The Midas Touch

Some months ago, back when it seemed that he might actually matter in some small way, I was talking to a Ron Paul supporter. He angrily demanded to know why I was amused that anyone would take Dr. Paul seriously.

I said that one of the many, many crazy plans Dr. Paul had for this country was to move us back to the gold standard, and I pointed out that China mined more gold every year than the US. While the US was in the top three, Russia was not that far behind. Did anyone in their right mind want to simply hand that kind of power to Russia and China? What happened if they cut back on production, and the gold supply dried up?

Since that conversation, China has moved into first place so far as gold production. I never thought Dr. Paul had even the ghost of a chance, but it is certainly a good thing he didn’t.

But remember how I said that the reason why it was a bad idea was because China and Russia might collude to squeeze off the gold supply? Looks like Obama’s policies might be doing something similar.

Follow that last link and read how a gold investor thinks that confiscation is now possible. Hey, it happened under FDR!

Who’s Left?

The headline reads “Obama losing some support among nervous Dems”. Fair enough, but I found the following paragraph to be very interesting.

“In Missouri, which Obama narrowly lost to McCain, Democratic strategist Steve Glorioso said hardcore base voters were as enthusiastic as ever for Obama but that there was a sense of disappointment about him among less committed Democrats and independents.”

So the dyed-in-the-wool Dems are still rah-rah-rah for their guy, but the shine has worn off for independents and “less committed” Democrats.

Look at it like this. True Conservatives will always balk at Obama because of his statist policies. Those who drank the Liberal kool-aide will always love their guy no matter what.

That means the phrase “less committed Democrats and independents” actually refers to just about everyone who might change their minds. Right?

(Hat tip to Glenn.)

An Example For Others

CNN has announced that they will not renew the contract for reporter Susan Roesgen. (Details here and here.)

Ms. Roesgen became nationally famous after she vigorously argued, on air, with Chicago TEA Party protesters she was in the process of interviewing. She characterized the protests as…

“… anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox.”

But it was her smug, superior exchanges with other protesters that really got people riled. Lucky thing Founding Bloggers were there to catch it all on tape.

I wrote to CNN after the story broke, pointing out that Fox had actually fired veteran, award-winning reporter Rebecca Aguilar after the badgering she was giving to a 70-year-old man caused him to break down into tears during an interview. At the time, I openly wondered if Fox was going to prove to be the more ethical cable news channel. With Ms. Roesgen’s firing, CNN has proven that they can at least rise to the same standard set by so-called Conservatives if they strive mightily.

Of course, Fox is being sued by Ms. Aguilar, who claims that the firing was based on racial prejudice. This is not something CNN has to worry about, as Ms. Roesgen is not a racial minority, so they certainly aren’t at much risk. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that CNN has finally done the right thing.

(Hat tip to Glenn.)

Talking Tough

The following is the first paragraph from this Telegraph UK op-ed.

“No apologies for posting consecutively on Barack Obama: the Looney Tunes President’s sell-out of US and Western interests is proceeding at such a speed that it is difficult to keep pace. Well said, Nile Gardiner, for asking if Barack Obama is the most naïve president in American history. The answer is undoubtedly yes – unless he has a secret agenda to cut America down to size.”

And then the author gets kind of harsh.

(Hat tip to The Cryptic Subterranean, and this essay is cross-posted over at Hell in a Handbasket.)

We Are Number One!

The headline reads “US demand for handguns driving world gun trade.”

More than half of all of the legally imported handguns in the world, and about 43% of the total imported shotguns, are sent to the United States. While international trade in weapons has boomed in the past decade, it is largely fueled by sales in handguns.

Self defense, baby! And I’m a part of it!

Just trying to do what I can to make the world a better place, and expand the global marketplace.

(Cross posted at Hell in a Handbasket.)