Interesting article on the propensity of Evangelicals to believe a variety of things versus those who are "athiest".

This is an older article, but some of the information it conveys applies to today's news:

 

 

 

 

It's critical of the so-called conservative commentators who were pushing this thing.

Imagine, if you will, that I started a company that made "Pizza Flavored Soda". I had pepperoni, sausage, and supreme flavored sodas, and was working on a barbequed pizza flavor, along with a hawaiian pizza flavor.

"You're crazy", you might say. "No one in their right mind would buy such a silly and disgusting product. No one could ever REALLY start a company that made pizza flavored soda."

And you'd be right, to a point. And in an ideal monetary environment, I would never get the funding to start a company that made pizza flavored soda. But we've been in an expansionary credit environment, which means that a lot of goofy ideas for companies get started. Now, there are some people who would purchase the product on a dare, or out of curiosity. And there are some poor souls who would actually like pizza flavored soda.

In an environment of expanding credit, it's theoretically possible for me to go to a bank and get a loan to start "The Pizza Soda Co." on the strength of these three potential types of customer. Banks are in the business of extending loans, and when they get a lot of money dumped into their vaults, they naturally want to loan that money out. Pretty soon, all the good loans get taken up, and so the banks start loaning to less and less creditworthy enterprises, like my "Pizza Soda Co." What's more, I can keep my failing company going as long as the bank keeps extending me credit; and the bank will keep extending me credit as long as the Federal Reserve keeps pumping money into it (i.e. lowering interest rates, or keeping the Fed Funds rate at 1% for a year, like it did between June 2003 and June 2004.

When the banks finally come to their senses, or especially when the Federal Reserve finally stops printing money, then the bad loans start defaulting. My "Pizza Soda Co.", finding that it can't get any more money from the bank, closes down. I fire all my workers, sell what useable equipment I can to Coca-Cola at fire-sale prices, and if I'm lucky, still keep my house. Thousands of businesses like "The Pizza Soda Co.", which also were founded on shaky premises, go out of business, lay off workers, sell off assets. Hence, the recession.

And since I employ 20,000 workers at my factory, and have spent a lot of money on lobbying, I have the ear of Congress.  "The Pizza Soda Co." is too big to fail, they say.  We need to pump some Federal Dollars into it, in order to save the jobs of the workers, and to save the money of investors.  What about all the Mutual Fund Companies that bought stock in "The Pizza Co."?  They're in real trouble!  We have to make sure that "The Pizza Soda Co." does not fail!

But the recession is not a bad thing. It's a reallocation of resources from bad investments, back to good investments.  All the money that was going to "The Pizza Soda Co." might have been used to fund businesses that produce goods and services that people actually want. The recession brings everthing back into focus, that focus being what the consumer wants, not what a bunch of eggheads think that the consumer "needs". A lot of money seems to disappear into thin air, but the "money" was little more than thin air in the first place, so the real loss is not necessarily the money, but the time that could have been spent productively in making beds and cookies, and delivering packages, instead of making a nasty-tasting novelty soda.

 

Please read this: http://mises.org/story/3131

And when you've finished, please see if you can get your Congressman to read it, too.

 

Even if the math were right (it's not--85 billion divided by 200 million comes to 425, not 425,000), this post demonstrates what's wrong with the REAL bailout they're now discussing in Congress.  The bailout consists of money created out of thin air.  It doesn't solve anything, because it merely transfers wealth from creditors (that is, people who save) to debtors.

 

Imagine if the government came along and told your bank that it had to cut your mortgage in half.   Say your mortgage has a balance of $200,000; the bank has to "give" you $100,000 of that.  That's what the situation would be if the government suddenly inflated the currency by sending 85 billion of newly created dollars out to the populace.  It's what the situation will be if and when they bailout all these financial firms.  The government is legalizing theft from savers in order to give money to borrowers.

 

I would certainly "benefit" from such a plan;  that is, I would be able to pay off the nominal balance on my mortgages.  But I, along with everyone else, would pay a heavy price when we see all prices hit stratospheric levels.

 

There would be no economic boom, no block party, because a case of beer, a stack of pizza, a gallon drum of ice cream, would add up to thousands of dollars when the inflation sets in properly.

