I track average prices for over 40 basic foods in the U.S. city average: Just four made new all time highs in December 2024

 Round roast $7.486/lb

All uncooked beef roasts category $7.719/lb

Table wine, red and white $13.985/liter

Beer $1.812/pint

Olivia Nuzzi did more than anyone, next to the president himself in debate with Trump, to rip the mask off the no-longer-present President Joe Biden

But who is running the show right now?

And why is no one . . . alarmed?

 

 The worry is not that Biden will say something overly candid, or say something he didn’t mean to say, but that he will communicate through his appearance that he is not really there. ...

Biden instead was cocooned within mounting layers of bureaucracy, spoken for more than he was speaking or spoken to. ...

the traveling protective pool — the rotating group of reporters, run by the White House Correspondents’ Association ...

In April . . . My heart stopped as I extended my hand to greet the president. I tried to make eye contact, but it was like his eyes, though open, were not on. His face had a waxy quality.

-- Olivia Nuzzi, "The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden", New York, July 4, 2024

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html 

https://archive.ph/z0ULo#selection-1637.80-1637.190

Democrats are defending this Biden whopper by saying he's referring to the 2009-2010 H1N1 "swine flu" epidemic, which officially killed 3,433 people

 I don't remember it being called a "pandemic" much at the time, but I do remember the hype to take the vaccine, which the authorities bungled so bad it wasn't widely available until the flu had already burned itself out.

Anyway, here's grandpa talking about a really bad pandemic when he was VP, which was way back when I was in 'Nam:

 Here.

Update:

I'm so glad we could clear this up.

When he nukes Muncie instead of Moscow I'm sure Indiana will understand. 

 

Sean Hannity told a whopper today just after 4pm Eastern: He said Trump's agreement with the Taliban let the US keep Bagram Airfield

This is simply false.

Under the terms of the agreement, the US agreed to withdraw initially from 5 bases, and then from "all remaining bases".

There is no such provision as claimed by Hannity.

Read it for yourself.

Trump would have presided over a complete withdrawal of all US and Coalition forces from Afghanistan had he been re-elected.

Conservative talk radio has been pretending for a week that Donald Trump intended a different outcome than a complete withdrawal.

It's just not true.

Trump not only committed the sin of negotiating with terrorists, he tried to pass them off as new partners in the war on terror, making our continued presence moot, which is utterly absurd.

Ever had Trump Wine? A Trump Steak? A degree from Trump University?

Donald Trump is responsible for the framework leading to the debacle we are witnessing in Afghanistan under Joe Biden.

They are a pair of Pontius Pilates, washing their hands of the country.

Everyone always forgets the French, with their stupid wines, cheeses and nuclear weapons

Fair number of elites are fine with the rare wines, female escorts, foie gras and exotic travels they get in exchange for assisting globalists crush the cost of labor

I quit drinking

Wine.












This morning.








At 11:59.

Just tried White Claw for the first time tonight: Tastes like it needs alcohol in it, except it's already in there

No "mouth feel" or complexity of flavor and smell like you get from a proper cocktail, glass of wine or beer. A trifle with a kick.

Meh: Trump steaks, Trump wines, Trump immigration enforcement

Rush The Ridiculous must be reading online again, claims Aristippus of Cyrene was the first to say "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"

The line quoted here is not actually attributed to Aristippus as a quotation, but rather as a conclusion of his philosophy, which in its turn goes too far. As usual Rush reads the first hit on Al Gore's amazing internet, reads it badly, and believes it.

Skull full of mush much?

Epicurus is traditionally credited with the idea because we have an actual line which is similar, but it is so widespread in antiquity it is difficult to know who first came up with it.

At any rate the ethical hedonism taught by both Aristippus and Epicurus involved self-mastery, not license.   

Not that the licentious sense was unknown in antiquity.

The Greek geographer Strabo (64BC-24AD) knew it, purportedly from an Assyrian inscription on the tomb of Sardanapallus, legendary last king of Assyria, who was legendarily decadent:

Sardanapallus, the son of Anacyndaraxes, built Anchiale and Tarsus in one day. 'Eat, drink, be merry, because all things else are not worth this,' meaning the snapping of the fingers. -- Strabo, Geographica, 14.5.9f.

