Email notification to Brandon Starr's blog has been shown to reduce bad cholesterol in two-toed sloths, and has been used as an effective exfoliant.
|
|
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Pat Robertson: I warned Bush about casualties in Iraq...
...Bush's response? "There aren't going to be any." (CNN)
Wow!
Bush thought there weren't going to be any casualties--as though invading Iraq was going to be like invading Grenada.
This is an amazing article. It's also full of irrationalist gems like this:
Jesus may have told Bush to invade Iraq, but God was giving warnings to Robertson: "I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy."
Robertson also believes Bush is blessed by God:
"Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him," Robertson said.
Amazing. Bush is a goofball, self-assured for no reason, mistaken oh so many times, and foolish, yet his irrationalist buddies think "God" has blessed him.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
I can't say it any better...
Monday, October 18, 2004
Authoritarian supports Bush
"Democratically elected" leader Putin supports "democratically elected" Bush
Birds of a feather screw over their people together.
Putin, like so many idiots, seem to think the terrorists want Bush to lose. This is, of course, false. Al-Qaeda is already on record as thinking Bush is a fool and that Kerry would be a much more dangerous foe to them. A lot of Bush's supporters choose to ignore this fact, as they ignore so many facts that fly in the face of what they fervently wish were true.
If you believe in fantasy right up until the moment of your death or the death of your first born, vote for Bush. Osama'll thank you.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Gather together the voter fraud...
Bush Administration: torturers in two hemispheres
Saturday, October 16, 2004
30 years of Dungeons and Dragons
Federal appeals court: fear doesn't trump Constitution
Ramadan starts, so does the violence
With beginning of Ramadan comes a dangerous irrational belief: die fighting infidels during Ramadan, go to heaven
Hold on, folks. It's going to be a bumpy month.
Meanwhile, a group of soldiers refused to go on a refuel/resupply mission, saying several of their trucks were too dangerous to drive and that they didn't have proper protection.
I don't know how to feel about that. On one hand, I'm hard-pressed to say I'd be thrilled myself to go on a mission where I felt I was being set up for failure--and failure meaning death. On the other hand, those supplies are needed by other soldiers, some of whom may meet their own brand of trouble without resupply.
What I'd really like to know is, why don't our soldiers have the equipment they need to succeed? Why hasn't the Bush Administration gotten their act together, a year and a half after invading Iraq? It's not like anyone--Congress, the media, anyone--has been stopping them. Is it incompetence, or are they trying to drag out the war for their own purposes?
I remember an old bumper sticker that said, "It'll be a great day when our schools get all the money they need, and the Army has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." Now that families are putting collections together to buy their soldiers body armor, it's safe to say it's not a great day when either group has to hold a bake sale.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Remember that voter fraud in Nevada...
Greenspan: oil prices not as damaging as in 1970s
Greenspan: oil prices, while not helpful, not as damaging at current prices as in the 1970s.
To which I say: no kidding.
In the 1970s, the price shot up because OPEC cut production, leading not just to high prices but also to shortages and gas lines. The problems with getting fuel was just as bad as the high prices. It was terribly inefficient to have so many people just sitting in line waiting for gas. And it really hammered home the problems in the economy, leading to very low consumer sentiment.
Here's the thing about oil prices and oil demand: they're not as elastic as people think. "Elastic" demand means that as the price goes up, the demand drops off. It's part of every supply and demand market equation, but the amount that demand drops off varies. For instance, cigarettes are raised regularly by both the tobacco companies and the government, yet the demand changes little due to its addictive nature. This is "inelastic demand." Where there is a substitute or high competition, for example in the auto industry, a rise in prices will more quickly skunk demand.
I believe oil is not as elastic as the market thinks. True, if gas REALLY goes up, folks will carpool more, take the bus, and eventually look for more gas-efficient autos. But gas has already risen 50% or more at the pump since the invasion of Iraq, and yet worldwide demand still is going up and up. Even in the U.S., oil product demand is up some. Carpooling, etc. has barely ticked up.
For some reason, the market is only allowing oil to creep up a dollar here, twenty cents there. Why? Because a lot of folks in the market think we should be going back down to "normal" levels. They keep selling the market short, because of this belief in normal prices. I'm telling you there is no such thing as a "normal" level--only a current level, based on supply and demand. Normal is a historical accident, and a perception problem. Prices stayed in a band for a long time, but that was because we have had the cooperation of OPEC since the oil crisis of the late 1970s to keep supply near demand. A lot of folks mistake this band for some sort of "natural" price for oil.
Major oil discoveries are happening less and less often. Technology is helping squeeze more oil out of previously "tapped" areas, but still, there is a finite number of barrels of oil underground in the entire world, and eventually they'll be gone. Though decades away, it's safe to say that crude oil is a dead-end energy source. It will be replaced, though by what it is still, sadly, too soon to say. We could be a lot further along in the search for the next energy source. Whether it's a true alternative energy like solar, or a replacement like crops turned into gasoline, either way at least we win from the standpoint of not being held hostage by foreign oil.
So, maximum supply is going up slowly, while demand is still strong, especially in the developing countries of China and India. Demand has over time caught up to where it is now ahead of maximum supply. Until supply is allowed to catch up, or until demand breaks (say, by a recession in China--unlikely, though their economy has slowed some), you won't see prices drop to those "normal" levels any time soon.
Full disclosure: though I recently dropped my long position in ExxonMobil, I do now have a position in Maverick Tube, a maker of pipeline for the oil industry. Why? Because I think the supply infrastructure needs to be improved, and also with high prices there will be more exploration and new wells also. Just my opinion, that isn't a recommendation for anyone else.
|
|
|