patrick.net

FRIFY,

No, I don't have a problem with Hillary's image. My problem is with her senate record, where she repeated voted against her conscience and for short sighted political expediency.

I personally find Laura Bush to be much more loathsome a first lady than Hillary Clinton.

SFWoman,

Yes. I buy all of that, and agree. But again, the German press, reflective of the people and culture, is very pacifist. Many believe to a fault. Why are they apparently warmongering, by your definitional assertion, also? They source their own media, do their own translations, and when they pick up US English language media it is usually to mock us and show how stupid, greedy, or warhungry we are.

I don't understand all this fuss with Ahmadinejad's words. They were pretty obviously spoken to the Iranians and the rest of the Muslim world, and meant to increase Iran's stature vis a vis the US. But they're also sentiments that are ingrained throughout the Middleeast. Did anything really change with the speech, regardless of the wording? The threats to Israel are empty threats. The Death to America speeches are also empty threats (unless accompanied by support or money for anti-American terrorists). Can we go back to focus on Iran's real threat to the US, not in words but in an active nuclear program and involvement in Iraq?

FRIFY,
I agree with your post re: dismissiveness towards Hillary's record. However, this was all as first lady. As anyone who has been put in the spotlight knows (giving a speech, put in a position of high scrutiny), the things you do when you're "in charge" are very different from when your're in the background. It could be very well possible that as first lady, Hillary acted on her conscience (best case scenario) or to shore up her own political career (worst case). Now as senator, her record speaks for itself - grandstanding, politically expedient, without a clear unified agenda. However, this pretty well describes just about everyone else in Washington.

Amen, skibum.

"All mouth and no trousers".
I just wish there was someone (lunatic right-wing fundlmentalists excluded) who had the courage of thier convictions. If any of them had the cojones, man, woman, or lady-boy, to stand up and say "I'm as mad as hell and i'm not going to take it any more!" then I'd vote for them.

SFWoman,

Fair enough. For the record, I agree on your view of the US media. I only consume financial media that is US-sourced, though I prefer British for even that.

I don't think there are any good answers to the mid-east problems for the US. Perhaps the only high-road we can hope to take is to return to isolationism, close up shop overseas, and let things run their coarse, wars, genocide, and all. Eventually they'll either work it out for better or worse, or things will break out into expanding global wars that eventually pull us in. At least we'd be the good guys again in that case.

Randy,

I think there's a midway between isolationism and belligerantly rearranging the fate of other nations. Clinton actually made a serious effort, especially early on, to broker peace and international cooperation. That, and the post-9/11 gush of international goodwill, is now completely squandered.

Hey, I still can't forgive the Democrats for passing on Howard Dean.

SFWoman Says:

Unless you have a few hundred million dollars of your own you’d never make it past the primaries. Even then, didn’t Ross Perot try it and get slammed?

Exactly. The US political system meticulously stamps out any aspirant who has conviction, original ideas, and is unwilling to pander to special interests. It's a truly disheartening situation. How did we get this way? Maybe history has a kind retrospecto-scope, but this phenomenon seems pretty recent. Presidents on both sides of the fence seemed a lot more individualistic and genuine - Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Reagan, even Nixon at least had his own agenda! Now we have a republican president who doesn't act republican, and probably one of the most republican of viable candidates, John McCain, who got his ass whupped in 2000 by the Rove machine learning his lesson and now cattle-prodded into submission to the republican special interests. The dems are no better. Truly sad.

Well, you people who are pissed off at the system. Go out and make some political contributions (in time and money) to candidates you do like and agree with. They don't have to be local. Your dollars are best spent on battle ground states or places with a horrid incumbant.

FRIFY,

I won't argue with your complaints about the Shrub administration. They're pathetic. But the "I’ll take Hillary over this mess anyday" attitude is the problem - take the perceived least horrific option available. It speaks to the dems' lack of any vision at all. They have yet to come up with any agenda other than, "vote for us, we're NOT Bush!"

FRIFY,

Compared to Bush, almost anybody could look good. But surely the Dems (and the Republicans) can do better than Hillary, especially since she needs to get elected before she can do anything.

Yes, Randy H, I tend agree with you.

I know its an extreme view (and expect to get flamed mightliy for it), but if Iran wants nuclear 'energy', then...let them. Surely the fight is between the UN, Iran and the IAEA and nothing whatsoever to do with the US?

Am I the only one who sees the flagrant hypocracy within this year's US foreign relations re:
India (a nuclear power) - Bush goes to celebrate 60th anniversary
Pakistan (nuclear power) - talks today with Mussarraf
North Korea (nuclear power) - ignoring the test missiles.

Yet, despite Ahmedinajhad being not only in the same city, but in the same building, the Prez cannnot bring himself to talk to him?

