Thursday, November 29, 2012

Currency Debauchery Worse than I Thought

The famous "Double Eagle" gold coin contained almost one troy ounce of fine gold.   These circulating U.S. government coins had a face value of $20.    Today an ounce of gold is worth about $1750.  By that measure, the dollar is worth 1/87th what it was in 1907.   But even that measure does not tell the full story.

While the official exchange rate of dollars to gold was set at $20.67 an ounce by our government, gold dust sold in California during the 1850s for around $12 to $16 per ounce.   In other words, the face value of the coins was far in excess of the coin's melt value.  The gold had been put into a standardized, useful, and attractive form whose weight and purity were guaranteed by the U.S. government.   This added value, and there is even a term for added value in this way ; "seigniorage".   During the 1850's, the seigniorage of these coins in California was from 25% to 75% over melt value of the gold in the coins.

That means the dollar has lost even more value compared to gold than you would see just by taking the official dollar-to-gold exchange rate.    Of course, history teaches us that governments renege on the value of their money.   The government later devaluated the dollar from $20.67 per ounce, to $35.00 per ounce, and then $42.00 per ounce, to a dollar backed only by a much less valuable amount of silver, until today we have an empty fiat dollar backed by no gold (or silver) at all.

Understand that I am not calling for a return to the gold standard.  I would oppose it strongly.   Our current generation of globalist sock-puppet political "leaders" ran up public debt to the moon in fiat dollars and that debt should be repaid in fiat dollars!    We should not allow the banksters to lure us into debt with easy fiat money and then agree to pay them back those debts in real money.  

No, I am merely pointing out the clear lesson of history that no one can be trusted with a monopoly on money- especially not the government itself.     The government is supposed to enforce contracts, but when it comes to maintaining the value of money, they are a party to the contract they are supposed to be in charge of enforcing!   No wonder it is so often broken.  We need competition in money, with the government OUT of the competition.

Living in Big Cities is Bad for Your Mental Health and Decision Making

 "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe." - Thomas Jefferson in an 1787 letter to James Madison.
 2012 Presidential Results by County, in a state won by B. Obama with over 57% of the vote. Note the concentration of votes in counties with large urban areas, a pattern which repeats in other states.

An article in the Boston Globe presents powerful evidence that city life impairs people's judgement.   The overwhelming amount of stimuli wears down people's filtering mechanism.   It makes their brains 'tired'.   The result is that they perform worse on various aptitude tests.  They are more aggressive, more impulsive, and in short, have worse judgement.    A hectic environment does not allow them to think things through like they would be able to in a small town or more rural setting.    As a writer, I can vouch for the power of peaceable settings to contribute to one's work.    

Liberalism offers quick, loud, direct fixes to individual's troubles.   These solutions are unworkable, but they seem superficially plausible to people who don't have an opportunity to meditate on consequences.   This makes liberalism appear more attractive to city dwellers than it would be if those same people were granted the luxury of considering the long range viability of those ideas in a more down-to-earth small town or rural setting.    

Did blacks vote overwhelmingly for Obama because he was black?   Maybe, but not just urban blacks voted for Barack Obama, virtually every group in major metropolitan areas voted for him.   Romney was a wretched candidate of course, but pick any election.   The big city population, overwhelmed with sensory stimuli, go for the alleged quick fix of big government while the rural areas eschew it.  

Big cities tend to vote for big government.   The presumption of our big-city based media is that this is because 'with it' city folks are just so much smarter than rural yokels who don't appreciate the government's power to run your life better than you can.     I am suggesting the reverse may be true.   It's almost like the Star Trek Episode of The Could Minders in reverse.    In the story, the Trogs were not really inferior to their upper castes, but rather something in their environment made them impulsive, aggressive, and less capable of reflective thought.    The main difference between this TV episode and America; its not the lower class that has impaired cognitive abilities, but the people running the country!

