Muda69

But, but I just saw this on a website:

A winning strategy: https://i.imgur.com/9WRbcvS.gifv

It's probably not the Russian/Chinese/North Koreans/terrorists he is arming himself against, especially if other in Jennings County know he has a nice little stockpile when the shit hits the fan.

It is a well attached to a windmill or a hand pump? Better buy seeds.

Trump's Betrayal of Julian Assange: https://mises.org/wire/trumps-betrayal-julian-assange

I look forward to it.

I don't see why not.

CDC Warns Coronavirus Outbreaks Likely to Hit U.S.: https://gizmodo.com/cdc-warns-coronavirus-outbreaks-likely-to-hit-u-s-1841913357 I've got about 100 gallons of potable water and few 50 pound bags of rice stored in my basement. We should be ok. But still buying gold. And seeds.

Pete Buttigieg's Sovietesque Plan for Rural Revitalization: https://mises.org/wire/pete-buttigiegs-sovietesque-plan-rural-revitalization Who will recognize potential (great or small) in a struggling area? Acting men and women? Entrepreneurs seeking to satisfy consumer desires? No. Potential will be defined politically, just as in Russia and the former Soviet Union. And when populations in depressed areas are propped up for political reasons, more taxpayers dollars are likely to follow. Areas designated as impoverished by government already receive federal dollars. For the local politicians, federal largess is a cash cow. Federal appropriations include dollars earmarked for rural poverty assistance, road and infrastructure improvements, new and revitalized schools, etc. Whether it's the smooth asphalt on roads that have little residential or commercial traffic or war on poverty–type programs such as federal support for education, politicians—local, state, and federal—benefit at the polls by being the providers of this pork. However, struggling rural areas are impoverished because high-paying jobs do not exist there. So, instead of having acting individuals move to areas of economic prosperity, the feds attempt to chain rural residents to areas where the golden years are long gone. You hear the politicians claim that the infrastructure needs to be improved and then jobs will follow. And now Buttigieg wants additional residents, claiming that renewal will follow. This is similar to the pronouncements coming from the Soviet planners of yore. Both claims are fallacious and without merit. Building a new school and paving additional roads in declining rural regions will not encourage businesses to relocate any more than doing the same in Siberia resulted in long-term, sustainable enterprises, nor will adding citizens to an area that has no need for them. Business owners—entrepreneurs—are not fooled by the plaintive tales spun by the vote-hungry class. Businesses locate in the areas that their owners deem most profitable. The lure of paved roads, new schools, government support programs, and additional unemployed workers are not enough to counteract (say) the physical distance to market. Of course, by adding more residents (future citizens and voters) to these regions the government will lock even more voters in to lives of tax dependency. Federal dollars will be spent by local and state politicians in a manner not too different from that of the Soviet planners; local infrastructure will be increased where it is not needed, and fruitless support programs will be created or expanded. Sure, in the short run, some rural residents will benefit by being employed in these governmental works projects. But these very same residents will be unemployed once the projects or programs lose federal funding. The cycle of poverty will continue. As harsh as it sounds, the only way to improve the lives of the residents of struggling rural regions is to remove government support. Let these folks face the true cost of their decisions. Some will accept reduced lifestyles and remain to enjoy the natural features of these still wild regions, while others will migrate to areas where they can attain higher-paying jobs. Either way, acting individuals will demonstrate their preferences within a market environment. And US taxpayers will not have to continue funding what has become America's Siberia.

Resolution could make West Lafayette next to provide free tampons in all city restrooms: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2020/02/25/after-purdue-west-lafayette-could-provide-free-tampons-city-restrooms/4866635002/ Yet another "solution" looking for a problem that really does nothing but cost taxpayers more of their hard earned $.