It seems that the US has declared itself the "Nanny State of the World", leaping in to impose its political views on anyone who isn't strong enough to stand up to them.
How many more wars do we need to be involved in before the US falls apart? Why aren't people as up in arms about whats happeining in their own country, rather than gearing up for the Hatrick War against Iran?

I agree with you Randy H, in the fact that things will happen as they happen, no matter how much time, money and lives the US Govt pours into its beefs overseas.
As the 'most powerful country in the world', surely the US govt should be leading by example - ie creating a healthy, affluent, educated population leading the world in technology, business, education and medicine - rather than wading in wherever they see a percieved lack of 'freedom and democracy' in other countries, thousands of miles away.

Anyway, I realise mine is an extreme view. Appols to all.

Astrid and Skibum
They have yet to come up with any agenda other than, “vote for us, we’re NOT Bush!”

Go out and make some political contributions (in time and money) to candidates you do like and agree with.

No argument that the Dems are seriously lacking leaders. There's only one seat in California that's competitive - out in the east Bay. The sitting Republican (Pombo) is listed in the top 10 most corrupt (google "Pombo corrupt")

The Dem challenger is a renewable energy Engineer:

https://www.jerrymcnerney.org/contribute.asp

He's received my only campaign contribution this year.

FRIFY,

Isn't Pombo that asswipe from Tracy who wants to basically repeal the Endagered Species Act and pave California with developments?

I think his campaign theme song is "Big Yellow Taxi"...

moderate infidel,

It really doesn't matter whether the Jews committed all the atrocities, some of the atrocities, or none of the atrocities. The reality of the situation is that Israel is a small Jewish state in a sea of hostile Arab neighbors (all of whom scapegoat Israel for their own internal problems) who want them out. The Israeli political establishment has long reached this conclusion and is constantly trying to get peace by anyway they can.

Even if you could demonstrate that Israel had some sort of right to some or all their land, does that really change the situation to one more favorable of Israel or US supporters of Israel? Israel is not going to outlive their irrational Arab neighbors and the smart Israelis are already moving out of the country.

My original point, and I think that of SFWoman, wasn't to blame the Zionists for everything that happened in the Middle east since Israel took over Palestine. It was merely to point out the illogical and untenable nature of the continual Israeli occupation of the area.

SFWoman and FRIFY,

That's good to hear! The internet has the potential to shift the electoral process back in favor of intelligent individual partipants. Thank you!

SFGuy,

I agree. And the punishment should be jail sentences, large fines and closing down misbehaving companies. The realty and mortgage brokerage industry has shown an inability to self-regulate, so it's time for federal and state police action to intervene.

SFGuy,

If your current neighborhood turns into a drug infested ghetto, would you continue to inhabit there?

International law is a pragmatic exercise of form backed by firepower. All this talk of rights and courtesies is all good and dandy, but at the end of the day, fighting an endless war of attrition is not good for either the Palestinians or the Israelis, and it sure as hell is not good for Muslim perception of Americans.

Add to Israel rather weak real claim on Palestine. They claimed the area based on occupation back in Roman times. In recent years, the Israeli government has punished its Palestinian population for the terrorist action of some, which backfired with a more radicalized populace. Nobody's hands are clean and everybody is playing some version of means justifying the ends. So hell, I don't see anything wrong with an outsider interjecting some pragmaticism into the ordeal.

SFGuy,

Did the Muslims even give a damn about the Jews in the thousand or so years between the 900 AD and 1900 AD? Not really. Move Israel and the Muslims will have no one but themselves to blame. All the attempts to peacefully reconcil Israel to its neighbors have failed and a generation of radicalized Muslims have made Israel and the US their ultimate enemy. I'd say time to move out. (But the psychological reality is that such a move will not happen, and so the world will continue to get worse until it start hopefully getting better).

Your strategy appears to involve the US getting entangled in the business of reorganizing hostile SOVERIGN NATIONS. My pragmaticism forces me to decline such a strategy.

Or are you saying I don’t dislike them enough to think we should do anything about them (i.e. we should let them have nukes if that’s what they want) - I think the latter seems to be Randy’s position.

I'm not sure that accurately describes my position. I was simply commenting on the practical reality of the situation today. Not what could have been. Not what should have been.

It is no longer practical for the US to act as global nation builder. We've lost honest broker status. We won't get it back for a long long time. I'm sorry many people will be left to struggle, suffer and die. I'm sorry our leaders weren't, and we blew it. But it's time to take care of ourselves and keep our guns polished for a coming time when we'll need them in a really big way. It seems the US is increasingly hated around the world. Perhaps we're largely to blame for that ourselves. Fine. I say, "here's the keys, we've got some work to do at home. oh, and good luck. Don't call us, we'll call you."