People who live in cities tend to have less time to think and ponder, but now the majority of of population is living in that condition.  But it gets worse, environmental stupidity has achieved escape velocity as government policies now favors herding people into cities and chasing them out of rural areas.     Mass transit is subsidized at the expense of private transportation.  Cites get bailouts, grants, and subsidies not available to rural areas (not that they should be available to anyone).    Agenda 21 is focused on depopulating suburbs and rural and small town areas, in favor of stacking people like cord wood in "sustainable" high-rise densely occupied communities.  

Advances in technology enable people to live more spread out than ever before.    Increasing concentration of the population is no longer being driven by technology, but rather by flawed government policy.    Democracy is no guarantee of good government, especially when virtue and good judgement are eroded, as predicted by mega-genius Thomas Jefferson.     How much longer will the minority in small town and rural America accept the decisions of "leaders" elected by people whose judgement is impaired?

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Speaker Carter and Looking for Loopholes

Cabot's Davy Carter upset Terry Rice of Waldron to win the Speaker of the House position.   He won with the overwhelming support of Democrats and only six or seven votes (out of 51) from his own party.    Some Republicans view this as vile treachery and theorize that it means Gov. Mike Beebe will still be pulling the strings.

Other observers, like me, take a much more nuanced approach.    The Democrats jumped at this deal not because Beebe and Carter have some secret deal, but merely because Carter was a somewhat better choice for them.   The perception was that Rice would engage in payback for all the pettiness they subjected the Republicans to when they were in the majority. Payback is not always unjust, but it is always a female dog.  They could also comfort themselves with the perception that they are still relevant because they showed they at least had a say in picking the Speaker.

Some of my Republican friends are convinced I am wrong about this, and keep trying to game the system to think of every way Carter could help Gov. Beebe get his wicked way without making it obvious that some deal was made.   I have previously reported that one way would be to send Obamacare related bills (in particular any bills to expand Medicaid) to Democrat-Controlled Committees like Public Health or Insurance.   Sending them to State Agencies, where Republicans hold sway, would indicate that Carter did not have a secret deal with the Democrats.

The idea is that with the split in the full house so narrow, and with Beebe so able and willing to use public money to buy off a Republican legislator here and there, and with so many Republican legislators who are amenable to being bought off (or even legitimately leaning left), the best chance to stop many parts of Obamacare would be to stop it in committee, just as the Democrats blatantly did to bills in the past.   In the past, many "good 'old boy" Democrats could hide their crazy from the folks back home because their leadership would send Republican sponsored bills that even conservative Democrats back home would favor to a committee that would bury them.

Well, one of my good friends who is just adamant that Carter is a tool for Beebe suggested to me a second way Carter could accomplish this diabolical result.   That is, he could tilt the process while not appearing (except to the most informed) to tilt the process.   He could do this by changing the rules under which the House operates (the Speaker controls the Rules Committee).   Right now, a bill that fails to make it out of committee needs a SUPER-majority of the full house to bring it out for a vote.   That is what empowers the committee system.   If the rules were changed so that a simple majority could over-ride the decisions of committees it would be a game-changer, and not in a good way.

While the committee process has been frustrating to Republicans when they were in the minority, it serves as a very effective check on limiting the number of laws that powerful special interests want.   Under the current set-up, they need to sell a bill to the committee (who ought to have more expertise in their area to spot a bad idea posing as a good one) and then they need to sell it to the whole body.   If the rules were changed so that a simple majority could pull bills out of committee then every powerful special interest could side-step the legislators who are the most informed.  We would get even more laws that had even less detailed scrutiny.

This is especially true with the house so closely divided.   I think if this happened the Speaker would be deluged with requests to take bills that were stuck in committee and bring them out to the floor.    He does not need more headaches and more work, so I think the odds are slim that he will do this.  If he does, it gives major credibility to my Republican friends who are incensed with Carter and convinced there was a major secret deal with Beebe.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Unwinding from a Majority on the Take

I have heard it over and over again.  Many on the right say that at least 51% of the population is benefiting from a government program or working for the government, so reform is impossible and the system is going to implode.    Well, I also think its going to implode, but for the historical record, I want them to understand the real reason why.  