If the coronavirus isn’t contained, a severe global recession is almost certain: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-the-coronavirus-isnt-contained-a-severe-global-recession-is-almost-certain-2020-02-24?&mod=home-page Time to buy gold. And seeds.

https://mises.org/wire/why-wall-street-bankers-and-federal-lawyers-hate-michael-milken In fact, what makes this pardon worse, according to Carroll, is that wealthy people—and even Rudy Giuliani himself, the man who led Milken’s prosecution—asked Trump to pardon him. In other words, some of those who have stood up for Milken are wealthy beyond a reasonable doubt, and if their names aren’t George Soros or Kennedy, they should just shut up and count their money. Indeed, I, too, am outraged by Trump’s pardoning Michael Milken, but the cause of my outrage is that Milken should have needed a pardon at all. That he was coerced into a guilty plea—for “crimes” that federal judges later would say were not criminal actions—and that he spent two years in a federal prison is the real outrage, and the fact that even after thirty years American political and legal elites still are holding to the same false narrative should raise the blood pressure of any person who believes in liberty, fairness, and the rule of law. For those readers who do not remember the infamous Wall Street prosecutions of more than three decades ago, the story does not have a happy ending. In his brief article celebrating the Milken pardon, David Gordon cites Murray Rothbard’s commentary on that era. Rothbard correctly identified it as a struggle between Michael Milken—a true financial genius who had a positive macroeconomic effect on the US economy—and the power elite. The story of Michael Milken does not begin with his guilty plea or even the start of the Wall Street predations led by Rudy Giuliani, who then was the US attorney for the Southern District of New York and used his success to launch his political career. Instead, it begins during the Great Depression, when the Franklin Roosevelt administration decided that America’s economic salvation lay in reorganizing the US economy into a series of cartels. Because of the huge rate of bank failures in the early 1930s, the New Dealers especially sought to cartelize the nation’s financial system, and although the system held together in the first two decades after World War II, by the 1970s it was clear that the heavily regulated and noncompetitive system was not up to enterprises tied in with the new technologies making their way into the economy. That is where Michael Milken and his high-yield bonds underwritten through the upstart investment bank Drexel Burnham stepped in. When CNN ran its story on the pardon with a snarky headline derisively calling Milken the “Junk Bond King” (and falsely intimating that he was convicted of insider trading and calling him the “face of greed,” another misnomer), the story failed to point out that CNN’s very existence is due to the fact that Milken underwrote its financing through those “junk bonds” that CNN’s talking heads now are deriding. The cartelized banking system was not about to finance a 24-hour news channel, something the “experts” were panning, and especially not one founded by the iconoclastic Ted Turner and to be headquartered in Atlanta and not New York. Milken also led the financing for McCaw Cellular and MCI, both of which helped to revolutionize telecommunications and upset the status quo. However, as Rothbard points out, Milken’s real “sin” was to be a major force in financing the wave of mergers and hostile takeovers that challenged the progressive status quo in corporate America and the mainstream media. Rothbard wrote: He continued: The Wall Street establishment had its own weapon in Giuliani, who saw an opportunity to permanently ingratiate himself with New York’s political and financial ruling classes, which would prove to be valuable to him when he later became the city’s mayor. Both Daniel Fischel and Harvey Silverglate have written definitive books in which they detail the abusive way that federal prosecutors went after the financial upstarts using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. I also detailed Giuliani’s predations in Regulation a decade ago: Giuliani made it clear that he had targeted Milken for prosecution no matter what, and given the malleability of federal criminal law, Giuliani was able to channel the infamous Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s state security head who once declared, “Find me the man, and I will find you the crime.” Giuliani’s strategy was simple: denounce Milken to a hungry press and feed journalists what for all purposes was disinformation. Select reporters such as James Stewart and Laurie P. Cohen of the Wall Street Journal and journalists at the New York Times received illegally leaked material from the grand jury. Although such leaks are felonies, federal prosecutors are not in the habit of indicting themselves, and the lawless behavior of Giuliani and the elite financial press sent a signal to Milken and everyone else in the federal crosshairs that the rule of law did not apply when the feds were engaged in a popular “war on greed.” Using the RICO statute enabled Giuliani and his staff to take regulatory violations that normally were handled in the civil arena by the Securities and Exchange Commission and bundle them into “racketeering” charges. At the same time, federal prosecutors constantly threw out the accusations of insider trading, even though they never charged Milken with such “crimes” (and had they had real evidence, there is no doubt that they would have levied that charge, too). However, the progressive American media picked up the “insider trading” narrative and ran with it, just as they did with Martha Stewart (who also did not engage in that act). While prosecutors levied the usual “fraud” charges against Milken that one sees in federal prosecutions, the actual charges were weak, something that really would come to light when federal judges later deep-sixed identical charges against other Wall Street defendants in future trials. Milken, however, pleaded guilty, something that Carroll writes is proof of his guilt: Actually, Carroll seems to be quoting himself regarding the “technical” and “regulatory” aspect of Milken’s so-called crimes, since it was Carroll who bragged to Rutgers University law students in 1992 that the government had broken new ground in this case. Federal prosecutors, he said, In other words, Milken and Carroll made the same claims, but now Carroll somehow wants to say that only Milken was saying such a thing. This speaks volumes about Carroll’s integrity. So why did Milken plead guilty? Even had a Manhattan jury convicted him, the appellate courts almost certainly would have overturned the convictions as they did for the Princeton-Newport defendants. Milken pleaded because federal prosecutors essentially took hostages. First, they aimed their guns at Milken’s 92-year-old grandfather, threatening to prosecute him. Then they indicted Milken’s brother, Lowell. However, they promised Michael that if he pleaded guilty, they would drop the charges against his brother and not prosecute his grandfather. As Giuliani would quip, “A brother for a brother.” More than three decades have passed since Milken pleaded guilty, his case still brings out the long knives. It doesn’t matter that federal prosecutors committed felony after felony and lied about Milken’s activities. It doesn’t matter that Milken probably broke no criminal statutes and that the advances in finance that he helped create were immeasurable. Nor does it matter that Milken has been a major player in researching prostate cancer—and he even reached out to Giuliani when the latter was stricken with prostate cancer. No, Michael Milken was responsible for the nonexistent “Decade of Greed.” The New York Times says so. Barron’s says so. The Washington Post says so. Even CNN says so, and Fox News also got into the “greed” act. The narratives, however, are built on something other than the truth. Rothbard puts the whole thing into perspective: As one of comments to this story says "Never a day goes by that I don't have to lower my opinion of government." Despicable abuse of power by the government.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/removing-a-gps-tracking-device-from-your-car-isnt-theft-court-rules/?comments=1 A good decision by the Indiana Supreme Court. Kudos to them.

