Sen Lindsey Graham

Sen Graham has chosen to put himself in company with Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney in turning his back on the choice of his party for the office of President of the US. He has said, ““It’s hard to believe that in a nation of more than 300 million Americans Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be our choices for president,”

Not mentioned is that Sen Graham was on the candidate’s stage of losers running for the office of Presidential Candidate right along with the winning candidate Mr Trump.

But like Mr Romney and Mr Bush, Mr Graham didn’t have what the people were looking for in a President – like something DIFFERENT than what we’ve seen from the losers we’ve been stuck with for years – like the entire Bush clan, the Clintoons, and the current national disaster and probable non-US-citizen Obummer.

So now Mr Graham has gone to his political pantry and pulled out a large basket of sour grapes, saying that he, “cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as commander in chief,”

Sounds like a bad case of bad loser to me.

Perhaps Mr Grumpy Loser Graham has forgotten how things work. Like for example that a train is run by the engineer up at the front of the train, not by the people hitching a ride in the back. And if you want to be the engineer, you have to work really hard to become qualified to run the train, and to convince the people that you ARE qualified – something that most politicians only think they have done.

If you wanna ride the train you have to get on board or it will just pass you by leaving you in the grass and weeds at track side.

So Mr Graham, put the sour grapes away, because the team cars are where all the interesting stuff is going to happen, and if you’re not in one of those seats you’ll end up as just another self-serving “also-ran” who did nothing to help the nation or the party because it was all about you.

And one day, when you’re old and smell bad you’ll be sitting in the nursing home where your whining will just be another irritation to the staff. And to the empty space around you you’ll say the same things every day, several times a day.

“I coulda been President! I ran for it, but it was stolen from me by some nobody. I’d have been a good president. I’d have done the same things that the presidents before me did…. Maybe I should have tried for a staff spot…”

The seats are filling up…

Loser Cruz

Cruz just threw away any chance he had to win, and any possible political career he may have had. He took any respect he had gained in politics, and flushed it away.

I grew up in a working class neighborhood. There were things you did, and things you did NOT do. If you got in a fight with another guy you did your best and maybe you went home crying if you lost… and that was okay. Everybody loses fights sometimes, and if you have a reason, crying was okay too. It happens to everybody.

And if, while the fight was in progress, your mama saw it happening, and you were really getting stomped, she’d come down and run the bigger kid(s) off. You lost no respect for that ’cause everyone knew you don’t mess with mamas. As your mama dragged you off, comments might be made about finishing the fight in the future , but the key thing was you didn’t lose respect just because your mama saved you. Mamas are mamas. They are an elemental force that even the neighborhood “tough guys” didn’t push.

And if you’d fought hard before your mama’s intervention, you might even get an upgrade in status ’cause you weren’t quitting.

But you didn’t CALL your mama to save you. And if you had a mean big sister, you didn’t let her save you either. The neighborhood guys might fear your sister, and respect her, but that didn’t help YOU any. If you hid behind your sister’s skirts, no matter how mean she was, that would strip you of any possibility of gaining respect.

ie –  Win, lose, or draw, if you wanted to be respected, sooner or later you had to fight your own battles. Period. And you didn’t call on your sister to bail you out.

Cruz just hollered for his sister to come beat up on Trump.

In my opinion, he just lost any possibility of winning. He will henceforth be viewed by anyone who grew up in a working class neighborhood as a “mama’s boy.” In my opinion, Cruz just threw any possibility of a political career away.

In the process, she also threw away any possible career in politics she may have had.

Cruz may have eventually lost the election, but sometimes it’s not whether you win or lose that matters, but how you play the game.

And what if he does get elected as President? When Putin insults him, and after this he would, is Cruz going to send Carly to beat him up?

Yeah… it’s old school. Yeah… the world has supposedly changed what with women’s rights and all. But if a guy wants other guys to respect him, there are things a guy just doesn’t do. And I’m wondering if the women don’t look at it the same way?

So now I’m just sitting here shaking my head. What was he thinking?