 

But the middle part I agree with heartily:  the part beginning with "As for AIG", and ending with "Let the private sector...clean it up".  That's a really smart idea.

 

I wish I had cable, sometimes....

 

A lot of people, myself included, have been complaining for some time about the Federal Reserve's inability to stop printing money.  Now we have the result, which is the creeping nationalization of our finance industry.  We have abandoned all pretense of being a Free Market nation.

 

Ron Paul also weighs in: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

 

 

Here's the quiz to find out: http://mises.org/quiz.asp

 

Austrian Economics is the most laissez-faire of the economic theories.  If you're a Ron Paul supporter, chances are you already know everything about this branch of economic theory.

Imagine, if you will, that the government has a rule that if you're a baker who makes cookies, then you cannot also make pies.  Then, a new mix of government officials enters office, and they work out a deal whereby you are allowed to make cookies AND pies, but you must also put chunks of brocolli and celery into the mix, to make your products more "healthy".  Your cookies and pies naturally taste awful to most of your customers, and you go out of business.

 

Did you go bankrupt because of deregulation?

 

107THCONGRESS REPORT
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107–186
BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2001
AUGUST 2, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
Submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2175]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]


A. ‘‘Live-Birth’’ Abortions
The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious
ideas is well illustrated by disturbing events that are alleged to
have occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Two nurses
from the hospital’s delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker
(who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hos-
pital have performed numerous ‘‘induced labor’’ or ‘‘live-birth’’ abor-
tions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce pre-
mature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are some-
times still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive
to die.27
According to medical experts, this procedure is appropriately
used only in situations in which an unborn child has a fatal de-
formity, such as anencephaly or lack of a brain, and infants with
such conditions who are born alive are given comfort care (includ-
ing warmth and nutrition) until they die, which, because of the
fatal deformity, is typically within a day or two of birth. According
to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker, however, physi-
cians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy
infants and infants with non-fatal deformities such as spina bifida
and Down Syndrome.28Many of these babies have lived for hours
after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could
have survived with appropriate medical assistance.29 The nurses
have also witnessed hospital staff taking many of these live-born
babies into a ‘‘soiled utility closet’’ where the babies would remain
until death.30Comfort care, the nurses say, was only provided spo-
radically.31
Mrs. Stanek, who testified in front of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution during its hearing on H.R. 4292 and H.R. 2175, testi-
fied regarding numerous live-birth abortions that she alleges have
occurred at Christ Hospital. The first she described as follows:
One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted
Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled
Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold
him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not
bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a
Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the
45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old,
weighed about 1⁄2pound, and was about 10 inches long. He
was too weak to move very much, expending any energy
he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet
that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him
up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through
his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded
his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny
shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all
of our dead patients are taken.32
Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was
thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact
spine.33 On another occasion, an aborted baby ‘‘was left to die on
the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable
towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when
they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby
fell out of the towel and on to the floor.’’34Mrs. Stanek further tes-
tified regarding a live-birth abortion that was performed on a
healthy infant at more than 23 weeks gestation, a stage of develop-
ment at which premature infants have an almost 40% chance of
survival.35According to Mrs. Stanek,
[t]he baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted every-
thing done for her baby, there would have been a
neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and res-
piratory therapist present for the delivery, and the baby
would have been taken to our Neonatal Intensive Care
Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel
present for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and
my co-worker. After delivery the baby, who showed early
signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and
kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died
21⁄2hours later.36
Mrs. Baker testified regarding three live-birth abortions she wit-
nessed at Christ Hospital. According to Mrs. Baker, she was in-
formed about the live-birth abortions, described by the hospital as
‘‘therapeutic abortions,’’ when she began working in the high risk
labor and delivery unit at Christ Hospital in August 1998. She de-
scribed her first encounter with this procedure as follows:
The first occurred on a day shift. I happened to walk into
a ‘‘soiled utility room’’ and saw, lying on the metal counter,
a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms
and legs. The fetus was visibly alive, and was gasping for
