At 2:40, there is a model on the far left that looks strikingly like Conan O'Brien.

I also didn't realise the PotC music plagiarised Gustav Holst's Mars so blatantly.

"This can probably be attributed to better firearms training, safety and general awareness."

I have nothing against safety training, of course. And sure, Its even a good thing to be familiar with weapons, if nothing else but to see how dangerous they are. But I'm also favouring gun control. When the ATF can't even say its illegal to sell guns to DRUNK people, I think its been heading in the wrong direction for quite some time. Its fine if you own a gun, but then you should also know how to handle one safely, and be deemed reasonably fit to own a gun. You should be required to store it safely, and so on. There's a lot of things you can do without "taking your weapons".

"BTW - I envy the firearms that you've gotten to fire."

Yeah, this was in the army, I havent touched a gun since., but shooting rockets from the shoulder with the Carl Gustav is pretty fun.(I called it M84 in my previous post, we called it RFK in the army) Also the MG3 because its such a classic (its basically an MG42) And the A3G3 is one mean-ass assault-rifle(I think we calculated that we shot 15000 or was it 30k? rounds each (in my platoon) with that gun during that year.)

Thanks for the quality!
In reply to this comment by antonye:
*quality - this stuff is amazing!

Excellent talk post!

The theory of Quantum Consciousness is facinating.

I think that the theories of Gustav Bernroider as well as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are probably close the the true nature of consciousness.

Unless we are all just simulations being run on a future supercomputer.

As to the question, "Is death the end of everything?" I say no--only because of a highly subjective, personal experience which will never convince anyone else--I believe (that's small "b" believe) that there is an unseen connection (didn't there used to be a spellcheck in here?) between all life--possibly the whole universe--through which we continue in some fashion.

It may surprise some that I am not an atheist since I so joyfully attack dogmaitc theists. I'm a walking contracidtion.

Definitely and *quailty discussion.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'eiffel tower, construction, engineering' to 'eiffel tower, construction, engineering, paris, france, 1889, gustave eiffel' - edited by maatc

Wow, thanks for the doublepromote. Art looks good on paper.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Robert Hughes does come across as a cranky old guy, but he does have a very good point. And his criticism of the Gustav Klimt painting is insane imo.

*doublepromote though, this is an amazing documentary.

Robert Hughes does come across as a cranky old guy, but he does have a very good point. And his criticism of the Gustav Klimt painting is insane imo.

*doublepromote though, this is an amazing documentary.

>> ^jimnms:
I have a sudden urge to fire up IL-2 Forgotten Battles, jump into a Yak and go shoot down some Stuka's.

Yaks, LaGGs, MiGs ... I loved BnZ'ing their buttocks with my Gustav (Bf 109 G-2) or my Kurfürst (Bf 109 K-4).

Hm, need to check if Gutted is still flying ...

I am posting the preface in its entirety, as I think it touches on most socialistic arguments put forth here. If this preface intrigues you, by all means...read on.

"It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea—by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ. The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as 'natural' and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once 'artificial' and harmful. Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually, a world Socialism. Apart from this one point, however, the basic conception of Socialism had been quite clearly worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as "Utopian Socialists." Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favour. The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.

It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic—a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity—he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an "ideological superstructure" of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was "revealed" as "bourgeois" reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators—the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.

At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term "Marxist" all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles—that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific—we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they themselves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one—that which "shall" come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx's prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx's arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.

The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart's Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life's game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name "Scientific Socialism" and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.

In this new edition of my book, which has been considerably revised, I have ventured to defy the almost universally respected Marxian prohibition by examining the problems of the socialist construction of society on scientific lines, i.e., by the aid of sociological and economic theory. While gratefully recalling the men whose research has opened the way for all work, my own included, in this field, it is still a source of gratification to me to be in a position to claim to have broken the ban placed by Marxism on the scientific treatment of these problems. Since the first publication of this book, problems previously ignored have come into the foreground of scientific interest; the discussion of Socialism and Capitalism has been placed on a new footing. Those who were formerly content to make a few vague remarks about the blessings which Socialism would bring are now obliged to study the nature of the socialist society. The problems have been defined and can no longer be ignored.

As might be expected, socialists of every sort and description, from the most radical Soviet Bolshevists to the "Edelsozialisten" of western civilization, have attempted to refute my reasonings and conclusions. But they have not succeeded, they have not even managed to bring forward any argument that I had not already discussed and disproved. At the present time, scientific discussion of the basic problems of Socialism follows the line of the investigation of this book.

