The Plenum

A little Cultural Edification (Pun! Funny!)

2008-02-24T21:58:00.001-08:00

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

There he goes again

2008-02-21T16:45:00.000-08:00

Hey all, I'm back from my work-induced hiatus. Much has happened since I left blogging - strange mysterious circumstances, like my devilfication at the hands of Google (click here for details) to much more mundane things like going to Nevada and Maine. So as I get back in to the swing of things here, a brief question: Who would win?

Confronting Your Inner Daemons

2007-10-25T08:58:00.000-07:00

Apparently, my inner daemon is a raccoon. According to the "Golden Compass" movie website. I enjoyed those books, although they were massively depressing in the end. More info on my daemon's bad self:

The coolest machine EVAR

2007-10-22T07:25:00.000-07:00

This is exactly what I needed this morning. I could have turned on this machine, gotten in the shower, and ran upstairs to a piping hot bowl of Ramen noodles. And the kitchen in flames. But whatever, HOT SOUP! NO EFFORT! RUBE GOLDBERG! WATCH WATCH WATCH!

What's most important in this upcoming election?

2007-10-18T05:56:00.001-07:00

The Onion always amuses me. For those at work, beware! There be salty language here.

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Bushido Beef

2007-10-17T07:56:00.000-07:00

Wow, I need to go to Ninja New York. This video is more or less self-explanatory.

Fairfield County Ron Paul Meetup in the Media

2007-10-16T09:50:00.000-07:00

All right! We made the front page of The Norwalk Hour! Thank you to Amanda Pinto, staff writer from The Hour, for writing this fair and balanced piece. Text follows:

Area supporters rally to boost Paul campaign
BY AMANDA PINTO

Beside a row of glossy lawn signs supporting local Common Council and Board of Education candidates, a hand-scrawled poster board hung on a Main Avenue telephone poll.

Its message was simple: "Google Ron Paul."

Paul, a Texas congressman vying for the Republican presidential nomination, has been the subject of some attention as his burgeoning support on Web sites such as YouTube and Facebook seemingly contradict less than 1 percent backing shown in recent polls.

The anti-war GOP candidate also garnered $5 million in fundraising over the past three months, due perhaps, to a groundswell of grassroots support growing throughout the country.

But if these masses are so dedicated to Paul's campaign, why such a meager showing in Republican primary polls? Who in Norwalk is trying to get out the message to run an Internet search for the Texas politician and one-time Libertarian presidential candidate?

Brinck Flattery, 23, runs Ron Paul Meet Up groups in Fairfield County, New Haven and Hartford, and even he can't be sure which one of the local Paul faithful is responsible for the unconventional campaign signs that have cropped up throughout the area.

"It's a lot of people with a lot of initiative," said Slattery, a New Canaan resident who works in Stamford. "A lot of people are going forward with their own projects and when we get together we make a big impact."

There are nearly 200 people in Slattery's three groups, but their efforts are not always organized, he said.

Members have recently handed out fliers, made signs and worked to increase Paul's name recognition.

"Seventy percent of American people probably haven't heard of him but the ones who have and take a look at the issues, they support him," said Walter Reddy, 55, a Weston artist who is active in Paul's campaign.

This accounts for the straw poll numbers posted on Paul's site -- numbers that claim the candidate receiving a 65-percent, first-place nod, in a New Hampshire straw poll.

Local supporters -- though their numbers may pale in comparison to those of major party candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- seem passionate about their cause.

"(Paul is) like a modern-day Thomas Jefferson. If the Republican Party is smart enough to nominate him, he's the only one who could beat Hillary (Clinton) in a general election," Reddy said.

Slattery, who said he has not been an enthusiastic political participant in the past, spearheaded local Paul groups because of the congressman's support of limited government and the abolition of federal taxes.

"It was really refreshing to see an actual politician saying things I agree with," said Slattery, a Libertarian. "It's really rare (Paul's campaign). It's the general freedom, you own your body, you control your own life and the government should just stay out of your hair."

Reddy, who said he posted a 4-foot by 8-foot sign on the side of his van, switched his party affiliation to Republican so he can vote for Paul in the primary.

He hopes other residents will follow suit and help boost Paul's poll numbers.

So far, Slattery said, flier campaigns have been successful and sign-waving events are planned in both Greenwich and Stamford.

