. Check it out."
"Jeez, Mack, that almost makes me want to weep with joy. You got any more gems like that tucked away?"
"I ain't sayin', boss, but...yes!"
"I'll tell you, people, it's an honor working with such professionals. Now, back to wielding the Intolerant label effectively, have we snagged anyone else yet? Shirley, you've got that usual smug look about you."
"Well, guys, I was kinda saving this for next week when we focused on the Moonbeam Mormon, but here goes."
"In other words, he's secretly gay?? Excellent work! Now, as a lead-in to next week's focus on the Moonbeam, have we got anything else on him? Maybe some no-name beating him in one of those fake polls? Mary, your folks usually handle that. Got anything for us?"
"Mary, whoever came up with that one gets a free dinner at Chad's, compliments of the house. And tell him or her to bring a friend."
"That would be Doc Murky, boss. Man, the dirt he can dig up on the Repubs is just mind-boggling. He says the only one he's worried about is Perry."
"Oh, yeah, speaking of him, anybody got the latest? Shirley, you've got that devilish gleam in your eye again."
"Boss, happy birthday...and Merry Christmas!"
"Holy crap! And in Texas? Tell Doc he needn't worry and to enjoy his dinner. This guy is toast."
"Got it, boss."
"All right, folks, you know what to do. Let's get to work!"
Tracked: Jul 15, 01:26
Election 2012: Overview Points
I admit I got busy and didn't read through many of the comments in my election post last week, but I presume you all came to the logical conclusion that I was right about everything. Today, I'd like to toss out some thoughts on a small variety o
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Jul 15, 10:32
Election 2012: The Morning Meeting at MSM Headquarters 7/21/11
Minutes of the last meeting are here. Minutes from this morning's meeting below: "Good morning, everyone. And how are you all today?" "Fine, chief". "Mornin', sir." Palin Causes Blood Vessel to Burst "H
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Jul 21, 15:08
The Morning Meeting at MSM Headquarters 9/29
Minutes of the meetings: 7/14, 7/21, 8/2 Minutes from this morning's meeting are below the fold. "Good morning, everyone. And how are you all today?" "Fine, chief". "Mornin', sir." I'm Sorry, Everybody
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Sep 29, 10:55
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Bill Ayers? You mean that guy who wrote the grant and hired me to be the Chairman of the Board of the $100 million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge?
You mean that guy I served with as a co-director of the Woods Fund for two years? That Bill Ayers?"
"He's just a guy who lived on my block"
Oddly, Romney seems to be doing the most by just remaining quiet. The refusal to sign an anti-gay marriage pledge is going to look good in the long run...and is only a minor hiccup in the Republican primaries. Don't mean I like the guy, just that he's avoiding overexposure early, which is smart in this race.
Huntsman remains a stalking horse. I think he's the kind of character that can come from nowhere. And Ron Paul continues to impress. His grilling of Bernanke was brilliant, and Bernanke looks like an amateur when Paul is questioning him.
Paul, in addition, had the brilliant commentary on the Moody's potential downgrade if the Debt Ceiling isn't raised - that Moody's considers it BETTER for the government to go DEEPER into debt than it does for the government to get its act together. Odd, intriguing and also mind-numbingly STUPID on their part because, as we all know and Paul calmly pointed out, Moody's did us ABSOLUTELY NO FAVORS in the run up to 2008.
Which is why Ron Paul gets no press whatsoever. He's too damn smart for the media.
R - Good observations, both of them. When you're getting headlines for not signing some goofy pact, you'd have to call that low key.
As for Paul, he must scare the MSM to death. On the other hand, as I mentioned last time, some of his platforms scare me to death -- so I admit to mixed feelings.
Paul scares me on several topics too, but he might be the one we need now (I think our biggest pressing problems are financial and economic and I thing Paul is good there). I'm not on anybody's bandwagon, yet - certainly not his.
Did you see Drudge's headline:
GALLUP SHOCK: 'REPUBLICAN' TOPS OBAMA BY 8%
Gallup polls registered voters rather than likely voters which, from what I've been led to understand favors Dems.
