Recession Nightmares Coming True?

The Recession that I warned about last December may have come to pass. Bad news from the stock market today all around: Dow down 3.5%, nearly 4 earlier. Durable goods, a key indicator, are throwing up horrible numbers. Worst of all, it looks like the Chinese market is shitting its pants.

Strap yourselves in, we may be taking an unhappy detour.

Update: Things are worse than I thought

"Trying to limit the declines, the New York Stock Exchange said it imposed trading curbs as of 1:03 p.m. ET, around the time the Dow slipped 200 points, CNN confirmed."

Welcome to Black Tuesday.

Hat Tip: Matt Santos

Angelina Jolie admitted into the Council on Foreign Relations

I wonder what insightful articles she will have to publish in Foreign Affairs.

Close, but no Moshiach

Turns out that Cameron's claim to have found the body of the Christ doesn't hold up to scholarly review

"In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television."

""They just want to get money for it," Kloner said."

The Slander of Pius XII

The slander of Pope Pius XII as "Hitler's Pope" is one of the most disgusting, false, and hard to shake myths that have been used against the Catholic Church by its enemies throughout the years. Indeed, even a Jewish Rabbi, a one David G. Dalin, has written a book discrediting it, The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pius XII rescued Jews from the Nazis>

Now, on National Review Online, the Romanian intelligence officer who was behind the whole thing, tells all. Hardly the first time the Church has been slandered by godless communists. And likely, it won't be the last>

No Rest for the Wicked

I’m writing this on Sunday morning. Tomorrow, according to the press, James Cameron will announce that he has found the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. And that Jesus is still in it.

Maybe you should read that again. After all, it may be the most earth-shattering assertion since…well, since the man from Galilee first said what he said. For 2,000 years, western civilization has been defined by this single belief: That Jesus Christ was the son of god, that he died on the cross for the sins of mankind, that he rose on the third day and ascended to heaven. Everything we are as a people, as a culture, revolves around this belief. Whether any given individual is a Christian or not, he lives as the product of a Christian society, in which Christian moral teachings are held to be supreme, whether they are believed to be inherently divine or not. He is immersed in it in a way that is inescapable, so that it is part and parcel of his nature, whether he likes it or not. So, to make the understatement of the last two millennia, what Mr. Cameron has to say is hardly without consequence. While it is obviously far too early (as of the time of this writing, the official announcement has not yet even been made.) to make any judgment, much of what Cameron has to say, scientifically, seems to be spurious at best. He claims to have DNA evidence proving that the body he has found is the body of Jesus Christ. What, exactly, he is going to compare this DNA to for confirmation, he has kept us in the dark on. He says that the tombs he has found are marked with the names Jesus, Mary, and Jonas. These are, of course, some of the most common names of the region at that time, and would prove nothing on their own. And as for the claim that these are Jesus’ remains, how, exactly, those remains could have survived for the last 2,000 years seems to defy explanation. Unless the corpses have been mummified (Cameron has released no information regarding this) such a feat would be, seemingly, impossible. Indeed, the tomb that the corpses are buried in is far too elaborate to have been afforded by Jesus' family or by the early church, and the stone coffins in which the remains are enclosed are indicative of a Roman, not Jewish, tradition.

It is worth noting that Cameron’s director in this venture, Simcha Jacobovici, was also behind The Exodus Decoded, an earlier work of biblical archeology, for which the historicity is, to say the least, highly controversial. He is also a devout Jew, for whom disproving the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth is a duty of faith. However, for all involved, whether they be Christians, Jews, or otherwise, the importance is far more than one of historical curiosity. For nearly half a century now, the west has been living through, surprisingly quietly, one of its defining moments as a civilization. The culture war is more than a few spats about the legality of certain substances or behaviors. It is a conflict over whether the defining ethic of our culture in the west should be the moral teachings of the Christian faith, which have sustained us for the last two millennia, or some sort of as yet ill-defined secular philosophy of “do what thou wilt”. Don’t be surprised if the hard evidence for what Mr. Cameron and Mr. Jacobovici have to say turns out to be false. For all their talk of reverence for science and reason, there are ideologues on both sides of the aisle, and anti-Christians ideologues are no different from any other kind: Their belief in strict adherence to reason ends where their strict adherent to their own doctrine, religious or otherwise, begins.