"There's been some real good reception," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Staff writer Amanda Pinto may be reached at (203) 354-1045 or apinto@thehour.com.

Ron Paul Disinformation

2007-10-15T10:37:00.002-07:00

This is getting kind of weird, and now I feel like a tinfoil-hat person, but I really believe that there's a concerted effort, not just among the pro-war crowd, but in the cable/broadcast news as well as major newspaper media as well, to slander and marginalize Ron Paul. 5 recent examples -

First - in this CNN video:

They say Paul is only polling around 1%. (UPDATE: The latest Gallup poll has Paul at 5% nationally) This hasn't been true since June. So lie #1. They go on to misrepresent his message, say it's only for "the youth," and highlight the 3 things that will generate the most acrimony about his campaign - he's against the war in Iraq, against the war on drugs, and against universal health care. No mention of the Patriot act, etc. blegh.

Second - David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine online puts out a "flyer" by a leftist group that's supposedly protesting "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" with a "American Fascism Awareness Day." The list of speakers for the event includes Ron Paul, as well as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and Adam Kokesh. The only problem is, the "event" is scheduled for November 31st, which doesn't exist, and is supposedly sponsored by the following organizations: Peace and Social Justice Crusade, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Code Pink, Muslim Students Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Students for Justice in Palestine, Revolutionary Communist Party, International A.N.S.W.E.R., Moveon.org, DailyKos.com, Indy-Media.org, HuffingtonPost.com, Ivorypower.com.
BUT - it was just made up. Totally made up. The event doesn't exist, so those in the Horowitz-bubble probably think this is what Ron Paul is all about.

Third - in this Washington Post article, the paper names Ron Paul as one of the beneficiaries of Erik Prince's (the founder of Blackwater) largess. Only thing is, the only donation that Paul received from Prince was in 1995, when Prince was a Navy officer. So yeah, they just tossed his name in there to smear him.

Fourth - A recent article from MSNBC about the straw poll in Nevada - Paul won the poll with 33% of the vote, Romney came in second with 16%. The headline? "Romney Loses NV Straw Poll." WTF!!!

Fifth - This "politics" piece (not opinion, just straight politics) from the St. Petersburg Times that attempts not only guilt by association, but plays the "angry old man" card. Sweet. Also includes the following quote, which mentions but does not name Eric Dondero:

"And though his "rugged honesty," as one Republican Party official put it, is endearing him to a menagerie of political misfits and castoffs, it may be trouble when it comes time to run for reelection in the House. Three Republicans are planning to challenge him in a primary, including a former aide who recently called Paul a 'nutcase.'"

Now I like being called a political misfit/castoff (if only he had added malcontent!), but is it really fair for this STAFF WRITER to write off the entire support base of a candidate? In a news piece? Also, maybe the writer could take the time to name the unnamed former aide, perhaps link to his website or mention some of his positions, and let others realize that this is the crazy pot calling the reasoned, intelligent kettle black.

Anyways, I'm thinking of spending some time this evening and cataloging these smears into a list. It's really absurd, and I'm starting to get more annoyed than I was previously...

Whoohoo!

2007-10-15T10:37:00.001-07:00

I'm back and alive! Too much work for the past few months - I'll be posting more regularly once again. Enjoy!

Liveblogging the Dem Debate

2007-06-28T18:31:00.000-07:00

Late start, here we go:

9:32 Edwards: "We should start [school] much earlier than 4 years of age" - also, promotes merit pay?

9:33 Barack thinks parenting counselors should be there from the cradle, no word yet on where the counselors are at the grave.

9:34 People don't succeed because we think they can't succeed, or something. maybe Obama recently bought "The Secret."

9:35 the child mayor wants us to stop the war so we can buy books on tape for lil' feti in the womb

9:36 OOH! Gravel calls out everyone on supporting the war, says something about "leakage." Subsidised Depends?

9:38 Hillary wants villagers to raise children. Perhaps we need to get illegal immigrant villiage idiots to do the job americans don't want to do.

9:41 eee... Bill Richardson wants to penetrate African-american communities to prevent AIDS. Seems counterintuitive.

9:44 HELL YEAH! The War on Drugs gets called out by Gravel! Simultaneous boos and applause - how the hell will the other statists deal with this?

9:48 the trademark Clinton cackle comes out. Clinton panders about how if she had AIDS people would be outraged. Wait, what?

