http://wokv.com/..

The Duval County Supervisor of Elections Office has released the list of write-in candidates from the 2008 presidential election.

The list includes 736 votes in all, covering 191 different candidates.

Hillary Clinton topped all write-ins with 234 votes. Ron Paul had 174. The 3rd most votes? Jesus with 23.

Some of the others in the political arena receiving votes included Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Al Gore.

Two people wanted and thought it was possible to get 4 more years out of President George W. Bush. Condoleeza Rice, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Pat Buchanan, and Charlie Crist also had support.

One person wrote in Ralph Nader, ignoring the circle they could’ve filled in to signify that choice.

Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid, and Theodore Roosevelt also garnered support. One person just wrote Lieberman.

Jay Plotkin lost the race for State Attorney, but his 1 vote beat Angela Corey in the presidential race. And the hyrbid candidate Hilary Bush got a vote!?

In the battle of the Bills - Bill Cosby and Bill Nye both received 2, beating Bills Clinton and Richardson with one apiece.

Morgan Freeman got a vote

Chuck Norris did too.

Mr. Bill - yes, the fictional clay figure - also was chosen by someone to lead the country.

Oprah Winfrey endorsed Obama but one person out there said ‘no, Oprah, I want you!”.

Many names weren’t celebrities. Jacksonville resident Wayne Bryan says he voted for himself because he “didn’t like his choices”. When asked if he was ready to lead on day one if elected, he admitted probably not.

America got a vote. My dog. A bear. Mickey Mouse.

UF beat FSU as Tim Tebow received 2 votes with Seminole coach Bobby Bowden getting just one.

Jon Bon Jovi, someone honest, Tiger Woods, Tommy Chong, and perhaps the greatest write-in candidate of all time: Twice cooked pork $4.95

I think I have to agree with the last statement. Twice cooked pork $4.95 would have been the best president ever. Even better then William Henry Harrison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

When it comes down to it… the climate changes regardless of humanity. The human caused global warming alarmists are losing credibility constantly yet they many have more faith in their predictions then Jesus. Numbers fudged, data point biases ignored, all contrary data dismissed without serious consideration and the shutting up of all those who speak out, and perhaps worse… ignoring the economic realities of the situation and instead of making practical plans to deal with the possible warming and seeing if it would actually be a negative they preach doom.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

For all of the talk of Krugman receiving his recent Nobel Prize for his theories on trade, nonetheless it seems to me that the committee was awarding the prize posthumously to John Maynard Keynes. Krugman, after all, is not a “neo-Keynesian;” no, he is a true-blue, out-and-out old time religion Keynesian.

His latest column, “Let’s Get Fiscal,” is right out of Keynes’ General Theory. While not using the term “liquidity trap,” nonetheless Krugman describes such a situation, and then offers “fiscal policy” as a way out:

…there’s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.

He then ends with the following howler:

If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.He should ignore that chorus. The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

Oh, yes. The Beltway crowd calls for “fiscal restraint.” Right. Krugman must have bought some pretty powerful weed with that $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel.

I know it wasn’t for his recent writings and I suppose it’s not as bad as the whole Al Gore thing… but… really…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Given the horrible state of the economy and the idiocy coming from mainstream economists, I would have thought that nobody would win the Nobel Prize in Economics this year. Instead, the Swedish Central Bank and its minions have awarded this prize to none other than Paul Krugman.

That’s right, a man who gave up economics long ago in order to become a political operative now wears the title of “Nobel” winner.

STOCKHOLM, Oct 13 (Reuters) - American economist Paul Krugman won the 2008 Nobel prize for economics for bringing together analysis of trade patterns and where economic activity takes place, the prize committee said on Monday.The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said the prestigious 10 million crown ($1.4 million) prize recognised Krugman’s formulation of a new theory to answer questions driving world-wide urbanisation.

“He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography,” the committee said in its statement.

Just as the Nobel people committed fraud last year giving its Peace Prize to Al Gore (who advocates violence against people who burn coal), the Nobel in Economics this year goes to a person who has no understanding whatsoever of prices and markets.

Unfortunately, he now will be in an even greater position of influence, a man who has declared publicly that we need another “New Deal,” and a man who believes that FDR lifted the economy out of the Great Depression. A man who believes war is good for the economy. A man who rarely says an intelligent thing in his column.

Indeed, this is another dark episode in economics. Prepare for many more, as Krugman now is going to have a prominent place in the upcoming Obama government.

Krugman now will be on the same level as the truly deserving economist F.A. Hayek? Sad. This man needs no more influence in the world. In the long run it can only be negative.

Most historians are liberty hating statists. So what if they think he is the greatest president? His desire to unconstitutionally and anti-liberally hold the states together led to the death of a greater percentage of Americans then any other war. His obsession with keeping the union together at the threat of war, his instigation of the war, the reality that he didn’t much care about the slavery issue or freedom of speech and association, etc. is not the makeup of a great constitutional republic executive. It’s the makeup of a tyrant and a dictator and a bigot.

There is already evidence that Obama is a bigot and an anti-liberal (in the traditional sense) nationalist. Perhaps the comparison is fitting. Lets hope that’s where the similarities end.

It’s funny that the supposed liberal party idolizes a Republican who started the largest war this nation ever saw. A war against its own people. Against its own constitution. Someone who printed money, used to the government to help out the railroads and made money from it, suspended habeas corpus, arrested and jailed his political opponents, who jailed the press, who had no real concern for the slaves, who freed no one.

Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Entertaining and interesting. As I’ve said before, it’s good to see another face putting out these ideas on a national forum. Doesn’t say he’ll run but he really doesn’t seem to say he won’t. “Give me ballot access and all beat them all.” Will anyone in the LP approach him? There are a lot of LP candidates right now and I don’t know that we need another… but Ventura is surely better than a good portion of them.

You really have to love how partisan and clueless those pundits are. Jesse is up there ripping the system a new one and pundits try to classify him as simply as a “independent voter.”