The Menace of the Christian Left

Check out this great piece from Murray N. Rothbard on the horrors of the "religious left" and its potential thread to America and the world. The man was a libertarian and an atheist, but oftentimes a friend of Christianity and of Christians.

Quote of the Day

"If it's right and you don't want to do it-you don't know whats right and you're not a man." -Ayn Rand

Hat Tip: John Denmat

Prolong the Campaign

The following is a guest piece from libertarian pal of mine and LRC contributor Max Raskin

Prolong the Campaign

Charley Reese makes the argument that because of the length and cost of the upcoming election, we ought to abolish primary elections. While I agree with his sentiment and disgust with televised politicking, shortening the length of this campaign and its ability to target average citizens will only end up hurting the one real shot limited government has in this country—Ron Paul. A prolonged campaign will not only increase Paul’s chances of being elected, but will give him a platform to further the cause of liberty by reaching a larger number of people.



The more we find out about our candidates, the less we like them. As a culture we are constantly looking for people to slip-up because it makes great television. The reason why this rule doesn’t apply to Paul is because the more the public finds out about him, the more they will be exposed to the arguments for limited government. I can’t imagine Paul having any non-ideological skeletons in his closet, and he doesn’t seem like the kind of person to erupt in a fit of uncontrolled, Marxist histrionics . At best, the media would be able to say, “Look, he’s a racist, he voted against giving the Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks.” Fortunately, in a longer campaign, where his airtime would only increase, he would be able to not only explain the Constitutional rationale for his decision but the fact that he offered to donate his own money to cast the medal. As economist Ludwig von Mises points out, “In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas.” The longer Paul has a platform, the greater a chance he has of effecting a real change in this country.



Reese makes the point that, “Our present system means we will have as a president the candidate with the largest satchel full of political IOUs…the candidates will be forced to spend their time begging for money rather than thinking about ways to solve the nation's problems.” There are two main problems with this argument. First, I don’t think that it would be so terrible if Comrade Hillary and the other socialist candidates had to worry about appeasing the rich. The more a politician needs money, the more they are willing to compromise, and from a limited government perspective, any compromise away from statism is not bad. These people are devoid of principles anyway. The second problem with this argument is that it doesn’t speak to the good candidates. Ron Paul already knows that to solve the nation’s problems, the government needs to adopt laissez-faire approach to both domestic and foreign issues. As a doctor, Paul understands that trying to have the federal government solve our health care crisis would be like using a shotgun to cure a cancer. And it is clear from his record that Paul will not compromise his principles for anything, least of all to appeal to various interest groups.



It is clear, then, that if we want to see a proponent of individual liberty get elected, we must accept primaries and use them to our advantage. The primary election came out of the Progressive Era, and has done much to shift our political spectrum in a completely wrong direction. So why is it a good thing? Well, the fact is that although most grassroots movements seek to take away liberty, a Paul for President campaign will do the opposite. If the primary election is the best way to channel the will of the majority, then so long as the will of the majority is correct, primaries are a good idea—the majority just usually isn’t correct.



This time, however, there is much reason for optimism. With the Internet, Paul has the ability to create a massive grassroots movement that could mobilize all sorts of people to get him elected. Because he appeals to all different kinds of voters, they each can bring something to his big tent campaign. The time to abolish the primaries would be after Paul is elected (along with the Federal Reserve and 16th Amendment). For now, let us not fall into the trap of pessimism and defeatism, and instead use the existing system to our advantage.