9:50 Joe Biden is obviously from slower, lower Delaware. 'nuff said.

9:52 Edwards says "people who have done well have a responsibility to give more back." Huh? They have a responsibility to the people they've served to earn their money?

9:55 Paul-Gravel '08. Gravel actually makes sense, making me hit my head against the table.

9:57 Hillary Clinton is just like VH1. She loves the 90's! A super-duper lot!

Cosi is closing, I need to bounce. Wrap-up tomorrow!

Bush Administration to Quarter Soldiers in Private Homes

2007-06-26T20:44:00.001-07:00

Cheney cites "vigorous executive" theory

Disclaimer: This is satire. But based on Dick Cheney’s recent claim that he’s not part of the executive branch… who knows what fun headlines lie in wait!

6/26/07 WASHINGTON DC – The Bush administration began a rollout of a new program for soldiers who have just completed their basic training and await deployment to Iraq – they will spend at least a month with "host families" around the country. The program, which was co-sponsored by Christopher Dodd (D –CT), promises to bring a new level of connectedness between the civilian and military populations. "I am very pleased with the way it all worked out" said Dodd in his office on Tuesday morning. "For a long time, I have advocated mandatory community service for all Americans. The host family program will make great strides towards that goal."

With an increasingly unpopular war on their hands, the Bush administration says this is the first of many initiatives to come to remind the American people of the necessity of their commitment to the Global Struggle against Violent Extremism. Introducing the program in a press conference, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, "Many have criticized the way this war has been prosecuted, saying that Americans haven't sacrificed enough to understand that we are truly in the defining struggle of our time. We believe that a military presence in their own neighborhoods will remind civilians that when they oppose the war, they oppose the young men and women who will be boarding with them."

Some critics of the new initiative denounce it as a violation of the third amendment, but these concerns were brushed off as the fears of "nervous nellies" by Vice President Dick Cheney. "From day one, this administration has believed in the vigorous exercise of Executive power" said Cheney. "Any discussions of 'No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law' show a naïve, pre-9/11 mindset. Anyways, these soldiers aren't being quartered, they are being hosted. It's clearly in concord with the language of the amendment."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could not be reached for comment, but his office issued a brief statement. "We have taken steps to update the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments so that they are workable in this post-9/11 world, and we are very excited to get a chance to take a crack at the Third."

The sole objector in a voice vote on the bill, which was named the "We Love Our Troops Act", was Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). His home was picked as one of the first to enjoy the new privilege of opening its doors to the troops.

Me on top of Lion's Head and Bear Mountain. And a toad.

2007-06-26T08:04:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul "talking points"

2007-06-25T10:13:00.000-07:00

Rick Aiello sent me this great article by David McClain - here's the full text:

If You’ve Ruled Out Ron Paul, You Ought to Think Twice

There can be little question that Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running in the Republican race. His long record in the House proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yet, there seem to be many conservatives who have ruled him out for, as near as I can tell, two main reasons: the War on Terror and his perceived electability. The purpose of this article is to address these two concerns head-on.

1. The War Issue

First we must deal with an erroneous perception, which is that Ron Paul is “soft” on terrorism. This belief is based upon a misinterpretation of his suggestion that it is important to understand what motivates terrorism and to bring that understanding to bear upon our foreign policy decisions. His conclusion is that needless meddling in the political affairs of the Middle East tends to breed resentment among the region’s inhabitants and influence their degree of militancy, ultimately putting us at greater risk of attack. It makes little difference if our involvement is in the service of United Nations resolutions—the U.N., after all, doesn’t pay the price…it is America that ultimately suffers the cost of becoming a target.

Yet it should be clear that taking repercussions into account is not the same as turning the other cheek. On the contrary, following the September 11 assault Ron Paul voted for the resolution authorizing the President to attack those behind it. His was a strong voice in support of the effort to wipe out al-Qaeda’s stronghold in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. He has since gone so far as to publicly criticize the Bush administration for dropping the ball by not pursuing Osama bin Laden and his network into Pakistan, where they are now believed to be hiding. If anything, it is the Bush administration that has in effect been soft on the terrorists by failing to do everything to hunt them all down, opting instead to topple Saddam Hussein and attempt to remake Iraq. In direct contrast, Paul’s position is that we mustn’t bog ourselves down in attempts to regulate the whole region—our sole imperative is to answer any attack or real and imminent threat to America with swift action against those responsible.