The arguments by which I demonstrated that, in a socialist community, economic calculation would not be possible have attracted especially wide notice. Two years before the appearance of the first edition of my book I published this section of my investigations in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft (Vol. XLVII, No. I), where it is worded almost exactly as in both editions of the present work. The problem, which had scarcely been touched before, at once roused lively discussion in German-speaking countries and abroad. It may truly be said that the discussion is now closed; there is today hardly any opposition to my contention.

Shortly after the first edition appeared, Heinrich Herkner, chief of the Socialists of the Chair ("Kathedersozialisten") in succession to Gustav Schmoller, published an essay which in all essentials supported my criticism of Socialism.[1] His remarks raised quite a storm amongst German socialists and their literary followings. Thus there arose, in the midst of the catastrophic struggle in the Ruhr and the hyper-inflation, a controversy which speedily became known as the crisis of the "Social Reform Policy." The result of the controversy was indeed meagre. The "sterility" of socialist thought, to which an ardent socialist had drawn attention, was especially apparent on this occasion.[2] Of the good results that can be obtained by an unprejudiced scientific study of the problems of Socialism there is proof in the admirable works of Pohle, Adolf Weber, Röpke, Halm, Sulzbach, Brutzkus, Robbins, Hutt, Withers, Benn, and others.

But scientific inquiry into the problems of Socialism is not enough. We must also break down the wall of prejudice which at present blocks the way to an unbiased scrutiny of these problems. Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question, whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance—to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered as good and Capitalism as evil—whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with that "moral pathos," which we find in the invitation to the Eisenach Congress in 1872 and on which Socialists and Etatists always fall back, because they can find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.

The older Liberalism, based on the classical political economy, maintained that the material position of the whole of the wage-earning classes could only be permanently raised by an increase of capital, and this none but capitalist society based on private ownership of the means of production can guarantee to find. Modern subjective economics has strengthened and confirmed the basis of the view by its theory of wages. Here modern Liberalism agrees entirely with the older school. Socialism, however, believes that the socialization of the means of production is a system which would bring wealth to all. These conflicting views must be examined in the light of sober science: righteous indignation and jeremiads take us nowhere.

It is true that Socialism is today an article of faith for many, perhaps for most of its adherents. But scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.

To protect the socialist ideal from the crushing effects of such criticism, attempts have recently been made to improve upon the accepted definition of the concept "Socialism." My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this and nothing else is what has stood for Socialism for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic. But why quarrel over the wording of it! If anyone likes to call a social ideal which retains private ownership in the means of production socialistic, why, let him! A man may call a cat a dog and the sun the moon if it pleases him. But such a reversal of the usual terminology, which everyone understands, does no good and only creates misunderstandings. The problem which here confronts us is the socialization of ownership in the means of production, i.e. the very problem over which a worldwide and bitter struggle has been waged now for a century, the problem (above all others) of our epoch.

One cannot evade this defining of Socialism by asserting that the concept Socialism includes other things besides the socialization of the means of production: by saying, for example, that we are actuated by certain special motives when we are socialists, or that there is a second aim—perhaps a purely religious concept bound up with it. Supporters of Socialism hold that the only brand worthy the name is that which desires socialization of the means of production for "noble" motives. Others, who pass for opponents of Socialism, will have it that nationalization of the means of production desired from "ignoble" motives only, has to be styled Socialism also. Religious socialists say that genuine Socialism is bound up with religion; the atheistical socialist insists on abolishing God along with private property. But the problem of how a socialistic society could function is quite separate from the question of whether its adherents propose to worship God or not and whether or not they are guided by motives which Mr. X from his private point of view would call noble or ignoble. Each group of the great socialist movement claims its own as the only true brand and regards the others as heretical; and naturally tries to stress the difference between its own particular ideal and those of other parties. I venture to claim that in the course of my researches I have brought forward all that need be said about these claims.

In this emphasizing of the peculiarities of particular socialist tendencies, the bearing which they may have on the aims of democracy and dictatorship obviously plays a significant part. Here, too, I have nothing to add to what I have said on the subject in various parts of this book (Chapter 3, Chapter 15, and Chapter 31). It suffices here to say that the planned economy which the advocates of dictatorship wish to set up is precisely as socialistic as the Socialism propagated by the self-styled Social Democrats.