breath. I left to find the nurse who was caring for the pa-
tient and this fetus. When I asked her about the fetus, she
said that she was so busy with the mother that she didn’t
have time to wrap and place the fetus in a warmer, and
she asked if I would do that for her. Later I found out that
the fetus was 22 weeks old, and had undergone a thera-
peutic abortion because it had been diagnosed with Down’s
Syndrome. I did wrap the fetus and place him in a warmer
and for 21⁄2hours he maintained a heartbeat, and then fi-
nally expired.37
The second induced-labor abortion Mrs. Baker witnessed in-
volved a 20 week-old fetus with spina bifida who was born alive.
According to Mrs. Baker,
[d]uring the time the fetus was alive, the patient kept ask-
ing me when the fetus would die. For an hour and 45 min-
utes the fetus maintained a heartbeat. The parents were
frustrated, and obviously not prepared for this long period
of time. Since I was the nurse of both the mother and the
fetus, I held the fetus in my arms until it finally expired.38
The third incident witnessed by Mrs. Baker involved a 16 week-
old fetus with Down’s Syndrome. ‘‘Again,’’ Mrs. Baker testified, ‘‘I
walked into the soiled utility room and the fetus was fully exposed,
39
Id.
lying on the baby scale.’’39 Mrs. Baker then found the nurse who
was caring for the mother and the baby and offered her assistance.
‘‘When I went back into the soiled utility room,’’ Mrs. Baker said,
‘‘the fetus was moving its arms and legs. I then listened for a
heartbeat, and found that the fetus was still alive. I wrapped the
fetus and in 45 minutes the fetus finally expired.’’40
When allegations such as these were first made against Christ
Hospital, the hospital claimed that this procedure was only used
‘‘when doctors determine the fetus has serious problems, such as
lack of a brain, that would prevent long-term survival.’’41 Later,
however, the hospital changed its position, announcing that al-
though it had performed abortions on infants with non-fatal birth
defects, it was changing its policy and would henceforth use the
procedure to abort only fatally-deformed infants.42
B. Confusion Regarding the Status of Abortion Survivors
The confusion regarding the status of abortion survivors is re-
flected in events that happened two years ago in Cincinnati, Ohio.
A young woman learned she was pregnant and sought the assist-
ance at the clinic of the abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, inventor
of one variation of the partial-birth abortion procedure.43Dr. Has-
kell performed the first step of the partial-birth abortion proce-
dure—dilating the woman’s cervix—and she was to return the next
day. The next morning the woman began experiencing severe ab-
dominal pains and reported to the emergency room of Bethesda
North Medical Center in Cincinnati. While she was being exam-
ined, the young woman gave birth to a baby girl.44 The attending
physician placed the baby in a specimen dish—like any other sub-
stance that is removed from the body—to be taken to the lab by
a medical technician. When the technician, Shelly Lowe, saw the
baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasp-
ing for air. ‘‘I don’t think I can do that,’’ Ms. Lowe reportedly said.
‘‘This baby is alive.’’45
After doctors concluded that the baby was too premature to sur-
vive (by some estimates she was born at 22 weeks, although some
members of the hospital staff believed she was older), Ms. Lowe
held the baby, whom she named ‘‘Baby Hope,’’ until the child died,
wrapping her in a blanket and singing to her as she stroked her
cheeks. Ms. Lowe said: ‘‘I wanted her to feel that she was wanted.
. . . She was a perfectly formed newborn, entering the world too
soon through no choice of her own.’’46 Surprisingly, Baby Hope
lived for 3 hours, without the benefit of an incubator or other in-
tensive care, and breathing room air, but her condition was not re-
assessed by the physicians.47 And although it is impossible to de-
termine at this point whether a reassessment would have made
any difference in Baby Hope’s ultimate survival, the lack of any
uch reassessment, coupled with the attending physician’s initial
placement of then-breathing Baby Hope in a specimen dish, at
least raises serious questions as to whether a similarly-situated in-
fant who was wanted by her mother would have received the same
treatment.
Confusion regarding the legal status of abortion survivors is not
a problem only in the United States. Evidence of this confusion can
be further illustrated by events that occurred in Professor Peter
Singer’s native country of Australia. On April 10, 2000, in Sydney,
Australia, a Coroners Court heard testimony regarding a baby who
survived an abortion in 1998 and lived for 80 minutes while hos-
pital staff waited for the baby to die.48 When the midwife nurse
called the abortion doctor (who was not present) to inform him that
the baby had survived, he responded, ‘‘So?’’49 The nurse then did
what she could to make the baby comfortable, covering her with a
blanket to keep her warm until her breathing and heartbeat slowed
and she died.50
The coroner who investigated this incident condemned the ac-
tions of the abortion doctor, stating that ‘‘‘[t]he [baby] having been
born alive deserved all the dignity, respect and value that our soci-
ety places on human life. . . . The fact that her birth was unex-
pected and not the desired outcome of the [abortion] should not re-
sult in her and babies like her being perceived as anything less
than a complete human being.’’’51Noting that the old, infirm, sick
and terminally ill are all entitled to proper medical and palliative
care and attention, the coroner stated that ‘‘newly-born unwanted
and premature babies should have the same rights. The fact that
[the baby’s] death was inevitable should not affect her entitlement
to such care and attention.’’52
A similar incident occurred in Germany in 1998.53In that case,
an infant survived an abortion attempt at 25 weeks gestation. The
doctors who attempted to abort the baby left it wrapped in a blan-
ket for 10 hours ‘‘under observation’’ but without any medical as-
sistance. The doctors then consulted with the parents and decided
to provide the baby medical assistance. The infant survived, but
was severely damaged and has had several operations. The Ger-
man government brought charges against the physicians.