Mitt Romney did not lose because the 51% on the "take" are only going to vote for what benefits them personally.   Some of those 51% could have been peeled off.   Some of them know that the system is unsustainable, some of them are concerned about what our current course is doing to the country.   Some slice of that 51% can be induced to vote against their lower interests- but not for a Mitt Romney.

People are not going to vote to cut their government benefits so that Goldman Sachs executives can continue to rake in million dollar bonuses.   They are not going to take the hit so that Haliburton and the rest of the Military-Industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about can keep their profit margins up.   They are only going to vote for someone who will tackle this thing if they tackle those interests first.

It's not a case of one group on the take and another looking out for the country.  Both parties are run by people and interests who are on the take.      Both sides are suggesting the other side take the hit so the party on their side can go on just a little bit longer.  Not surprisingly, no one in the other coalition is buying it.

Honestly, Ron Paul could have beaten Barack Obama because he was advocating exactly the policies which would have split some of the "coalition on the take" from the left.    He would have ended the party for the MI-complex and the banksters first.    The other side would have been cut too, but that would be OK with some of them because the sacrifice was shared and the result was a sustainable federal government.   The coalition that ran the GOP rejected that deal and aggressively marginalized Paul and pushed a candidate who offered to keep their party going longer by only taking the punch bowl from the other team.

At this point, I do think that the Federal government is going to face a crisis of legitimacy piled on top of a currency crisis.   We missed our last best chance to stop it, but not because one side's interests would not compromise, but because neither side's controlling interests would.   When it comes, I want people to have a correct view of the history so that we can make a correct assessment of the blame.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Parsons Brings Out the Worst, and Most Dishonest, in Local Editors

"Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”-Michael Rivero
Jim Parsons of Bella Vista is known as a "gadfly", in the best sense of the word in my view.   He has a nose for finding corruption and a knack for asking the right questions.  This makes him very unpopular in some circles.  Among them appears to be the Editorial Board of the Benton County Daily Record.   And that's OK with him.   They don't have to love him, but they at least ought to tell the truth about him.   The editors fell far short of even that low standard when they issued endorsements for the Trustee Position for NWACC, for which Parsons is a candidate.

Among other nasty things, the editors claimed that Parsons "was not qualified for any elected office."   Look, if you don't like the guy, just lay out the facts editors.  They have the bully pulpit.   Why do they have to make outrageously false claims which can only further erode whatever shred of credibility their pages might retain in the minds of the more informed members of our community?  But then again, that might not have been their target audience.  Statements like that one can't be intended to fool critical thinkers, because the statement is an obvious lie.   Such verbage is much more fitted to herding the weak-minded to a desired destination.

Just to document how outrageously false this statement from the editors of the Benton County Daily Record was and is, consider that the legal requirements for the office are only that one be at least 18 years old, a citizen of the district for two years, and not have been found guilty of a felony.   In the most literal sense, it is obvious Parson's meets the technical qualifications of the office, but this hardly scratches the surface.   In fact, his resume showed him to be the most qualified candidate for the office by a country mile.

A former Green Beret and Lt. Colonel, Parsons taught Physiology and Anatomy at Texarkana College (a college much like NWACC) for over 20 years.  Prior to that he was a public school teacher and award-winning football coach.    He was the State Director of the Arkansas Christian Educators Association and a Sunday School Superintendent.   But those are not even among the qualifications that made Parsons the most  qualified candidate by a wide margin!   He was also.....wait for it.....wait for it........

The Division Chair at the Science and Math Departments at NWACC!  But there is more!  Also among his qualifications: He had previously held the office for which he was running!   That's right.  Parsons has already served a term as an NWACC Trustee!  

As of this writing, the vote totals are not in, which is an outrage and a story in itself.    But at last count Parsons was behind by something like a mere 23 votes.   I fear when the votes take this long to count, close races tend to turn out the way that The People Who are Running Things Now want them to turn out.   Those people don't want the meticulously honest Jim Parsons.