--of course that means we can't import oil, which means we'll need to burn corn, which means millions will starve in africa, which means civil wars will sweep the continent, which means no more US consumers of imports, which means china will need to deal with their inflation, which means they'll use military expansionism to avoid internal collapse, which means ... maybe all that wouldn't be bad either, in the very long run. It certainly will be worse for that other hemisphere than this one.

SFGuy,

Let's not kid ourselves. Without US support, Israel would not persist.

Let me backtrack a bit though, since I think you misunderstand my positions somewhat. I was originally posing a what-if back to the establishment of Israel in British Palestine. In that situation, I would have supported moving a Zionist state elsewhere, where the religious and ethnic tension would be much lower. I don't advocate the US or anybody else forcibily moving Israel anywhere now - that's a gordian knot I have no desire to untangle or even touch.

As for realpolitiks in international diplomacy. Yep, I think domestic expediency and access to power (be it influence, military or economic) governs diplomacy. And ultimately power, correctly applied, wins. Absent power, well, there are millions of displaced persons in Africa but I don't see anyone starting jihads for them.

Duncan,

"You could be licensed to borrow"

OR! We can wait until people get in totally over their heads and when they're about to file BK THEN give them counseling?

The idea of "Islamic Banking" is gaining some traction in the west. When I think about all of the people my age (47) and even older signing up for a 30 or even 40 year mortgage I feel like I need to borrow a gun so I can go kill myself!

I'm told that the core difference in Islamic banking is that it is done for the benefit of it's members (not owners/investors). There is a grass roots movement in this country and I think it's wonderful. We're finally getting smart and using the banks to our own advantage vice just sucking it up and taking it like a man. About time!

Please feel free to "ramble" all you'd like!

SFGuy,

I don't see a contradiction. My personal belief and US policy are two different things. So while I wish US never got entangled into Israel, now that we're there, I think the US has an obligation to get out with a minimum of harm. What that means, hell if I know.

Oh whatever, just say I'm looking for plausible deniability. I'm not in any kind of political power, so it doesn't really matter what my position on this is.

SFGuy,

Ethanol and bio-diesel are very feasable, and already being used at scale in Brazil. We have the tech. Others who are much more knowledgeable than I have commented extensively on this in past threads.

If you add nuclear to that to offload the grid from fossil sources, augment with electric propulsion wherever practical, and continue pressing coal gassification techs, we're in better shape than anyone else except perhaps Canada. We have a good amount of uranium; and much more is in Australia, which will keep trading with us for at least 50 more years even in bad circumstances. We have coal and corn coming out of our ears.

We have coal and corn coming out of our ears.

And do not forget natural gas.

Solor is not ready yet though. A 15kW system is too expensive for most houses.

The idea of “Islamic Banking” is gaining some traction in the west.

Interesting concept --and also interesting how the whole Israel/Palestine debate here has intersected with housing/finance in a totally unexpected way. Here's the Wikipedia link.

In theory, Islamic Banking requires full-reserve (100%) ratio, unlike our printing-press addicted, currency debasing Fed. It also requires risk and any profits to be shared between the borrower and lender, which sounds pretty good at face value.

The downsides? For one thing, lending must adhere to the strictures of Sharia in terms of what the money is being lent for (i.e., no "sin" products/services --alcohol, sex, gambling, pork, etc.). "Ethical investing" also sounds an awful lot like a muslim fundamentalist version of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), and we all know the drawbacks of that thanks to our resident CSR expert, Mr. Randall H., Esq.

if we couldrapidly replace oil with some other energy source we owned), this would be another world. I don’t disagree with the sentiment at all. It’s just that my understanding (NOT an expert in physics, energy engineering or corn!) is that no such energy source exists at this time. It;s also my understanding that we could be doing more to discover one - not clear why we’re not.

Do you know something we don’t? If so, what’s the ticker symbol

There is no quick alternative in the short term. But in the long term, the world is awash in oil alternatives --nuclear, biodiesel, hydro, coal, oil shale. Coal is dirty, nuclear is dangerous, biodiesel and hydro will never be enough to meet our energy needs and shale is expensive to extract (I didn't say there were any reliable, cheap, efficient, clean and renewable energy sources). But who knows, with Richard Branson's money maybe they will come up with something.

If you are looking for a ticker, you may want to check out CNQ (not investment advice). It is a Canadian company with massive oil shale reserves. Canada is like the Saudi Arabia of shale (basically oil imbedded in gravel, as I understand it). It is inefficient and expensive to extract oil from shale, but it can be done for the right price. Supposedly, CNQ can make money even if oil goes back down to $30/barrel. But if oil goes back to $20/barrel, you won't need to worry about the money you lost on CNQ because you can fill up your Hummer for cheap!