Capitalist society is the realization of what we should call economic democracy, had not the term—according I believe, to the terminology of Lord Passfield and Mrs. Webb—come into use and been applied exclusively to a system in which the workers, as producers, and not the consumers themselves, would decide what was to be produced and how. This state of affairs would be as little democratic as, say, a political constitution under which the government officials and not the whole people decided how the state was to be governed—surely the opposite of what we are accustomed to call democracy. When we call a capitalist society a consumers' democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market-place. Every child who prefers one toy to another puts its voting paper in the ballot-box, which eventually decides who shall be elected captain of industry. True, there is no equality of vote in this democracy; some have plural votes. But the greater voting power which the disposal of a greater income implies can only be acquired and maintained by the test of election. That the consumption of the rich weighs more heavily in the balance than the consumption of the poor—though there is a strong tendency to overestimate considerably the amount consumed by the well-to-do classes in proportion to the consumption of the masses—is in itself an 'election result', since in a capitalist society wealth can be acquired and maintained only by a response corresponding to the consumers' requirements. Thus the wealth of successful business men is always the result of a consumers' plebiscite, and, once acquired, this wealth can be retained only if it is employed in the way regarded by consumers as most beneficial to them. The average man is both better informed and less corruptible in the decisions he makes as a consumer than as a voter at political elections. There are said to be voters who, faced with a decision between Free Trade and Protection, the Gold Standard and Inflation, are unable to keep in view all that their decision implies. The buyer who has to choose between different sorts of beer or makes of chocolate has certainly an easier job of it.

The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. The criticisms in this book are aimed impartially at all the conceivable forms of the socialistic community.

Only Syndicalism, which differs fundamentally from Socialism, calls for special treatment (Chapter 16, Section 4).

I hope that these remarks will convince even the cursory and superficial reader that my investigation and criticisms do not apply solely to Marxian Socialism. As, however, all socialistic movements have been strongly stimulated by Marxism I devote more space to Marxian views than to those of other varieties of Socialism. I think I have passed in review everything bearing essentially on these problems and made an exhausting criticism of the characteristic features of non-Marxist programmes too.

My book is a scientific inquiry, not a political polemic. I have analysed the basic problems and passed over, as far as possible, all the economic and political struggles of the day and the political adjustments of governments and parties. And this will, I believe, prove the best way of preparing the foundation of an understanding of the politics of the last few decades and years: above all, of the politics of tomorrow. Only a complete critical study of the ideas of Socialism will enable us to understand what is happening around us.

The habit of talking and writing about economic affairs without having probed relentlessly to the bottom of their problems has taken the zest out of public discussions on questions vital to human society and diverted politics into paths that lead directly to the destruction of all civilization. The proscription of economic theory, which began with the German historical school, and today finds expression notably in American Institutionalism, has demolished the authority of qualified thought on these matters. Our contemporaries consider that anything which comes under the heading of Economics and Sociology is fair game to the unqualified critic. It is assumed that the trade union official and the entrepreneur are qualified by virtue of their office alone to decide questions of political economy. "Practical men" of this order, even those whose activities have, notoriously, often led to failure and bankruptcy, enjoy a spurious prestige as economists which should at all costs be destroyed. On no account must a disposition to avoid sharp words be permitted to lead to a compromise. It is time these amateurs were unmasked.

The solution of every one of the many economic questions of the day requires a process of thought, of which only those who comprehend the general interconnection of economic phenomena are capable. Only theoretical inquiries which get to the bottom of things have any real practical value. Dissertations on current questions which lose themselves in detail are useless, for they are too much absorbed in the particular and the accidental to have eyes for the general and the essential.

It is often said that all scientific inquiry concerning Socialism is useless, because none but the comparatively small number of people who are able to follow scientific trains of thought can understand it. For the masses, it is said, they will always remain incomprehensible. To the masses the catchwords of Socialism sound enticing and the people impetuously desire Socialism because in their infatuation they expect it to bring full salvation and satisfy their longing for revenge. And so they will continue to work for Socialism, helping thereby to bring about the inevitable decline of the civilization which the nations of the West have taken thousands of years to build up. And so we must inevitably drift on to chaos and misery, the darkness of barbarism and annihilation.

