Tuesday, December 16, 2008

My friends in the Standing Bear Community

The Standing Bear Community was formed to provide a safe environment for individuals to experience and strengthen their spirituality through community, education, and ceremonial support for the Way of the Pipe. Our premise is Pragmatic Spirituality based in Native American Traditions and practice. We hold Ceremonies for individuals to interact with Spirit and give honor to our ancestors seven generations ago for the seven generations to come. We endeavor to keep Have One Mind and One Heart, All Things are Divine and that We are all Relations in the forefront. Therefore, this community is intended for those who truly want to learn, participate, or live this way of life. It is not for gawkers, site-seers or Wannabes. We respect that you come to Ceremony with an understanding of your spiritual path and traditions, our Ceremonies are not restricted to any specific religion, tradition or path. Ceremony is a way of life and a time for prayer.

All who come in a good way are welcome
http://www.standing-bear.org/

Monday, December 15, 2008

aravoth strikes again

The voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Climate Change

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Thursday, November 27, 2008

More MSM on the Fed

Gerald O'Driscoll, a former senior Fed official and very able economist, recently said it best: "The central bank is like an arsonist watching a fire he set, expressing amazement at how such an event could have happened. The Fed created a moral hazard by first, implicitly, then explicitly promising to bail investors out of risky commitments. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan promised to 'mitigate the fallout' from asset deflation. How does a central bank do that? By reflating asset prices, or, as Greenspan euphemistically put it in his 1999 testimony, 'ease the transition to the next expansion.'"

The Fed: Solution or problem? by Richard Rahn

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

NPR Outs the Federal Reserve!

I am totally flabbergasted, NPR actually came right out and said the Fed just created $800 billion out of thin air. The threw in some fluff about them later taking it out of the economy later, in time to save the day, but I almost crashed my car when I heard that.

Ron Paul is still winning!

Go listen, especially at 3:32.

Here's the story. The have a link there to the audio.

This goes straight to the player at NPR and might not work.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Sunday, October 19, 2008

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan

| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Stuck in the Cold

Senators McCain, Obama, Biden, Governor Palin, and their senior colleagues are all Cold-War leftovers—secular imperialists, really—chaffing to involve America in wars where no U.S. interests are at stake and those started by their own democracy-crusading. The difference between parties is just nuance: Republicans prefer to provide a strong, close-up whiff of gunpowder before coercively imposing their values on foreigners, while Democrats prefer raining anonymous death from 20,000 feet on foreigners, who – if they live – will have new values drilled into them. All are imperialism’s paladins and, like Rudyard Kipling and Woodrow Wilson, they are: aching to dictate their kind of freedom to various little brown brothers; willing to kill those who obstruct efforts to make the world made safe for the brand of democracy they peddle; and eager to use an M-16 or two-ton bomb if it takes that to teach their undemocratic, Muslim brothers to elect good men.

Read the rest...

Sunday, October 12, 2008

DO SOMETHING

From Paolo's blog
I saw an interview on CNN the other day, in which the reporter asked <he who must not be named> what he would do, RIGHT NOW, this split second, to get us out of "the Crisis." <he who must not be named> began to respond that before you proposed solutions to a problem, you have to understand what caused the problem. He began to patiently explain how government creation of money and cheap credit caused the problem, but the reporter cut him off. Again, the reporter insisted he offer solutions for the problem RIGHT NOW, without explaining the cause of the problem.

This, I submit, is the problem. Until people are willing to invest a little time in understanding economics, they will always be vulnerable to this charade of lurching from false prosperity to crisis. Economics is really not difficult to understand, at the fundamental level; <he who must not be named>'s favorite school of economics, called the Austrian School, is loaded with Nobel Prize winners and features plenty of thick books filled with difficult prose. But at root, the basic principles are not difficult to understand.

A few sentences are all that is required to explain the roots of the current crisis. The government, trying to give the illusion of prosperity, has inflated the money supply. The excess money goes to buying all sorts of products. Producers, seeing their inventories go down, order an increase in production. Financial markets, seeing the increased production and increased sales (in terms of cheap dollars), decide to invest in these companies. New companies, in this environment, spring into being in the form of Initial Public Offerings (IPO's).

No matter where investors put their money, they seem to win. Companies with no track record rise in value, on paper. Large investment firms begin to direct ever-larger amounts of (cheap) cash into whatever makes money, which is just about everything. Housing and stocks, which seem always to go up in price, get the most investment.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is known as a "bubble."

But a bubble can only go on for so long. Because so much phony money and credit has been pumped into the system, prices begin to rise as more and more money chases the same goods. Those who don't earn enough to invest huge amounts in the bubble are particularly hurt as prices of everything start to rise. Eventually, the economy reaches a point where either you let the bubble burst, liquidating bad investments, and allowing prices to plummet, or you keep pumping in more money in a frantic attempt to keep prices high.

The latter is the approach of both major parties. If enough money is pumped into the markets, you can keep the drunken orgy going a little bit longer. During this time, prices will begin to rise even more precipitously. Food prices will double. Gas prices will triple. Soon, the entire lower and middle classes will find it difficult just to buy groceries and fill their gas tanks. They will begin to scream for Washington to DO SOMETHING!


RIGHT NOW!

Whose Fault was It?

Whose Fault was It?
October 8, 2008
Alvaro Vargas Llosa

WASHINGTON—As was the case with the 1929 crash that ushered in the Great Depression, the current financial meltdown is giving rise to myths that will influence public policy for decades to come. It is imperative that those myths be debunked before the next U.S. administration starts to make important decisions, followed by many other countries. By far the most dangerous myth is that deregulation is the root cause of the problem.

Yes, Wall Street firms were greedy, irresponsible and, in many cases, downright stupid. But those are fairly constant features in any society and there is no reason to believe that investment bankers were any more greedy, irresponsible and stupid in 2007 and 2008 than, say, five or 10 years earlier.

As many authoritative economists are desperately trying to explain amid all the confusion, the culprit was a system geared toward loaning money to people who were not in a position to pay it back. Two policies underpinned that system: easy money by the Federal Reserve and the government-induced lowering of standards for approving loan requests.

Lorenzo Bernaldo de Quiros, a leading European economist, is adamant that the crisis could have been avoided but for “the lax monetary strategy put in place by the Federal Reserve between 2001 and 2004. ... That is what caused the exuberant and unreal rise in the value of stock market and real assets, the excessive leverage on the part of families and companies, and the inevitable collapse of the house of cards once inflationary pressures forced the central bank to tighten its policy.”

The Fed’s policy would explain why asset values rose unrealistically, but not necessarily why they did so predominantly in the housing market. And here is where the second set of policies underpinning the system comes into play.

In a recent paper for the Independent Institute, University of Texas professor Stan Liebowitz argues that “in an attempt to increase homeownership...virtually every branch of the government undertook an attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s.”

The government-promoted increase in homeownership dramatically increased the price of housing. As many as one in four buyers purchased property with purely speculative intentions. When prices stopped rising, the speculators tried to get out of the market. The rest is history. Read the rest...