Certainly, it'll get a lot closer when the unnamed pubbie becomes the named pubbie and he/she starts/continues talking, but it is an interesting data point for where we are.
Will you guys forget Ron Paul? He's not ever going to be President I don't care how smart you think he is which he isn't by the way. I'm old enough to have heard this argument of his from many different directions - usually right wing crackpots who see FED related conspiracies involving the Freemasons, Illuminati, Tri-Lateral Commission, Black Friars, The Vatican, black helicopters, the UN, yada, yada, yada. His arguments aren't new, they aren't unique and they are completely and totally inane and out of touch with reality.
I feel much better now. :>)
Every time you see a headline like that from Drudge, think "instilling false hope" and hit him with a law suit for "Being Detrimental to the Public Good" or some such. Complacency is the enemy. We need to be hungry, not happy.
Drudge is just quoting Gallup. As I say, it isn't necessarily predictive, but, as I say, it's a data point - mostly pointing to how unpopular Obummer is. Rasmussen has similarly bad news for Zero but he takes his sampling from likely voters and should be more accurate.
Ron Paul isn't involved in any conspiracy theories (though some of his supporters may be) regarding the Fed. He is stating honest positions with a backing in reality.
Do YOU know what's on the Fed's balance sheet? Nope, didn't think you did. Take a look, sometime, if you can - but you can't. You're NOT ALLOWED. Which is odd, don't you think, since it's the central bank of the US? Fact is, most people on Wall Street know what's on their balance sheet, and they know if more people knew.....it would get VERY ugly (even Geithner has said this, PUBLICLY).
No, Paul's point is one which has a long history. There is only one true money - GOLD. Show me a country that has had a fiat currency that is still around today with its fiat currency intact. Can't? Didn't think so. Strong, stable currencies are backed by specie. There is a small problem with specie, though - during growth periods, it is a drag on growth, and in addition if one small group of people holds enough of it, they can corner the market very easily (it was done many times in the 1800's by Daniel Drew).
However, we are now economically advanced enough to overcome these shortcomings. Gold (as in specie backed currency) would FORCE the US government to balance its books, because its misbehavior would be punished in the gold markets by devaluing the currency.
Which, by the way, is what is happening right now in case you hadn't noticed. Except that Ben can keep releasing as much as the Treasury prints.....so for the time being, he's in control (go reread the story of inflation in the Weimar Republic and tell me how today is different - oh yeah, it's not).
Ben is convinced it is, though.
Ron Paul MAY not win. But to ignore him, to marginalize him, to ridicule him, is seriously bad behavior on your part. Essentially it means you have bought into the lies the MSM has spread about him. Which is funny, because there are plenty of other people (Bachmann, for example) who DO have nutty views of the world. Sure, the MSM is demonizing HER too...but in her case, I'm giving them a pass. She flat out scares the hell out of me.
Doc - curious to hear which of Paul's policies scare you? I have a feeling you may not really understand his position, or the reasons for it.
I'll vote for any Republican this election over the 0, even happily for Ron Paul who would not be my 3rd choice.
Ron Paul MAY not win.
Ron Paul will not win.
But to ignore him, to marginalize him, to ridicule him, is seriously bad behavior on your part. Essentially it means you have bought into the lies the MSM has spread about him.
Quite the contrary my friend - he is more than deserving of ridicule or what ever "ule" you want to throw his way. All he is doing is taking up space and air that other more serious and electable candidates could use to get their cases across.
Ron Paul is what he is - there is nothing new in his arguments that hasn't been spouted by guys like Lyndon LaRouche before. And we all know about Paul's apparent inability to read or edit his own newsletter under which racist screeds were published - under his name.
Just that alone disqualifies him from any consideration.
Tom - I'd say you hit that nail on the head, and I presume that answers Rick's question to me.
Rick, if you're reading, I'm still waiting for an answer to that Edmund Hillary question in the 'Secrets' thread.