Money, money, money…

Got money? Some information to help you understand where we are, and where we’re going…

Over the centuries, various things have been called “money” and used as such. Below are links to help you understand what is sometimes used as “money” – and how well it will serve the function of money in an economy.
One thing you MUST know is that throughout history a lot of what has been used as money did not last very long. If you “save” money for the future, make sure that your saved “money” will still be “money” (ie still be spendable) when you need it. Trust is a fine thing – but can be VERY expensive. The links below might help you to understand how to go about getting along in  a world of “money.”
Over the centuries metals and other durable items and sometimes some NOT so durable,  (stone statues, frequently, land, food, cloth…) have been used as “money”. So we can say “money” is anything that can be used as a source of value, and that can be exchanged for goods and services.
Some things are easily exchanged. If I give you a couple of copper coins for a potato latke and we’re both happy, both the copper coins and the potato latke have functioned as money.
Or say I decide I don’t like the weather where I live and resolve to live elsewhere – but I “own” the land I live on and raise food on. So you give me a handful of gold discs and I give you a piece of paper that describes the land (with or without a house on it) that tells the community that henceforth YOU will be the land owner instead of me, and I move elsewhere, and we’re both happy.
As above, some things better represent “value” and are more easily exchanged for “value” than other things. (Such things can be tangible or intangible items.)
So whatever you use as “money” there are certain characteristics of whatever you use for money that makes some forms of it better (more transportable, more durable, easier to carry or conceal, etc) than others.
Historically, due to relative scarcity and easy “portability” of gold and silver, they have been used as “money”. Sometimes pieces of paper, printed or just written on with signatures are used as “money.”
In the “modern” world, most societies use government printed “notes” for money.
So when someone offers to pay you for something – what forms of money will you take in payment? Below are some articles that will tell you how long you may have to spend that money before it isn’t money any more, and why paper money is less than wonderful when it comes to being used as money.
BTW – you’ve heard the term “fiat” currency? – that is (paper) money that is money NOT because it has or represents any actual real world value, but because and ONLY because the government SAYS it’s money. If the government is overthrown, or goes broke, fiat currency is worthless… which makes it somewhat risky to take in payment for durable goods or to plan to “save” it for a future use/endeavor.
Some examples of past currencies… (pictures – including the 100 trillion dollar note from Zimbabwe)


More interesting information on the subject


The Bees Are In Buzzness! (AKA Summer is ON!!!)

The Apricot Tree Cafe is open and the bees are lining up for the Lunch Special!

For the last three weeks they have been collecting what looks like pollen, but may be something from pine trees… but we’re not sure. Today they are getting the Real Deal Nectar and Pollen from the Apricot trees!!! We have three that are in bloom, and a 4th that is supposed to be an apricot tree, but we’ve yet to see a blossom on it… but it’s young yet so maybe later or next year.

The almond trees are just starting to form leaves. Next in the Bee’s Hit Parade should be the cherry trees.

When The Economy Goes “Cashless”

When the economy goes “cashless”:

As I understand it, 100% of worker’s pay will become “deposits”, “deposits” that the banks will steal a portion of (fees?), so to limit the “fees”, the workers (“involuntary depositors” to banks) will stop making “voluntary deposits” cold since they won’t have any “money” to make them with, leaving the banks with NO (that’s zero) working capital for loans of all kinds – business loans, inventory loans, and etc. except what they’ve stolen from the workers and businesses.

The main goal of the “new economy” will be to avoid dealing with the banks or with “money” at all. Some think that the money will be held captive by banks, who will be free to loot at will. But that probably won’t happen. When someone “sells” something to someone else, they will probably not take credit transfers or checks since that would route the transaction results through the banks, and the sale amount would be reduced by a bank fee, (perpetual skimming at every level on every transaction) So when someone sells something, they will demand a form of payment that is NOT “money”.

The construction industry will crash and burn because the only “money” that will remain in banks over a few hours from “deposits” will be the amounts that will need to pay for “customer’s spending” (the use of bank credit to purchase real goods, thus removing customer’s “money” from the bank) So after a “customer’s” pay is spent, there will be no “surplus” deposits to lend out… (except the phantom/imaginary money created by the “magic” of Fractional Reserve money creation.) If the depositors spend every dime they can, with as close to zero left on deposit as they can get, this will amount to the banks literally creating money out of nothing, and will lead to devaluation of the “money” at a “hyper-sonic rate.” ie it will amount to the same thing as the Fed creating “money” out of nothing, which they already do, – and the value of that “money” will BE nothing, as it already is.

ie It will lead to rapid and total destruction of the economy.

And the above (and other stuff) will happen because just like hyperinflation, workers will be immediately converting their worthless bank deposits (formerly called “wages” or “money”) to real property. I can see people in effect becoming “Toaster Kings” – buying stuff that they can not actually use but can easily trade for other stuff. In Wiemar the idea was to get the hyper-inflated cash from your pay and spend it as quickly as possible, in effect getting rid of the “cash” before it lost its value, then trading the proceeds for other goods and services.