I do not share this gloomy view. It may happen thus, but it need not happen thus. It is true that the majority of mankind are not able to follow difficult trains of thought, and that no schooling will help those who can hardly grasp the most simple proposition to understand complicated ones. But just because they cannot think for themselves the masses follow the lead of the people we call educated. Once convince these, and the game is won. But I do not want to repeat here what I have already said in the first edition of this book, at the end of the last chapter.

I know only too well how hopeless it seems to convince impassioned supporters of the Socialist Idea by logical demonstration that their views are preposterous and absurd. I know too well that they do not want to hear, to see, or above all to think, and that they are open to no argument. But new generations grow up with clear eyes and open minds. And they will approach things from a disinterested, unprejudiced standpoint, they will weigh and examine, will think and act with forethought. It is for them that this book is written.

Several generations of economic policy which was nearly liberal have enormously increased the wealth of the world. Capitalism has raised the standard of life among the masses to a level which our ancestors could not have imagined. Interventionism and efforts to introduce Socialism have been working now for some decades to shatter the foundations of the world economic system. We stand on the brink of a precipice which threatens to engulf our civilization. Whether civilized humanity will perish forever or whether the catastrophe will be averted at the eleventh hour and the only possible way of salvation retraced—by which we mean the rebuilding of a society based on the unreserved recognition of private property in the means of production—is a question which concerns the generation destined to act in the coming decades, for it is the ideas behind their actions that will decide it.

Vienna, January 1932"

I loves the Gustav Holst. Excellent post!

karl gustav jung ftw

I agree with you, lacking a little oomph there. The mediocre quality of flash videos might have something to do with it. But the wind section definitely has some responsibility as well.

>> ^legacy0100:
How is it that 'the planets' has not been sifted before??
Shame, sifters! SHAME!!!
Jupiter is my favorite piece out of The Planets. But this orchestra has good coordination and precision, but somehow I feel that they lack in volume and resonance.
These Japanese people don't have enough air in their lungs or something... The wind section was bothering the hell out of me the entire clip. You're suppose to portrait the grand mass of the Jupiter, gotta make it BIG, and LOUD, and make it RESONATE.
They keep shortening out after each high dynamic peaks.

This is the 1920 film version, 'The Golem and How He Came Into the World', not the 1915 version of 'The Golem' as stated. The earlier 1915 version is lost except for a few stills and fragments. It was only an hour long and was set in then modern times, not the sixteenth century.

Neither film has anything to do with the Gustav Meyrink novel (read the excellent Mike Mitchell translation and find out for yourself). The book uses the Golem legend in an entirely novel (pun intended) way. If Meyrink had anything to do with the films, that would be news to me.... The Wikipedia entry for the novel 'The Golem' states, "The novel was not, despite contrary claims, the basis for three films, both [sic] realized by Paul Wegener. Both [sic] films rather adapt the original Golem legend."

Why we are so exhausted...Our Historic Two Weeks.

Its been going so fast and furious that many of us may not really know what it is that makes us feel so drained right now. Alot of us have fought in campaigns before, but this seems like more than the usual 4th quarter blues.

Well, I gave it some it thought. Let's review.

I think it is safe to say that the Democratic party was generally happy and energized after their convention. Glowing, crying, hopeful.

Almost immediately after, Gustav was brewing out in the Caribbean and had already killed some people. The storm was bearing in on the coast of the U.S. and millions were evacuated. You couldn't be human, or part of the movement to elect Obama, if you didn't identify with all the unfortunate people that had to pack up, leave, and spend money just to find a space to sleep, find gas, etc.

Then, with that low lying anxiety, and with Ike on the way, Bush jumped out of the circle and ran to Texas as the Republican convention started to "oversee things from there." We were robbed of our ability to see the incumbent standing next to one of his biggest supporters, proving to everyone watching that McCain would be more of the same.

Instead, we got a surprise distraction and a rollercoaster ride. An unprecedented number of people started very actively arguing about politics. It wasn't a fair fight. They're shorter, so there were alot of low blows.

Then the nation watched as Ike began to bear down. Barack canceled what was to be his Saturday Night Live appearance. (Now that just wasn't fair! I was really looking forward to that). But it was o.k., we were doing the right thing. Ike was on its way and, in a rare natural metaphor, was the size of Texas. No matter where it hit the U.S., work was going to have to be done to help alot of people.

No details needed. Wipeout. Same time, Palin was doing her press junket, shaking hands, and making friends. Miraculously, the other team seemed to start to take the lead.