There are, however, members of good conscience within the Republican Party who believe this approach doesn’t do enough; that we must continue the policy of active intervention throughout the Middle East as part of an ongoing battle against radical Islamists. It’s not clear that such a strategy can be effective, but we can put this question aside for another debate. What is more important is the realization that disagreeing with Paul on this issue needn’t and shouldn’t disqualify him from consideration. The reason is his fealty to the Constitution.

No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the one man who has unequivocally demonstrated that he will abide by the Constitution, whatever his personal feelings on a given subject may be. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. If the members of Congress, in their capacity as the people’s representatives, deem it necessary to wage war on Iraqi insurgents, or Iran, or any other country or group, they may declare it and rest assured that, as President, Ron Paul will faithfully carry out his duty to fight the war with all the force required to bring it to a quick and decisive end. Even if one refuses to grant that he is a man of principle, we must acknowledge that he would be quickly impeached if he chose to defy the declaration of Congress. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

Not only that, it promises a further benefit which is this: when a declaration of war is made by Congress, professional prevaricators like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, et al, are prevented from denying their responsibility when election season comes around. No longer would they be able to distance themselves from the decision and tell their constituents with a straight face that, yes, they voted for the authorization of force but never dreamed it would be used this way or that. No longer could they have it both ways, carefully engineering a posture of plausible deniability for the future. An up or down vote for war holds everyone accountable for their decisions. It forces honesty upon the career politician. This is something we can all agree is sorely lacking at present.

When Congress officially declares war it provides three important things:

Compare this to vague utterances by Madeleine Albright back in 1993 about how nation-building operations and the rescue of failed societies were essential to facilitating democracy and in America's best interests; and that the U.N. should commit itself to state-building under the doctrine of "collective security". These statements could easily have been made word-for-word just yesterday. Congress’ repossession of its privilege to declare war would pull us out of this murky situation whereby the President is the default arbiter of a never-ending military engagement whose fuzzy definitions and open-ended missions have always deteriorated into quagmires of the worst sort—Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, and now Iraq.

2. The General Election

I believe Dick Morris is correct when he says that Hillary will win the Presidency if the race turns out to be between her and Giuliani (or Thompson, or Romney, or McCain); however his assessment that Giuliani is the strongest candidate the GOP can run against her is way off base. Of the Republicans running now, Ron Paul is absolutely unique and he is the only one who can beat her. Mark my words: if the GOP does not nominate Paul, it will be the same as handing over the White House to President Hillary. Let’s look at the facts, which are these:

Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can take the Iraq issue away from her. He voted against the war. There are many Democrats who are still rankled over her handling of this issue, although her recent rhetoric is beginning to soften them up. Only a candidate who is more credible on Iraq than she is stands any chance. Ron Paul takes this vote away from her. This is the single most important point. Republicans cannot run an Iraq War candidate and win.
Ron Paul truly is the anti-politician. He is entirely accessible and unpretentious. There is no hint of guile, no indication that his run for the Presidency is motivated by personal aggrandizement. Hold him up against any of the other candidates and what you will see is a man who doesn’t recite a string of empty words that poll well. He doesn’t have a team of speechwriters and handlers testing talking points in focus groups. He speaks extemporaneously and from the heart. He believes in certain truths and principles, he communicates clearly what those are and why he believes them, he exposits in rare detail what he intends to do and how he intends to do it, and he has never shied away from engaging in thoughtful discussion or fielding questions. In short, he makes Hillary look like the world’s biggest schemer and double-talker, which of course she likely is. None of the other Republican candidates has the same ring of authenticity and honesty about them, and therefore even if the public by-and-large doesn’t trust Hillary, the other candidates cannot provide enough contrast to overcome her based on this component. Ron Paul is the only one with the necessary degree of trustworthiness to accomplish this.
Paul has the youth vote. Not much else needs to be said on this point. One need only glance at Digg.com, Technorati, YouTube, Facebook, and the many hundreds of blogs that have popped up online to realize that this is so.
America is drawing ever closer to socialized medicine. It may in fact be a forgone conclusion at this point, but Paul is the only one capable of doing anything to stem the tide. Giuliani won’t oppose it, and Mitt Romney? His RomneyCare in Massachusetts is a Ted Kennedy triumph. Implementing universal coverage from the West Wing is one of his stated priorities. If America is going in this direction they won’t settle for an amateur. They’ll go for the pro instead, and America will get HillaryCare. Paul is the only candidate who cares to fight socialized medicine tooth-and-nail and incidentally has the chops to actually do it.
Immigration is a huge issue. Giuliani quite simply has no credibility on it, having made so many statements as Mayor against federal immigration law and effectively turning New York into a sanctuary city with plenty of welfare entitlements to go around. Hillary has been going conservative on immigration since 2004, as the Washington Times reported in December of that year. She will win big on this front unless she faces someone a whole lot more conservative than Bush or Giuliani.
The “Reagan Democrats” will not cross over in droves for anyone but Ron Paul. If you spend the hours that I have combing blogs, reading comments on major news sites, and talking to them in person, you will immediately recognize this. The moderate to conservative Democrats love him. They are looking for change—real change, that is, not the musical chairs style that exchanges one packaged, business-as-usual politician for another. Give them someone who is strikingly different, the true antithesis to the Clinton machine, and they will embrace him. Don’t, and they’ll stick with Hillary.