https://mises.org/wire/abolish-government-schools Agreed. The entire edifice surrounding government K-12 education needs to be dismantled. It is overall a waste of resources, resources that could be better utilized by private sector education.

https://reason.com/2020/02/24/competing-brands-of-authoritarianism-are-all-trump-and-democratic-candidates-offer/ Agreed. There is nothing about the uni-party that is attractive to those who truly value personal freedom and individual responsibility.

It must be nice to be perfect.

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

All is see is a square, no image or anything. Sorry.

I had checked all those sources, none answered my question. I assume it was a consolidation of at least Gas City and Jonesboro's government schools.

Yep. It's located in Terre Haute...................

I'm curious. Is the current Mississinewa Community Government School Corporation the result of consolidation(s), and if so from what communities/towns/townships? Always wondered why it just was't called Gas City High School.

Please expound on this "Public Ivy" designation. I have never heard of it before now.

https://reason.com/2019/07/18/the-new-conservative-nationalism-is-about-subverting-individual-liberty/ Scary, scary time for America. Where personal liberty, individuals initiative, and personal responsibility are downplayed and subservience to the power and "wisdom" of the state are championed.

Exactly what kind of "approach" do you personally prefer regarding discussions about politics on an internet message forum? Are there internet message forums out there with this kind of "approach" regarding political discussions that you prefer, and are you active one them?

That sounds like you Dante, a sample size of one causes you to over react.