Strange Happenings from the Alabama Election

Take a look at the instructions from the Alabama ballot:

"Votes for delegate candidates pledged to someone other than the voter's choice for President ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES."

In other words, you vote for the delegates of the candidate that you voted for and only those delegates. Now with that said, does someone want to try to explain this?

//Popular Vote
Ron Paul: 5.0% 30,494

//Delegate Votes
Ron's delegates Place 1: 75,385
Ron's delegates Place 2: 71,069
Ron's delegates Place 3: 67,953
Ron's delegates Place 4: 68,630

Sourced from peluski17 at the Daily Paul.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/220691

How is it that Ron Paul got more delegate votes than he received from the popular vote? At the very least, Paul must have received 75,000 votes (because voters can choose 4 delegates). So how is it that his popular vote total is less than half of the minimum that he could have actually received?

Something stinks in Alabama, and it isn't the water. If you are offended by the apparent vote manipulation, and even if you aren't a Ron Paul supporter this should offend you, then repost this on your blog. This should be headline news. If you care about the truth, then spread the word!

Results from the Alabama election can be viewed directly here:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/38312/75686/en/summary.html

The Slow Return Back, Part 2

As I slowly return to my posting habit, I want to point out something else that is irritating me. It is very specific and the problem is very obvious, but you shall not dare to talk about this. If you try to discuss this, you hate kids, the elderly, and the sick.

Now what could I be discussing that would garner this kind of personal attack against me? Let me first discuss the economic principle lying behind my contention. Economists have known for centuries that increasing demand raises price caeteris paribus. So naturally, we should expect that by trying to raise demand, that we will raise the price. When we speak in generalities, I assume that everyone would agree with this. Of course, we also have monetary inflation that plays a role in why prices rise.

So now finally to my point. I speak of course about financial aid, student loans, medicare, and medicaid. We wonder why prices rise so high in these areas more than any other, and it is because of these programs. Why is it that we cannot talk about this? What is so horrible about discussing these issues? These are apparently off-topic because the intended benefits are more important than the actual consequences? This seems to be a common theme that runs through American politics. It is disgusting, and it is aborrhent, yet it apparently is the modus operandi of our news media and politicians.

If we want to get out of the black hole we currently have of debt, unemployment, endless wars, and the increasing totalitarian nature of our national government, then we must always call for open dialogue, and we must make certain that we never engage in these emotional appeals that destroy free discussion. Until we demand this, the media will continue to suppress the truth by their logical fallacies, and the elite will retain control of the hearts of Americans (the fact that we are discussing a Romney v. Obama contest tells you how completely the elite dictates acceptable dialogue). Support independent blogs and alternative news sources. These are our way out of the intellectual cell the the elite have tried to lock us away into.

The Actual Employment Picture

With the talk of an improving economy especially with regards to unemployment numbers, what is an Austrian economist to do? After all, it was Austrians who predicted that the economy would start to crash, not improve. By all the recent data, it seems that these economists were wrong. Instead, the mainstream economists have triumphed and Austrians have once again been thrown out of the mainstream. Right?

The issue is that we are playing by the rules of the establishment economists. They produce all of the data. In essence, what they have done is set their employment numbers to show changes in unemployment. If employment numbers begin to stabilize, then their data will show that employment is actually recovering. Why is this a problem? Because what if we have stabilized in a horrible situation? And if we have, is there any way to prove it?

Fortunately for Austrians, there is. The graph of civilian-employment population ratio is not subject to the same fudging as unemployment numbers. There is a word of caution with using this data as social trends can also change the data (think housewives who started entering the workforce in the 1960s and '70s. Recently, there have not been any major changes like this, so this data should be pretty reliable. How does it look?

Is this really how we want our economy to stabilize? Does this look good to anyone? Can anyone defend this?