The Vagaries of Price Controls

It comes as no surprise that, in response to skyrocketing inflation and a stagnant economy, President Hugo Chavez has Venezuela has responded with a series of sweeping price controls, threatening to arrest any who violate them and seize their businesses. After all, he is a socialist. What Mr. Chavez, and other socialists believe, is that price controls will simply stop evil corporations from raising the good of a given product higher than is “moral” or “just”. No harm, no foul, everyone gets what they want. Except those evil rich, of course.

The actual effects are much different. What price controls actually do is create a situation in which the price of a given good is below the equilibrium (it is possible that a price roof could be set above the equilibrium level for a good, but it would be irrelevant if this was the case, and have no effect on the buying or selling of that good). The sympton of this is that there are more people willing to buy the good in question than suppliers are willing to supply. The effect is age old and familiar, and is of course occurring in Venezuela right now: Shortages. Unlike in a free-price atmosphere, where some people, dealing with accurate price-data, would decide that the sum of money equal to the price of a given good was worth more to them than the good in question, government intervention keeps price data inaccurate. Markets are not allowed to clear as they do in a non-interventionist atmosphere, and we are faced with little more than a race among consumers to get to the supplier first. This policy led, in large part, to the oil crisis of the 1970s, and the all-too familiar queues for gas of that era. In Venezuela, they are creating shortages in perhaps the most necessary good of all: Food.

Besides simply creating shortages, these price controls actually unfairly benefit the wealthy, not the poor, as they are intended to. Firstly, because at the newly lower prices, wealthy consumers are much more likely to buy in great bulk, and because, should wealthy consumers be unable to satisfy their desires on price-controlled markets, they can afford to go to black markets. Rarely is this the case with the poor. Those not wealthy enough to buy in huge bulk, or access black markets for their goods, are thus left hung out to dry, their only hope to access goods (here, food) being getting there before anyone else. The nature of shortage-created queues makes this as well extremely unlikely.

Price controls are meant to punish the rich and benefit the poor, and undoubtedly that is Mr. Chavez’ intention here. What they do is punish is all, the poor more than the wealthy.

Legalizing Drugs in New Orleans

Walter Block has some insightful things to say about it.

Picture of the Week: Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc

Sadly, this chart uses logic no different from the majority of cases for man-made global warming. Yet for some reason, the world nods solemnly when Al Gore babbles.

The Dehumanizing Nature of Socialism

Hey, readers. Its been a while since I last posted, but I had to talk about this horrifying clip from the popular kid's movie, The Ant Bully

Check out the clip here

I'm sure that the left coast pinko-commies behind this scene only intended to indoctrinate children into the belief that socialism was good, capitalism bad. But in their choice of ants as the platform to convey their message, they prove far too much. Socialism is exactly what this clip mistakingly shows: Profoundly dehumanizing, devoted to the destruction of the individual and of personal liberty.

Indeed, what creatures could fit the socialist dream better than ants? They have no personalities, no thoughts, aspirations or dreams of their own. Incapable of happiness, they mindlessly serve their queen, to the point of unthinkingly marching to their death. How Stalin must have envied the ant queen!

I have previously covered here that the state is, since it lacks a price mechanism, utterly incapable of making rational economic calculations. This means much more than the mundane fact that bureaucrats will forever be clumsy and inefficient. It also means that the state will always be an inherently tyrannical structure. If the state makes the impossible attempt to tax us, and calculate for us how we would like to invest our resources, (as it so often does) than we become little more than ants, working mindlessly and endlessly, forever turning over the fruits of our labor to the queen, to use as is seen fit for the "good of the hive".

We are men, and not ants. Marxians want ants, and not men. Is it any wonder that the socialist states have always been aggressive to everything that speaks of individuals and individual aspirations? Whether it be religion, free expression of idea and speech, artwork, or simply the production of goods and services to improve the material life of the individual, socialism has tried to destroy them all. It would instead prefer that we remain poor and enslaved, ants with no thought of ourselves or our own dreams, living only to ensure the good of the "whole". Which of course really means the good of the state and its rulers.