Isaiah the prophet knew it in the 8th century BC, antedating any Greek knowledge by hundreds of years:

And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die. -- Isaiah 22:13.

And of course Paul of Tarsus knew it in the middle of the 1st century AD, which is how most of us in the Christian West know the lines:

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.  -- I Corinthians 15:32.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

Already yesterday's news in 2013, "Hitlerwein" gets Austrian man thrown behind bars

We reported on the story in 2013 here, about how "despot" wines at least gave villains a face, unlike today's multinational corporations, whose scope for international fascism the likes of Adolf and Benito only dreamed of.

Now a hapless Austrian gets thrown in the slammer for six months just for owning a bottle or two.

The story, 'Austrian man jailed up for glorifying Nazism after cops found "joke" Hitler-branded wine in his home', is here.

There's Trump steaks and Trump wine, and now . . . the Trump wiener

Total government spending is well past the point of adding value

Wayne Winegarden, here:

At one-third of the size of the economy, total government spending is well past the point where additional expenditures add value.

Actually, it's higher than one third, as I previously pointed out here. In 2016 total government spending hit 36.1% of GDP. 

Trump caves to the establishment, endorses Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

Story here.

Next time you need money, Donald, ask Paul. He pays for the $400 bottles of wine at dinner, mine cost $4.

Good luck with that!

Mr. Money Mustache: Obsessive compulsive, and a bunch of other enthusiasms

From the story in The New Yorker, here:

The blog, which he started five years ago, is really an attack on consumerism and waste—a theology of conservation—disguised as a personal-finance advice column. The prospect of retirement is in some respects just a lure—the carrot, as opposed to the stick of his relentless polemical thrashing of anyone who thinks it’s O.K. to buy lattes at Starbucks or drive “a gigantic piece of shit that can barely navigate a parking lot.” He told me, “I’m really just trying to get rich people to stop destroying the planet.” ... [A]t one point I realized that he was almost angry at me for my half-witting participation in the destruction of the world. ... When you play devil’s advocate—for instance, if you suggest that if everyone lived the way he does the economy would shrivel up—he can get riled . . .. [Peter] Adeney has the behavioral-economics view that we should set our policies to encourage sensible behavior—the obvious example being a carbon tax. “It’s libertarian paternalism, or maybe it’s paternalistic libertarianism,” he said. “I am trying to improve the commons.” On his blog, he dispenses deep thoughts, product recommendations (credit cards, brokerages, laser printers), and D.I.Y. work-arounds (“How to Carry Major Appliances on Your Bike”—“It is absolutely ridiculous to buy even your first bottle of wine or restaurant meal if you do not yet have a good bicycle and a bike trailer”).

Is the economy up because wine drinkers wake up and can't remember where they left their underwear?

It doesn't say if you can wear these home.

Both indicators are up, wine sales and underwear sales.

Stories here and here and here.

Unlike Past Identifiable Tyrants, Today's Monsters Are Faceless Multinationals

So says Andrea Lunardelli, quoted here at CNBC.com:

"It's history, not propaganda," Andrea Lunardelli insisted during an interview on a warm August morning in his family's modest wine cellar where a lone employee was busy attaching labels — Hitler giving the Nazi salute; a portrait of Hitler with his autograph; another portrait with the motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" (one people, one nation, one leader) — on bottles waiting to be boxed and shipped. ... Bottles with labels from what Mr. Lunardelli, the son of the company owner, Alessandro Lunardelli, describes as the "historical line of products" occupied a shelf on a wall. The discriminating buyer could choose among Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, indicating that when it comes to despots, Lunardelli wines are equal-opportunity merchandizers. ... These products "are a way of not forgetting history and the monsters it produced, ensuring that they never return," he said. At least the past had identifiable tyrants, he added. "Today's monsters are faceless multinationals." ... Only Che Guevara popped corks when it came to leftist figures. ... Nazi bottles, he acknowledged, are among the company's best sellers. "Eighty percent of the sales are Hitler," he said, or around 20,000 bottles a year, about a quarter of Lunardelli's total production, which consists mostly of table wines using local variety grapes. ... Despite years of complaints about his labels, Mr. Lunardelli pointed out that the law was on his side. Several lawsuits and investigations by public prosecutors have failed to prove in court that the wines are an apologia for fascism or Nazism, which is against the law in Italy.