Once upon a time, newspapers were supposed to ask the hard questions of The People Who are Running Things Now.   Somewhere along the line, many newspaper editors have lost their way.   They have become the Defenders of The People Who are Running Things Now.    Not only will they not ask such people the hard questions, in other words not only will they not do their job, but quite the reverse.   They use their position to attack and sully the reputations of those who ask hard questions of The People Who are Running Things Now.   They won't do what traditionally has been their job and instead attack those who do the job they won't!  People like your humble blogger, and Jim Parsons.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Speaker's Race Redux

"Davy, Davy Carter, King of the Wild Frontier"

By now most of you know that Republican Representative Davy Carter of Cabot has become Speaker of the House (over fellow Republican Terry Rice of Waldron) with the overwhelming support of the House Democrats and a small group of some of the most conservative Republican members.   Some conservative activists are alarmed over the turn of events, and others are elated.    What's the real story?  Read on and you will know.

First of all, the side that made a deal with the Democrats to elevate Carter is not composed of "liberal" Republicans.    Carter got six or seven Republican votes, and I can surmise the identity of all but one or two of them.     They are some of the staunchest small-government pro-freedom conservatives in the house.   Others who were vacillating between Carter and Rice and chose Rice in the end were also among the more pro-limited government conservatives.  Indeed, Carter himself seems to be more conservative than Rice in his voting record, and far more conservative than Rice when it comes to what kind of Republicans he would appoint to chair various committees.

To me the #1 issue for those who backed Carter on the Republican side was what sort of Republicans the Speaker would appoint as chair of various committees.    Rice was going to freeze out the NWA Conservatives and instead elevate notorious establishment insiders like Jonathan Barnett, Skip Carnine, and Robert Dale.     Their numbers on the "Freedom Index" fall at the lower end of the Republican Spectrum.  Carter would prefer guys like Charlie Collins and Duncan Baird for committee chairmen.   On this important issue Carter should be hands-down the choice of conservatives, and really anyone who has disdain for cronyism.   

Some tried to market this as Carter and company doing this primarily for personal ambition.   Look, all these guys and gals are ambitious.  That is why they do this.    I don't see the sense in ascribing the 'personal ambition' angle all to one faction.   In fact, those against Carter pointed out that he had not given money to other Republican candidates, while Rice handed out $50,000 of special interest money to them.   That is important to Republicans, but Conservatives could not help but notice that the money was handed out based on who could help Terry Rice-  not who the conservatives were.   Even the most liberal Republican candidate imaginable, who backed Obamacare's provisions right down to the public funding for abortion (see question #8), got significant money from Rice and his special interest backers.    Ambition is universal, what differs is the commitment to ideals and the conception of integrity. 

The next question then becomes what Carter gave up to get the support of the Democrats.   The Democrats say it is a matter of who they trust to give them an impartial hearing.   If that's all it is, then conservatives got a  good deal with Carter, but of course we have reason to doubt  that this is the whole story.   More on that in a bit.

Rice took some heat early because he lost two key committees (Public Health and Insurance) to the Democrats.    I don't think that it is fair to blame Rice for that, nor would it be fair to blame Carter if the Democrats wind up running those two committees.   Legislators pick committee assignment by seniority.  Because so many Republicans were elected with this freshman group, Democrats still have the edge on Seniority even if Republicans have a narrow margin on absolute numbers.    Rice would have had to have done some Herculean horse trading, including perhaps with some Democrats, to have gotten GOP majorities on all committees.    

Still, one of the complaints of the Carter faction was the same one the Democrats had.  It seems that Rice was not flexible, no matter who he was dealing with.   It did not appear to be a case of ideological inflexibility, which can be a virtue, but rather a personal trait which transcended policy.    Indeed one rumor was that shortly before Rice was beaten Carter offered to pull his candidacy if only Rice would change some of his Chair appointments to more conservative members.   The word is that Rice flatly refused- not even bothering to counter-offer, despite his precarious position.