The weekend was sleepless for alot of us. I don't know about you guys, but at this point I was glued to my computer, reassuring friends the polls were going to prove wrong, feeling it in my gut, which was also full of coffee and fast food.

Monday morning we woke to the news that Wall Street had lost two of its major brokerage firms. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy after the government refused to bail it out, and Merrill Lynch employees bit their nails.

Barack had to swat some flies away (literally and figuratively), but the tables were turning.

Then, Bank of America bought Merril Lynch in a quickee deal and the stock market responded with a huge sell off, down 504 points for the day. There were fears about Washington Mutual, Morgan Stanley and other firms, so financial stocks tanked. Markets around the world took a beating. If you didn't know, trust me, we really wiped out everybody. Some of the markets weren't even able to reopen. AIG was on the precipice, looking out over the lemming Lehman's below, and they are huge in almost every world market, so this was going to be bad. If you watched the BBC, or any other major world news agency, THEY used the words 'earthquake, The Great Depression, Black Tuesday, and devastating emergency' to describe what was happening everywhere. I actually made the mistake of tivoing some shows from Fox News to get the other perspective and boy, there is no way for me to get those hours back.

But we rallied. We picked up. We really did folks. The more she spoke, the stupider she sounded. The more McCain spoke, the more he got things wrong in a pretty visible way. What went up, was starting to go down. Who had time for lipstick, when the house was on fire?

First, those who cared (wearing both red and blue) sat around a big table in Washington and someone said something, and someone else agreed, and someone took out a checkbook.

*The federal government jumped in Tuesday night and bailed out AIG to the tune of an $85 billion loan.
*The FCC put a ban on shortselling.
*The world's central banks took action, injecting $180 billion into the financial system to stem the losses.
*The market rallied, bounced, went back up.
*Even the government's #1 Deregulator was screaming for regulation!

So if you feel exhausted, it's not the election, it's not this fight we are in. Its all the unbelievable distractions, regrettable as they were, that hit the world the last two weeks.

Good news?

1. Their numbers are down, ours are up.

2. The judge in the Cheney lawsuit ordered Cheney to preserve a wide range of the records from his time as vice president. Oh, you didn't know he had a lawsuit against him? Well, the lawsuit alleges that the Bush administration's actions over the past 7 1/2 years raise questions over whether the White House will turn over records created by Cheney and his staff to the National Archives in January. And Cheney lost.

3. Alaska's state Senator Hollis French said the retired prosecutor hired by the Alaska Legislature to investigate Palin (aka Troopergate), Stephen Branchflower, will conclude his investigation by Oct. 10. So they aren't giving up. And it will be in time for the election.

4. The other team's lies are getting so transparent that incredible people like that female reporter on FOX, Carl Rove, and even Hardball has to call them out on it, daily.

Bottom line, this is where we stand,

COSTS OVER THIS LAST YEAR
Status: Inflation up 5.4%
Average Salaries: Down 3.3%
Gasoline: Up 35.6%
Household Energy costs: Up 17.3%
Food: Up 7.5%

Its bad, but not unfixable. I think we generally rode it out well, and it looks like everything is going to be o.k. At least through the election. We will have alot of work to do, but we'll have to do it from the Oval Office.

So, take a deep breath.... Right now. Breathe in, and then out.

Make a bubble bath, catch a rerun of The Daily Show from their website, catch a sunset, or see the funny short: 'Its time for some campaignin'

Funny no matter what side you are on.
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

Then remember why we're doing this. If you haven't already, see:
You Made Me Love You Obama!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW19otZgxY8

Get some yogurt to settle your stomach, splurg and let yourself have some chocolate, and take just a second to rejuvenate.

and then....LET'S GET OUT THERE AND GET 'EM.

If you are an Obama supporter:
We will do it by registering MORE voters!
http://my.barackobama.com/vfc

We will do it by making the right points with our messages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJThPjvscFs

We will do it by making people aware of Barack's actual financial plan: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/economyplan

We will do it because WE CAN!

www.TheSarahPalinPortal.com
http://concernedmilf.blogspot.com/

Tags for this video have been changed from 'messerschmidt, me 109, bf 109, gustav, fmbb, ww2, fighter' to 'messerschmidt, me 109, bf 109, gustav, fmbb, ww2, fighter, german' - edited by kronosposeidon