Posts
I started my first day of P90X. Took my measurements (44 inch chest, 37 inches around the belly, 14.5 inches for both arms, 20.5 inches for my right leg, 22 inches for the left one). The lesson for today is that if you really want to know what you look like, take a photo. I can't believe how flabby I've gotten. But, between this and playing/coaching lacrosse this summer, I should drop some significant weight.
Hello everyone,
For those that wanted to see pics of our new wee baby, Jacob. Here is a link:http://gallery.me.com/mrgaskell
Towards the bottom is a gallery of pictures that are updated on the fly as I get new pics in. You can even subscribe to the gallery so you get notification of new pics. There is also a movie of his birth, there is a little blood in it since it was a cesarean delivery, but no naughty bits. :)
Update as to his condition: Doing okay. He blew out some avioli in his lungs, which allowed some air to creep in to his chest wall. They had to put in a tiny, tiny chest tube to allow that air to escape. He has had to receive some surfactant to help keep his lungs open. Other than that, he needs to get fatter, unlike his father. Looks more like me at this point, but he has his mom's chin.
Have a great break,
John Gaskell
mrgaskell@me.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." Jamie Raskin, American University law professor, 2006.
Here is an email I just sent off to Rep. Diane DeGette, my Congresswoman: Dear Rep. DeGette, John Gaskell
I appreciate your taking time to write the letter back to all of the concerned constituents that I am sure contacted you regarding the Wall Street Bail Out. And by now, I think you are beginning to see why we are angry. We are angry because Congress has once again added trillions of dollars to our national debt to bail out organizations that will not survive regardless of what we do. The culture on Wall Street is corrupt and un-sustainable.
The entire premise of Adam Smith's creation of free market capitalism is that each entrepreneur, each business, indirectly helps themselves and their fellow man. The baker helps himself by making and selling bread and helps his fellow man by feeding him. The premise requires that greed, corruption are kept in check by the proprietor and moral behavior is followed. Without this proper moral compass, free market capitalism, in its purest form cannot function. Executives of many large corporations have lost their moral compass to the mandate of maximizing share holder profits in the short term and ensuring maximum bonuses for the corporate elite. Since they are incapable of moral behavior, we must then regulate them.
I believe one way to reduce the greed of Wall Street is to take away the temptation. I would suggest you author a bill NOW that would mandate a maximum executive compensation for all public companies. If this will not fly, make the law apply to those that make bids on government contracts or receive federal bail-out assistance; Basically, any company that receives federal dollars must agree to a maximum executive compensation agreement of no more than say, 20 times their lowest employee's salary. Want to increase your pay? Increase the salary of the workers below you.
Please let me know what your thoughts are on this proposal. I believe now is the time to make a change in the culture of business in America. This proposal will help the American workers, shareholders and help regain the public's trust in publicly traded companies.
Thank you,
Sit and learn from the master
John Gaskell
mrgaskell@me.com
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Congresman Ron Paul
> Date: September 25, 2008 1:52:18 PM MDT
> To: mrgaskell@mac.com
> Subject: My Answer to the President
> Reply-To: Congresman_Ron_Paul_bcpag_lnavwj@cp20.com
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School > predicted has arrived.
>
> We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created > credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution > being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No > liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing > more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the > distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the > malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish > rational pricing of houses and other assets.
>
> Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial > crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, > since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - > not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
>
> Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
>
> The president assures us that his administration "is working with > Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in > our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve > and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
>
> We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, > but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They > were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, > artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs > engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in > light of current resource availability, that occur in more > temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern > of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at > all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth > instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
>
> Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might > then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great > debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or > "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
>
> Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: > "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed > they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to > borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable > investments, and put our financial system at risk."
>
> Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie > in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, > government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by > bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown > that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal > government" were in fact correct?
>
> Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to > the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which > would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your > home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the > bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of > thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop > anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous > decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and > supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on > propping them up.
>
> It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the > Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went > on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was > allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the > economy recovered within less than a year.
>
> The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join > him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the > bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country > much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the > bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention > these days.
>
> F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' > manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with > which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great > Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his > day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
>
> Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the > maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three > years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that > readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has > been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to > the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate > policy of credit expansion.
>
> To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt > to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because > we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to > create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a > much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an > end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts > to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the > exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
>
> The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not > learn from history.
>
> The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us > that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves > foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of > mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will > restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly > without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is > called into question?
>
> Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a > "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the > American people.
>
> The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern > for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most > insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American > people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to > think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to > annoy them.
>
> I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them > a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote > the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate > yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an > excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the > comment section, and learn.
>
> H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between > education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as > far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the > greatest weapon we have.
>
> In liberty,
>
>
>
> Ron Paul
>
>
> Political Advertisement paid for by Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
>
>
> You are subscribed to this newsletter as mrgaskell@mac.com. Please > click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from > any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.
>
Ever do this? Meet up at a book store and just start playing a reading each other books? Another reason why little kids rock.
Here's Elly and a few of her friends stuffing their birthday bears.
Scott Lilly of the Center for American Progress, who spent years on the Appropriations staff, agrees. He is directing journalists to a report the Congressional Research Service released two days before Bush’s address. It’s called “Earmarks in Appropriations Acts: FY 1994 . . . FY 2005″, and it documents Bush’s indifference to the earmarked items tacked onto bills by individual legislators.
• The VA, HUD, and other agencies’ appropriations bills included 469 individual earmarks in 2000. The number had gone up to 2,080 by 2005.
• Defense Department earmarks increased from 997 in 2000 to 2,506 in 2005.
• Labor, Health and Human Services and Education earmarks soared from 491 in 2000 to 3,014 in 2005.
• At Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, earmarks went from 361 in 2000 to 1,722 in 2005.
"The eyes of this country are upon you !!! Please vote with careful consideration.
When you vote, don’t believe the Clinton campaign when it asserts that Barack Obama is not qualified to lead this country. Obama’s great background exceeds Hillary’s qualifications. Here are a few highlights from Barack Obama’s resume…
He graduated in the top 1% of his class at Harvard Law School with a major in Constitutional Law, and was elected President of the Harvard Law Review - a great honor.
Hillary graduated in the middle of her class and flunked her law exam TWICE (this is true, check it out !!)
Obama could have gotten a high paying prestigious job, but opted to work as a community organizer in the poor sections of Chicago helping blacks, hispanics and others to gain a political voice and get ahead.
Obama then worked for years as a Civil Rights lawyer representing a wide range of clients.
He also worked as a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
For her ENTIRE CAREER in Arkansas, Hillary worked as a CORPORATE LAWYER representing large companies in lawsuits against them.
Hillary then became First Lady when Bill won the election, and for 8 years the one “real” project she headed was Health Care Reform, in which she failed miserably.
Barack Obama served as State Senator of Illinois for 8 years, and he has been U.S. Senator for ther last 3 years. He has a total of 11 years in ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE.
Hillary has a total of 6 years in ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE.
You be the judge. Who’s background is more relevant ??"