This activity has the immediate effect of trading worthless “bank money” (amounts on deposit) for something with real value – ie the people will create their OWN definitions of cash, and will “spend” it at leisure without the banks stealing it or being able to get their hands on it.

In a cashless society, where your entire pay will be deposited into banks, the banks will steal as much as they can before you get a chance to spend it. If you leave your pay, or part of your pay in the bank, sooner or later the bank will take it, so the idea will be to get as much of your pay out of the bank’s clutches as soon as possible. Thus the bank only gets one shot at stealing it before you’ve “spent it”, ie converting it to tangible/trade-able commodities.

Of course, the banks will eventually attempt to limit spending by their “customers” so the banks can control your “money.” But that will lead to resentment and possibly violence as the money the workers worked for will be totally controlled by the banks and not be available to the workers, thus making them literal slaves. So why are the workers working? To provide the banks with money that the workers can’t spend? Uh huh… we all know where that will lead. Why work if you can’t earn money and spend it?

End result? Total destruction of the economy.

“Cashless economy”? Wiemar/hyper-inflation? Absolutely zero difference in effect.

Read “When Money Dies” by Fergusson, and think of the effects of a cashless/money-less society.

Headline Madness

I love political campaign season. That’s when incompetent/careless writers get to write stuff that actually gets published.

The reason I love it so much is catching the funny headlines and comments that come across as something entirely different than the writer may have intended.

The presumed unintentional bon mot du jour? From a web site called “The Hill” ( comes this report:

“Wife of Redskins Owner Donated To Trump.”

Did the donor consider that perhaps Mr Trump might have preferred cash? Perhaps an alert reporter could ask Mr Trump if he liked the donation?

Banks Want to Eliminate “Cash”? Sounds like a good idea to me.

I’m reading the articles about the bankers and the economy “going cashless” in order to control spending and all the other specious “reasons” they give for eliminating “cash” – yet it seems that not ONE article writer has the nerve to let the dirty little “secret” out of the closet – that being that none of them dares to DEFINE “cash”.

In all articles I’ve seen, every “economist” seems to assume that “cash” is paper “money”, or a ledger number that refers to paper “money”. Some have the nerve to refer to “money substitutes” (analogs such as gold, silver, etc)… but NONE of them address the idea that if the banks succeed in eliminating “cash” – they will also eliminate the need for banks.

Why do I say that? Because the people out here who don’t live in academia or in the confines of a Fed building will soon forget about the Fed and “government money” as they buy two gallons of gasoline in exchange for a chicken, a new car tire for 20 quarts of tomatoes, or a shirt for a pint of honey. Or if you are dealing in larger transactions, how about a tanker of West Texas Crude in exchange for the construction of a small office building?

“Money” can be anything that facilitates an exchange of goods or services and is mutually acceptable to both parties. Have the mavens, the Oligarchs of Finance, forgotten how for the vast majority of history there was no “money”? Everything was paid for with barter or a sliver of gold or silver or copper. (Pennies minted after 1982 would be worthless.)

So in the real world, by “going cashless” they will give up any control over the economy that they now have and render themselves to be of little to no use or effect in the greater economy.

Another effect of the world returning to a barter economy would be that governments would have to shrink considerably as they couldn’t afford to pay for things. If a government assessed taxes in the form of pounds of potatoes, it would become difficult to collect and store. And the government that didn’t pay for things, that just took them, wouldn’t be tolerated very long.

Sounds to me like a thing to be wished and hoped for.

The Dem Iowa Caucuses – A Correction for the Mess Media

ON the toob and the radio and in the press I keep hearing that Hillary Clin-toon “won” the Democrat primary/caucuses in Iowa.

No. She did not.

When an election is held, the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes… or at least more votes than their opponent. Hillary did not do that. She was “declared” the “winner” by virtue of flipping coins – 6 (+/-) times.

Were the coins that were flipped over 18 years of age? (ie were they old enough to vote?) Were those coins registered to vote? I’m doubting it.

So how can anyone say that Hillary “won” an election. Seems to me she won 6 (+/-) coin tosses, not an election. And were the coins used examined by both candidates and their staffs to determine if they were “fair and honest” coins? Or were they weighted to come up repeatedly with one side or the other up?

And what were the odds that six separate precincts (+/-) would have tie votes, necessitating a tie-breaking procedure? I’m betting they were less than 6. Tie votes happen but rarely – and the more “voters” (caucus goers) who show up at the caucus for their precinct, the lower the odds that there will be a tie.