So the Democrats get someone that they view as easier and more pleasant to work with, as well as someone they trust not to capriciously game the process of assigning bills to committee.   That latter point is critical, as well as open to interpretation.   The specter of Obamacare looms over the session.    Democrats made a play for the Public Health and Insurance Committees because they anticipate that bills about Obamacare will be routed mostly through those two committees.   They think if they can get some of these bills out of the committee then they will pass the full house.   I agree, since Beebe will trade favors, the Dem-Gazette will pillory any Republicans who stand firm, and since some Republicans (including those Rice supported) have made noise like they support key elements of the sweeping and costly plan.

There is another committee that is a reasonable choice to review many of the bills that will be introduced to attempt to implement Obamacare - State Agencies.   The Republicans should control that one.    One key thing to look for is where Carter sends these Obamacare related bills.   If they all go to Public Health and Insurance with none to State Agencies, it sends a signal that there was a secret deal.   I predict a mix, but we will see.  At least you know what to look for now.

One of the biggest decisions is whether or not we expand Medicaid.   The Feds claim they will pay for 90% of the cost (100% at first).    Why anyone thinks they have any money to do this is beyond me.   The government can hardly pay for the Medicaid we have.    I predict that if we do it, the Feds will reneg on their commitment and try to stick states with more of the bill.   This will happen just after working class people get sucked into and start relying on the system.   That's when it will come undone.     Remember I warned you.

The bottom line is that the elevation of Carter is not necessarily a blow to conservatives, in fact it could be a boon.  Instead of just taking whatever crumbs the establishment gives them, they are pushing for more authority.     We will see what Carter does about Obamacare in the House, but I am not sure that anyone could stop it, given the narrow margin and lack of solidarity over it's mandates among the house Republicans.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

More Evidence for the Absurdity of the Macroevolutionary Hypothesis of Human Origins

Science Daily website is pro-evolution, but they keep putting out articles that, once you parse through the bias, clearly shows cracks in the macroevolutionary hypothesis.   For example, the findings in this article about a "new" gene in humans that explains in part why our brains are so superior.

Listen to the language they use...

It is known that most differences between species occur as a result of changes to existing genes, or the duplication and deletion of genes.  But scientists say this gene emerged fully functional out of non-coding genetic material, previously termed "junk DNA," in a startlingly brief interval of evolutionary time. Until now, it has been remarkably difficult to see this process in action.
Researcher Dr Martin Taylor, who led the study at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said the results were significant.  He said: "As a species, humans are wonderfully inventive -- we are socially and technologically evolving all the time. But this research shows that we are innovating at a genetic level too. This new molecule sprang from nowhere at a time when our species was undergoing dramatic changes: living longer, walking upright, learning how to use tools and how to communicate.

The language that they use, the language that they must use to accurately describe the evidence they have found, is just like that which would be used to describe a fiat miracle, an act of creation, rather than the language of Darwinian mechanics.   They say that this gene sprang up between one and six million years ago but that it is unique to humans.   How odd that it does not appear to have either been present or if present helped to survive to the modern day all the various hominids they say we evolved from.    Nor has such a gene "sprung from nowhere" to grant any ape or monkey species the same advantages we supposedly obtained from this new gene that sprang from nowhere.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Fiscal Cliff Means More Taxes on All of Us

Click on Zero Hedge Graphic for larger view.

While the Democrats and their media enablers spin the consequences of the fiscal cliff deal as tax increases for "the rich", a look at the actual data shows that they will getting the money from all of us.   This blather about Republicans "protecting the rich" conceals the fact that most of the tax increases under this deal will come from all of us.

A look at the chart shows that only $40 billion in new government revenue would come from eliminating the tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 (and I would not consider a couple earning $260,000 as "rich.")   Compare that to $174 billion the elimination of tax cuts under the deal would take from those earning less than $250,000.  Add to it the cut in Social Security tax will end under the deal, and that effective tax increase  will apply to all wage earners.  That will cost us $100 billion.     Another $59 billion will be obtained by no longer adjusting the "Alternative Minimum Tax" to inflation.   That could affect couples whose household income is as little as $75,000.  And remember when inflation kicks up more and more families will fall under that umbrella.    Fifteen years from now $40,000 could be the new $75,000 due to inflation.