 

The link above is to the web page for the radio program I listen to, called "Free Talk Live".  It is played in the evenings and on weekends on the same station here that plays Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin.

 

The show is ardently libertarian in its philosophy, although they do not like the label "libertarian"; they prefer to call themselves "liberty-loving individuals" who believe in free voluntary associations between people without interference from government. They also do not like the Libertarian Party, or its candidate, Bob Barr.  They claim he is not a real libertarian; they also claim the same about Neil Boortz.  They are quite fond of Ron Paul, though.

 

They spend a lot more time criticizing the Republican Party, and McCain and Palin, than they do criticizing the Democrat Party and its members.  I suppose the reason for this is that the hosts (Mark and Ian) view the Democrat Party as ideologically true to its beliefs, while the Republican Party gives lip service to liberty, but then governs in ways that limit liberty.  At least, that is what I get listening to them.

 

They are strongly critical of the Iraq War;  but then they are strongly critical of every war that the US has been engaged in, except for the War for Independence.  Libertarian thought regarding the military argues for a small army, reliance primarily on militias, and NO FOREIGN VENTURES WHATSOEVER.  The military is only to be used for repelling invaders.  If we are invaded, then we fight, but we do not follow the invaders back to their lands, and we certainly don't invade threatening countries preemptively.  They also hold to the idea that while the President is given control of the military by the Constitution, that he is not allowed to use the military unless Congress first declares war (which they would only do against countries trying to invade us)  This philosophy is the basis for Mark's claim that President Bush should have been impeached some years ago.

 

Mark has also said that he was considering voting for Obama, but that he may switch to voting for McCain; he thinks that Congress will be held by Democrats, so having McCain in the Whitehouse will increase political strife which will in turn work to slow the Federal Government's stealing of our freedoms.

 

Mark and Ian are promoting something called "The Free State Project", which involves people of like mind to move to New Hampshire, and create a libertarian utopia.

 

It is an interesting program to listen to, but I have some problems with their philosophies.  For one, they are pro-abortion.  They claim to be opposed to all forms of violence, but this apparently does not apply to infants awaiting birth.

 

They are also anti-drug war.  No surprise there; they want to legalize narcotics, allowing people to make their own lifestyle choices.  I instinctively oppose their position, but I am thinking through why; testing my reasons why, say, marijuana should still be illegal.

 

But they are pro-homeschool, pro-free market, including free trade, and pro-immigration.  They are strongly against the idea of having to pay property taxes, wondering why they must be saddled with the financial burden of paying for the education of others' children.  Property Taxes also imply that the land one buys still belongs to the government, since if one decides to quit paying, then the government resumes ownership of the land.

 

An interesting show...I recommend listening if you can get it.  Of course, you can listen to previous shows free of charge, through their website.

 

On Obama:

 

 

This guy proves it:  http://www.theescapist.com/spells/

 

 

 

That's the site to go to, first to read all the rumors now circulating about Gov. Palin, and second to get the links to stories that debunk the rumors.