Socialism would steal much more than our material wealth. It would steal our humanity, if we let it.

Thoughts at the end of the Season

Pretty good game first half, boring in the second I thought. Of course, I was rooting for the Bears, as an avid patriots fan, and an avid hater of Peyton Manning.

My thought on what we will see for teams next year:

The Bills and Dolphins will continue to go nowhere.

Chad Pennington is at core, I think, a good QB. Eric Mangini is a smart head coach and I think that the Jets are going to continue to develop into a very good team.

The Patriots are in a good position, I think, for next season. If Corey Dillon refuses to retire, Belichick should cut him. Laurence Maroney is an amazing player and more than ready to start at half back next season. Dillon was great, but is burning out fast. The Pats should use their two first round picks to get a receiver that Brady can throw too consistently and a defensive play maker. Jabar Gaffney is developing into a good receiver I think, but he is nowhere near ready to be a go to guy, and Reche Caldwell is not good enough to fill that role.

We will probably lose Asante Samuel in the off season, and Tedi Bruschi may also retire. So its obvious why we need a defensive play maker. We should use the rest of our draft picks to pick up some patches for the defense and maybe a few young offensive linemen.

If we do these things I think we will have a very good chance to win the Super Bowl next year.

The Ravens need to do something on offense. Their defense is great but offense is as mediocre as I have ever seen. I think that they will dominate their division again next season.

The Bengals...need to get some players that won't wind up in jail. I'm not sure there is anything that anyone can do to help the Browns right now.

The Steelers I am unsure about. What exactly their problem was this season is difficult to place one's finger on. I don't claim to know what they should do or where they will go.

As for the Texans...and the Jaguars, I can't see much in their future and don't know what to prescribe.

The Titans are going to continue to develop into a successful team I think. I believe they are on the right track and will soon be a contender for their division.

The Colts are seemingly a perfect team. I can think of nothing they need to do differently, if their defense plays next year like it did in this post-season. If its back up to its old tricks, then what they need to do is clear: Stop the run.

The Broncos need to do more things than I can list here to get back in the fray in a serious way.

The Chiefs need to get rid of Trent Green. Larry Johnson is a great player who they can build an offense around. Trent Green is a horrible QB, imo.

The Raiders will be pretty good next season I think, with Jamarcus Russell on QB and Randy Moss receiving. What should they do? Sit back and concentrate on rebuilding around Russell.

The Chargers are another team that really needs no changing. They were clearly the NFL's best team this season I think.

Its hard to put my finger on Dallas. They are teetering on the edge, and could either go big places or sink back into mediocrity. They need to get a competent new head coach who can work on building a successful team around Tony Romo.

The Giants...I don't see them doing anything. Tiki Barber has retired and Eli Manning is a horrible, horrible, QB. If they want to move ahead the first thing they need is a new QB, stat.

Eagles are in a pretty good position. Brian Westbrook has played very well as of late. They should continue to model their offense around him and it will be successful.

The Redskins I really don't know enough about.

Bears should get a new QB, as soon as possible.

The Lions should draft Brady Quinn I think, and then work on building a team around that high quality QB.

Green Bay needs to tell Brett Favre to hit the road. He is holding the Packers hostage.

The Vikings...should get a new team.

The Falcons can be good, if they would just build a West Coast Offense for Michael Vick instead of flipping back and forth about what they want to do.

The Panthers and the Buccaneers I know little about. The Saints don't need much changing. They are a great team and will continue to develop nicely. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they represent the NFC in the Super Bowl next year, as I thought they would this one.

The Cardinals, Rams, and 49ers need...a lot of work. Beyond that, I don't know what to say about them.

The Seattle Seahawks are a good team, they need to get their offense back firing on all cylinders again.

Predicting who will be in next year's Super Bowl the night of this one is a very good way to make a fool out of oneself. But if I really had to pick, I would say that next season would see the Saints or the Eagles facing off against a repeat Colts team.