So all told, only $40 billion of the coming tax increases will be from cuts solely to "the rich" making over $250,000 a year.   At least $233 billion in tax increases will be applicable to all or very many more of us.

By the way, there "across the board cuts" amount to a mere $105 billion, unless you want to count things like ending extended unemployment benefits (good for another $58 billion).  In other words, the cuts don't seriously hurt anyone connected in Washington, and are dwarfed by the increased revenues they would ring out of the American people.

This talk about taxing the rich is mostly misdirection so you won't notice the government hand reaching in your own pocket.  Even if it wasn't, I find the idea that just because someone has more than you means that its OK to use the government to take it from them appallingly immoral.   It never goes down like that anyway.   The very rich can find ways to protect themselves, if need be by leaving the country whose government demo-gouges think the rich exist only to fund their ambitious programs.   The gun that the demo-gouge holds is invariably turned on the middle class and the upper middle class because those groups are much more numerous and easy to loot than are the very rich.  So it is here.

The American middle and upper middle class have no party to advocate for them in Washington D.C.     This deal is a stinker for them.    The tax increases are far greater than the spending "cuts" (reduction in planned increases) and the tax increases will fall on them as a class much harder than the truly wealthy, whose wealth is mostly earned by capital gains rather than taxable income.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Incompetence, or Something More Sinister from Benton County Election Officials?

“Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte
Something went very wrong on Election Day in Benton County this past Tuesday.   I am not referring to my defeat as an Independent candidate for the state legislature, but rather the outrageously long lines suffered by the citizens of my home town, Pea Ridge.   Sure there were long lines everywhere, but as someone who had sign-waivers set up at ten polling places I was in a unique position to tell you how much worse it was at Pea Ridge.    The lines were long some other places, and shorter in others, but Pea Ridge was Ground Zero for the electoral fiasco of Tuesday's election.  People were still voting in Pea Ridge ten minutes until midnight.

Because I was standing in front of the polling place much of the day, I could pick a time when the lines were shorter, so it "only" took me two hours and forty minutes to vote.   My wife, sick with a cold, waited four hours in line in order to vote for me.   I repeatedly told her she should not vote, but being who she is, she insisted.  Many citizens, upon seeing the 100 yard long line out the door, turned away without voting.   I would estimate that hundreds who came to the polls in Pea Ridge that day left without voting.

The long lines suppressed voter turnout in Pea Ridge.  I am not claiming that the suppressed voter turnout was the difference in the race- it wasn't.    But it could have been, and that introduces the aspect of motive.    The County Election Commission, run by Republicans (and Democrats too, but my opponent was the establishment and I was the outsider), had both motive and opportunity to deliberately restrict voting opportunities in a voting location where I could be expected to poll stronger relative to my Republican (but liberal) opponent.

Of course, as the dead Frenchman quoted above indicates, the foul up in Pea Ridge could be a matter of simple incompetence.   Let's hope so, because it is absolutely essential to the continuance of our Republic that the population believes that our elections are conducted in a fair and even-handed manner.   The reason we are able to resolve our public issues peaceably instead of with the sort of violence we so often see in other nations is that our population accepts the legitimacy of election results.    Those who would try to play games with the conduct of our elections are committing the vilest sort of public crime, and in my view should be subject to the strongest possible punishment.     The people must have faith and goodwill as regards the management of our elections.  

Unfortunately, the decisions made by our County Election Commission defy innocent explanation.   We already know that there were multiple early voting locations in Rogers and Bella Vista, and of course in Bentonville.   There were no early voting locations in any small towns or more rural areas of the county.    You would think, if they wanted to give those of us in the small towns and rural areas an equal chance to early vote compared to our fellow citizens in the larger cities, that they could at least rotate an early voting location or two among the small towns.   When I mentioned this to a friend who lives in Texas, he laughed and said that he early voted- in a town of only 1,200 people.   Apparently our neighbors to the south don't just stack early voting locations in the big cities.