I submit that any of my fellow Republicans who don’t want to cede the White House to Clinton next year must understand that Paul alone can take victory away from Hillary. Even if you don’t agree with his foreign policy position, there is no good reason to dismiss him based on this component. The truth is, his foreign policy position gives him the edge against Hillary in the election and at the same time puts the onus back on Congress to declare war—which they can easily do. For Republicans who favor a strong military response in the Middle East, there is no downside to supporting Paul. He represents the best possible option. The alternative is Hillary and everything that means. If we don’t recognize that Ron Paul truly is the strongest candidate in the field, we may as well hand the keys back over to the Clintons now so they can start measuring the drapes.

Cell Phones and Poll Results

2007-06-22T10:34:00.000-07:00

Here is a rather interesting article about how the demographics who are most likely to support Ron Paul are the least likely to be represented in the traditional Zogby, Harris, etc. polls.

The War on Drugs makes you a little piggy.

2007-06-21T14:13:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul owns a little drug warrior. Is this what teens were like in the 80s? No wonder hair metal was so popular.

New video I put up on Youtube - next time we will succeed! Huzzah!

2007-06-21T13:51:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on the concept of authority

2007-06-20T08:25:00.000-07:00

Most people would like to think that they can decide how to live their lives on their own. However, every day most (if not all) of us cede our autonomy to one form or another of arbitrary authority.

What is authority? Dictionary.com defines it as “the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.” This a very general definition of authority. Perhaps it is more suitable to say that authority is the power granted to an individual who has earned the respect and trust of others through their experiences and actions. Authority is always granted; in theory, it can not be assumed or grabbed simply by claiming its mantle.

In everyday life, we submit to the authority of a variety of men, both dead and living. We act on the assumption that the earth’s gravity will make an object fall at 9.8 m/s/s. We act on the assumption that a gas will expand to fill any space it enters. These are fairly safe assumptions, usually backed up through some rudimentary experiential knowledge like a high school physics class. If one followed the dictum “trust no one” in regards to these ideas, life would be rather tedious and frustrating. One would need to gain first-hand knowledge of every phenomenon, natural, interpersonal, or otherwise before he could agree to any statement.

It is interesting that in our education system, such skepticism and zeteticism is encouraged and necessary in the sciences. However, in the humanities, skepticism yields to the dictates of an authoritarian professor. Experiential knowledge and searching is thrown out the window, and the new and pernicious paradigm takes over – the paradigm of revealed knowledge. Water does not freeze at 0 degrees Celsius because teacher says so, but in the humanities it is not so. The motivation for Captain Ahab’s myopic quest, the reasons for the American Revolution, the correct interpretation of Ulysses, all must be accepted as is given by the teacher. Certainly a small amount of wiggle room within the parameters set by the teacher is allowed, but questioning the parameters themselves often results in an assertion of arbitrary authority – “Because I have a Masters in English Literature!” Of course, some exceptional and enterprising students come to their own conclusions and defend them convincingly, but for the vast majority the lesson learned is that if you accept the proclamations of arbitrary authority, you will be rewarded or at least not punished.

So what does any of this have to do with politics? This – generations of young people have been taught from a very early age that they should accept as truth the statements of those in positions of authority, whether or not that authority has been earned and rightfully given. You don’t need to do the research; we’ve done it for you. These things are just so hard to understand. Leave it to the professionals.