I believe Ron has answered those questions many times. In fact, I know he has. I accept his answers as legitimate. Certainly as legitimate as, say, the "past indiscretions" argument (which I completely agree with) that you, Doc, made in today's post. Either it's a past indiscretion, which doesn't require the focus his opponents don't require, or it does require focus, in which case his answer is more than adequate by the standards of ANY OTHER POLITICIAN OUT THERE. I emphasize because, while these standards are unfortunately low, they are the only standards which apply.
As for LaRouche - show me how he is a LaRouche template? LaRouche was simply insane. I remember seeing him speak and he claimed (in 1988) that AIDS was transmitted through the air and through touch, even when that was well disproved.
He was also a reformed Marxist.
He proposed an increase in the war on drugs (Paul opposes this)
He proposed nationalizing industries and building huge, nationally funded infrastructure projects (Paul opposes this)
He supported massive defense spending projects and development of outlandish sci-fi weaponry (Paul supports defense spending, but within reasonable limits)
He opposed a balanced budget (Paul supports)
He was anti-gay and anti-black (Paul is not - but you can believe what you want on this note)
He wanted all people screened for AIDS (Paul does not)
He opposed abortion rights (Paul does not)
when you get down to it, the only thing Paul and LaRouche are somewhat similar on is the Fed and a gold-based standard. Which is NOT outlandish. However, it's worth noting that Paul DOES NOT support the crazy conspiracy theories that LaRouche spouted. Paul quotes von Mises, Hayek and Schumpeter. All of whom are the foremost of Austrian Economists. Paul quotes Bastiat regularly (LaRouche probably had no idea who Bastiat was).
To my point - you haven't answered MY questions about the Fed and why it lacks transparency. Does that not concern you at all? Or are you OK with the way in which they are releasing cash into the system?
Now that I've made my case (which I think is pretty much as realistic as one can be made without dragging Paul here personally), I expect to see where the 'crazy' similarities are. I've seen none. And that newsletter stuff is simply absurd.
I continue to say "may not win" regardless of whether you think he will or not. My feeling is that if his views win (and they are being picked up by other candidates), then HE wins.
Doc - I'll go back to the Secrets section. I didn't see a question posed there.........
Let's start all over again.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
3rd-party candidates don't win national elections. Just look at the history books.
So, was there anything else you wanted to discuss?
As I pointed out, HE may not win, but as others pick up his message (each of the candidates, in some form, have picked up portions after each of the first 2 debates), I consider that a victory.
That said, he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. He is a Libertarian, but joined the (natural affiliation) Republican Party and ran with that tag in 2008, and is again in 2012 (recognizing the shortcomings of 2 party politics, he chose to take advantage).
It is true that 3rd party candidates don't win. I find that unfortunate. Today, neither party represents me in any meaningful way.
Thank you, Martin Van Buren. A man who sought to preserve the Union over all else, subjugating pressure filled political agendas to the will of the party, making truly meaningful change extremely difficult.
It took Lincoln (who, as much as we can all agree he was a great leader, did much that was dangerous for the nation's future) to increase the power of the Federal Government, and the Executive Branch in particular....and got us to where we are today.
Sure, he did alot of good things. Most of those things, however, had to be rammed through because the nature of political parties had been altered irrevocably by Van Buren.
It's the 2 party system that killed States' Rights. And it's the death of States' Rights that has allowed each president to continue aggregating power at the top.
And it's this aggregation of power that has led to things like the War Powers Act, a Fiat Currency, and the ability of the President to enact laws via Executive Order.
There's alot that needs a-fixin' in the OLD U S of A, and eventually one of them is the 2 party system. In the meantime, I'll take some good old economic and tax reform, to get us back to where we were in the good old....I mean....well....
Let's just say that the economy never really had "good old days", but it has had periods of time when lack of government intervention left it healthier than it is today.
Having a currency backed by gold would probably be a good first step to get the government to toe the line a bit.
Re: gold currency, it's an interesting debate, but I've never really delved into it. If you ever come across a fair-minded review of both sides, please leave me the link. (there's no such word as "alot")