Then there is the issue of voting machine allocation.    If small towns are allocated zero machines in early voting, you might think they would be allocated a larger share on election day itself.   The opposite was true.  For example, the moderate sized precincts who voted at the Bella Vista Church on McNelley Road had five machines even though many Bella Vistans voted early.    The much larger Pea Ridge location only had four voting machines.     I understand that our local election officials asked the county election commission for more voting machines than the four they gave us, but were rebuffed.   This only lends credence to the theory that someone wanted long lines to reduce voter turnout in an area that might not vote for the candidate of their choice.

Lest you think that our sacred public officials would never stoop to such shenanigans,  I remind you that current 2nd District Congressman Tim Griffin was strongly linked to a voter suppression scheme called "voter caging" when he worked for the saintly Karl Rove.

But of course, if not enough machines were allocated, at least people could vote on paper ballots, right?  Wrong.    Only 100 paper ballots were sent to Pea Ridge, where almost 4,000 people are supposed to vote.  They were out of paper ballots by 10:00 AM.      The local election judges requested more paper ballots at once- and were later given about 30.

I am not sure if the Election Commission gets the blame for the lack of paper ballots.   Public officials seem to be pushing citizens away from paper ballots against our will.    Remember that firms make lots of money selling and servicing voting machines.   Voting machines have lobbyists, paper ballots do not.    Still, only 100 ballots available for almost 4,000 potential voters?    Voting machine can, and did, break down.   If more had broken down, it would have been a catastrophe to have so few paper ballots.

This does not even consider what has happened since election night.   Hand counting of ballots seems to be a lost art.   As of Sunday night, we still don't have certified totals.   But what really has me upset was my sick wife waiting in that line in the cold for four hours, along with my friends and neighbors.     The idea that someone might have put them through that out of some desire to hold down vote totals from my home town just infuriates me.    When you look at the facts, there was no good reason for it.  It was easy to see, as our home town elections judges saw, that Pea Ridge should have had more machines.   Maybe it was malice, or maybe, as Bonaparte said, it was merely incompetence.    I can't say for sure, but I don't have to know the answer to that to know this- someone on that election commission needs to go.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Camacho Has A Better Plan Than Bernake

This is a speech by "President Dwayne Elizondo Herbert Mountain Dew Camacho."   This character appears in the cult-classic movie "Idiocracy." The film envisions a future in which the average IQ of the human race descends to absurd levels.   This speech does not appear in the movie, rather it was made recently by the actor who plays Camacho (Terry Crews) as a spoof of today's electoral process.   The idea behind the skit is that the President from the future travels back in time to give us a little fatherly advice on public policy.     The video clip above, and the movie, contain obscene language, but nowhere near as obscene as the actual fiscal polices being executed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake, with the approval of both Wall-Street financed parties.

Basically, Camacho says we don't need jobs, we need money.  The only jobs he will "create" will be down at the mint, printing up every citizen a million dollars.     This is very similar to the Bernake/Obama/Romney plan for bailout QE to infinity.   There is only one important difference.  In Camacho's plan, everyone gets the "free money" evenly.   In the Ruling Elite's plan, the new money is given only to friends and associates of the Ruling Elite.   Camacho's plan, while flawed, is far more reasonable, moral, and liable to revive the economy on Main Street USA than the plan currently being executed by Herr Bernake.  Are you scared yet?

The results of Camacho's plan would be an instant explosion of inflation, but at least almost every American could use the money to become debt free- which is the biggest drag on the economy right now.    This would be a crude means of liquidating bad debt- which is essential in order for our economy to truly recover.   Since the ruling class holds trillions in bad debt, our political system prefers to bailout debt holders rather than letting the free market work-i.e. making them liquidate bad debt at a fair market price.

In Bernake's plan, all that money is stored by the elite few who have access to it, while the rest of the nation's economy crashes and burns due to lack of liquidity and excess debt.    That way, the fortunate few can buy up our assets a little at a time at fire sale prices as one person and business after another goes under.    The result of this plan will be that the big five banks and those connected to them will eventually own the entire country.   Neither plan is a good one, but given a choice between the two, I'd take Camacho's plan, which is merely foolish, over the plan currently being executed by the Ruling Elite, which is evil.