At least in the academic world, certain standards must be met before authority is given. In the world of politics, those who have the most commanding voice and convincing air of self-satisfied assuredness are handed power. A perfect example of this: the career of Rudy Giuliani. A man who made his living as a government lawyer focused on running a large city happened to be in a specific geographical location on the morning of September 11^th, 2001. He has the same experiential knowledge as millions of New Yorkers who were there watching that day, yet he saw an opportunity to grab a new mantle of authority; the authority of the Foreign Policy and Terrorism expert. Professional tough guy. All this because he stood in downtown Manhattan that morning rather than standing in, say, Duluth.

It is authority-grabs like these that we need to be aware and wary of. Any time you trust some one, and cede a part of your autonomy to them in the process, you should make damn sure that the source is worthy of your trust.

At the end of life, all we really have is the 40 some odd cubic inches in our skull. But even that can be sold away, piece by piece, to some outside agency. Outside agencies that demand you not think critically about one subject or another, until the whole of one’s autonomy is outsourced to external interests.

So I place this obnoxious and weighty burden on you: Trust no one! Determine for yourself what is true and what is false. One’s life is a series of choices – choose to rent out those precious inches of your brain or to jealously guard them as sole property of the Truth. Proclaim proudly that the store is closed!

Ron Paul at the Future of Freedom Foundation

2007-06-18T21:43:00.000-07:00

Here's the video of Ron Paul at the FFF conference - great stuff!

Enjoy!

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson's show

2007-06-07T17:17:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul is asked to come back regularly to give viewers a "tutorial on freedom"

New Job

2007-06-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

Yay. I have a new job in addition to my other job(s). But this one's 9 to 5, so it actually counts as a real job! Sometimes when I have gainful employment I feel like this kitten.

Tea amo

2007-05-27T07:43:00.000-07:00

This is not Ron Paul related, but it must be said - I freaking love tea. Especially loose tea. I bought this nifty little device that lets you brew loose tea, then drains it into a cup for you while filtering out the leaves. Why do I like it so much? Tea has caffeine. Caffeine ftw. Also, a new study from the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows that tea is healthier than water and doesn't dehydrate you. I got all my tea paraphernalia from Adagio Teas and couldn't be happier. I think George Orwell said it best:

"If you look up 'tea' in the first cookery book that comes to hand you will probably find that it is unmentioned; or at most you will find a few lines of sketchy instructions which give no ruling on several of the most important points.

This is curious, not only because tea is one of the mainstays of civilization in this country, as well as in Eire, Australia and New Zealand, but because the best manner of making it is the subject of violent disputes....

...Tea has virtues which are not to be despised nowadays - it is economical, and one can drink it without milk - but there is not much stimulation in it. One does not feel wiser, braver or more optimistic after drinking it...

... Tea should be put straight into the pot. No strainers, muslin bags or other devices to imprison the tea. In some countries teapots are fitted with little dangling baskets under the spout to catch the stray leaves, which are supposed to be harmful. Actually one can swallow tea-leaves in considerable quantities without ill effect, and if the tea is not loose in the pot it never infuses properly...

...Lastly, tea - unless one is drinking it in the Russian style - should be drunk _without sugar_. I know very well that I am in a minority here. But still, how can you call yourself a true tea lover if you destroy the flavour of your tea by putting sugar in it? It would be equally reasonable to put in pepper or salt. Tea is meant to be bitter, just as beer is meant to be bitter. If you sweeten it, you are no longer tasting the tea, you are merely tasting the sugar; you could make a very similar drink by dissolving sugar in plain hot water.

Some people would answer that they don't like tea in itself, that they only drink it in order to be warmed and stimulated, and they need sugar to take the taste away. To those misguided people I would say: Try drinking tea without sugar for, say, a fortnight and it is very unlikely that you will ever want to ruin your tea by sweetening it again."

Fairfield County Ron Paul Meetup Group

2007-05-26T09:38:00.000-07:00

We'll be having our first meetup to talk about the campaign, figure out some grassroots activism techniques, and try to find the best ways to promote Ron Paul on June 4th at 8 PM. Click on the link at the bottom of the page or go here to sign up for the group.

iPaul

2007-05-25T13:52:00.000-07:00

New graphic I'm working on to promote Ron Paul. Hell yeah!