Looking at articles on the internet, I see more than one that reports what appears to be “funny business.” This is actually fairly common for Iowa Democrats.

So who “won” the Iowa election? To answer that question we have to look at the idea that has circulated for a while that the winner of the Iowa Caucuses has yet to win the Presidency. IF that is true, then it introduces a whole new perspective on the “win or lose” issue because if true, then to “win” in Iowa is to “lose” the general election! So perhaps Hillary should have had her minions cheat in order to LOSE the Iowa caucuses?

Well… stand by folks and watch as we are reminded once again that cheaters cheat, and politicians lie. As to whether the “winner” “won” or “lost” in the final analysis, time will tell.

Global Warming? How About A Little Ice With That?

I was looking at my daily “favorite” web pages this morning and found this little gem on the page.


That sounded interesting, so I read the article. The article included these two paragraphs:

“Cosmic rays, which are accelerated toward Earth by distant supernova explosions and other violent events, are an important form of space weather. They can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes. Indeed, our measurements show that someone flying back and forth across the continental USA, just once, can absorb as much ionizing cosmic radiation as 2 to 5 dental X-rays. Likewise, cosmic rays can affect mountain climbers, high-altitude drones, and astronauts onboard the International Space Station.

This type of radiation is modulated by solar activity. Solar storms and CMEs tend to sweep aside cosmic rays, making it more difficult for cosmic rays to reach Earth. On the other hand, low solar activity allows an extra dose of cosmic rays to reach our planet. Indeed, the ongoing increase in cosmic ray intensity is probably due to a decline in the solar cycle. Solar Maximum has passed and we are heading toward a new Solar Minimum. Forecasters expect solar activity to drop sharply in the years ahead, and cosmic rays are poised to increase accordingly. Stay tuned for more radiation.”

So I’m thinking… “That might explain the nearly 19 years (+/-) of moderating (read static) global temps.” Now, solar cycles generally last about 11 years, but this last one was kind of a dud. If you look at a chart of solar cycles over the last couple of hundred years (or longer) you’ll see the intensity of them represented on a saw-tooth pattern of intensity of solar activity… Re Solar intensity: some are UP, and some are DOWN, and they seem to run in progressive cycles.

My “assistant weather and garden planning person” (aka “The Boss”, Aka my wife) have been watching these cycles for some time, and noting the trends. So we have made our own projections and thus have been planning our garden efforts to adapt to a cooling temp trend.

So reading the above, I noticed the mention of Cosmic Rays… and wondered if they have much of an effect on Earth weather patterns. So… I’m looking for REAL SCIENCE articles, (mere mention of “Global Warming” aka AGW was a disqualifying factor in my considering what is “real science” and what is not) and I found this article on the “Watts Up With That” page.

Cosmic Rays and Climate – to be or not to be?
—— —— —— —— —— —— —— ——
” Dr Norman Page
November 6, 2013 at 1:56 pm

In discussing the cosmic ray – temperature connection in a recent guest post 10/29 on WUWT
and originally at
I said
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
I think the connection is very clear in the Steinhilber paper.
A quick look at Benestad suggests that he took no account of the possible lag 12 year lag between the Cosmic ray count and the temperatures, Thus the cosmic ray minimum at about 1991 (Solar Max}{[ equates quite nicely with the recent temperature trend peak at about 2003.
Kirkby’s analysis would fit in well with my approach and cooling forecast.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”

—— —— —— —— —— —— —— ——

It was merely interesting until I hit point 7, which got my attention. Then at point 8 Dr Page performed the now usual mandatory genuflection toward AGW High Priest Hansen, before going on to point 9 which was a well executed sneer at point 8. (As in “Now tell us what you REALLY think.”)

“The Boss” and I have been planning for point 9 for a few years now. We are working on designing “low tunnels” (as opposed to “high tunnels”) for growing veggies/greens… and looking for short stemmed grain varieties. If we can’t find any, we may have to develop our own.

(During the Little Ice Age, many starved because their long stemmed grain “lodged” which with the excessive rain pattern dumped the grain into the mud. BUT despite this, we learned that during this period, farmers in France had developed techniques to grow fresh greens during the winter and actually were able to sell greens to the people in Paris throughout the winters and cold periods!)

So… just thought I’d throw out a bit of info that may or may not be useful to others. From the recent meteorological history and our recent garden experience, as far as we’re concerned one thing is sure… the Global Warming meme is toast.