Perhaps The Most Important Argument Against Consumption Taxes

Perhaps the most important argument against consumption taxes is Murray Rothbard's critique of them here, noting their time-preference prejudice:

"The major argument for replacing an income by a consumption tax is that savings would no longer be taxed. A consumption tax, its advocates assert, would tax consumption and not savings. The fact that this argument is generally advanced by free-market economists, in our day mainly by the supply-siders, strikes one immediately as rather peculiar. For individuals on the free market, after all, each decide their own allocation of income to consumption or to savings. This proportion of consumption to savings, as Austrian economics teaches us, is determined by each individual's rate of time preference, the degree by which he prefers present to future goods. For each person is continually allocating his income between consumption now, as against saving to invest in goods that will bring an income in the future. And each person decides the allocation on the basis of his time preference. To say, therefore, that only consumption should be taxed and not savings is to challenge the voluntary preferences and choices of individuals on the free market, and to say that they are saving far too little and consuming too much, and therefore that taxes on savings should be removed and all the burdens placed on present as compared to future consumption. But to do that is to challenge free-market expressions of time preference, and to advocate government coercion to forcibly alter the expression of those preferences, so as to coerce a higher saving-to-consumption ratio than desired by free individuals."

Rothbard goes on to ascribe this prejudice to "Calvinism", which may be entertaining to the libertarian who is interested in wine, women and song now and has a devil may care attitude about present frugality as a defense against want later. But this assumes there is no moral difference between savings and consumption, which there certainly is when the penniless old man turns up on your doorstep, hat in hand. The libertarian has his own time preference prejudice, were he to admit it, which life teaches us has serious consequences, more often than not.

Be that as it may, it is important to recognize that standard measurements of economic activity in the United States have for some time shown, in something like the following formulation, that "70% of GDP consists in consumer spending", and were it not for schemes like Social Security and Medicare there would be far more ringing of the bell going on at the front. This is quite a remarkable fact in a supposedly Calvinist civilization, a fact which argues for the moral superiority of savings over consumption because despite our better natures we in reality live otherwise. This suggests that we still ought to do everything we can to encourage the former and punish the latter, for the simple reason which the observation of human nature teaches. We are mixtures of good and evil, but unfortunately too often it turns out to be a bad mixture.

The ancient Greeks, among other things, notably taught us "nothing too much", by which we may infer that the preponderance of present spendthrifts demonstrates individual and social excess which ought to be remedied by tax policy encouraging the increase of savers. To right the ship would mean achieving a better balance between the two, and to Rothbard's main point, which is that under a consumption tax savings would inevitably be taxed in the long run anyway just as consumption is in the present because that is what savings becomes, we therefore ought to have no compunction about taxing savings in the end. That is what the death tax accomplishes, the final message to an excess of savings.

In the present context this recommends taxation of consumption in some form to encourage marginally less of it, better mechanisms of rewarding savings of which we have too little, and a death tax which approximates the same level as a consumption tax would operate at. This means that draconian schemes of estate confiscation by the government at death are in principle unjust because as consumption taxes we would never think of imposing similar levies on the living.

Unless, of course, we subscribe to The New Republic.

"The Weakest Republican Field In History, And They Kicked My Butt"

So says Gov. Rick Perry, here.

The Many Say 'Snuck In', The Few Say 'Sneaked In', But No One Calls It Dishonest

Least of all the sneaker, indeed quite the opposite, here:

Valdez snuck into the U.S., from Mexico, as a teenager and found work picking grapes. He got amnesty during the Reagan administration. Today he owns a vineyard management company and the winery. “This is the beauty of the U.S. --if you’re a hard worker and good and honest you can do it,” he said.

His wine made it to The White House in 2010.