The downsides? For one thing, lending must adhere to the strictures of Sharia in terms of what the money is being lent for (i.e., no “sin” products/services –alcohol, sex, gambling, pork, etc.).

Plus if you default they pelt your wife with stones!

nuclear is dangerous

Based on 1960s/70s era technology (which virtually all operating U.S. reactors are based on), I would agree, but not so much with latest-gen technology. The safety of nuclear fission NRG reactors has radically improved since 3-mile or Chernobyl. Reactors designed/built today (at least in 1st world nations) are far safer by several orders of magnitude than reactors built a generation ago. No comparison.

Plus, new designs allow a tremendous reduction in the amount as well as the half-life of nuclear waste produced --as much as a 98% reduction by volume, according to one Scientific American article I read last year (sorry, don't have the link handy).

Wow, I leave the office for a few hours and the really fun discussions happen! Israel will likely go away on its own; simple demographics will dictate that. 80% of both population groups (SWAG number) prefer peace anyway, the problem is dealing with the remainder. (Settlers and suicide bombers both; the racism exhibited by both sides is frankly disgusting.)

DinOR: Are you referring to credit unions?

but if the banks were forced by the Fed into 100% reserves, wouldn’t the economy grind to a hault? Wouldn’t we pretty much return to the finance world of the middle ages?

I'm no economics history expert (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), but didn't the entire world pretty much run on full-reserve banking prior to the creation of the Fed (1914) and other central banks? If so, then wouldn't we simply be returning to a relatively recent era (historically speaking) before easy credit, perma-inflation, and debt = wealth paradigm? Doesn't sound so bad to me.

The "no sin" prohibition, on the other hand... :-(

SFGuy

if we have the tech to replace oil with other energy sources, why isn’t the market providing solutions? Is oil still not expensive enough to justify the switch?

Exactly. Oil is too cheap now. It won't be forever. It's edging high enough to spur the market into putting some real $ into R&D in areas like bio, new-gen nuke, and coal liquification/gassification.

OPEC is greedy, but they aren't stupid. They know that they have to manage the rise of prices very carefully or else their reign of petrodollars will come to a premature end. This is why they always seem to come up with the capacity, even when they'd just assume spit on the US than sell us their oil.

The beauty of an efficient market at work. Oil is a commodity. They can't set one price for us and another for everyone else.

HARM

No. Reserves and deficits have existed for a very long time, going back many centuries.

There is a common misconception that gold-reserve demand systems meant that there was always 100% backing of gold in reserve for all currency. That's not true by any measure. Various city and nation states deficit spent, were called by creditors, and then fought wars over who owned the gold. And, de facto derivative markets existed, especially during colonial times, which amplified the amount of claims against securities. Remember, every merchant ship that left port carried dozens or hundreds of implicit futures contracts.

Nuclear is dangerous? Only in the hands of complete idiots. Chernobyl was a case of said idiots combined with a very bad reactor design. Even though idiots are plentiful, we don't use such designs. I would also point out that the Navy has an extremely good track record in this area (what do you think powers our boats?). Of course, a good chunk of that is likely due to Rickover, but it still goes to show that nuclear isn't the threat people make it out to be.

BTW, the wildlife is doing quite well around that part of Ukraine. I recommend avoiding the roadside strawberry stands though.

I hate those *&^%% koi ponds everywhere! So trendy and stupid. Does anybody really want a koi pond so they can look at koi? Or do they all just put them in because their flipper landscaping consultant told them it would add value?

First, koi are disgusting. They look like radioactive post-apocalypse goldfish.

Second, koi ponds are expensive! You have to feed the koi, periodically drain the pond, etc... If you don't maintain the pond, you will have stagnant pool of slimy water in your yard--mosquitoes, west nile, etc...

Third, if you have a dog, he will eat your koi.

Fourth, if you have kids, they will fall in the koi pond.

Fifth, nobody is impressed by a koi pond anymore. It is so 1998.

The guy in the article writes software for a defense contractor. Now we know where all those no-bid contract dollars went... Your federal tax dollars at work giving a job to this numbskull.

Glen,

My unrelenting attack on koi ponds knows no bounds! To me, it's symbolic of the whole debacle. A total emphasis on eye candy and not a care in the world for any thing of lasting value!

Tell me you put extra insulation in the attic. Tell me you had drainage installed. Tell me anything! Just don't tell me about your freaking koi pond!

The house we bought in Redwood City in 96 had a very cute little Koi pond out back. No cute little bridge, but a pleasant little pond. The fish did remind me of "Blinky" (from classic Simpson fame).

I hate to maintain water-based attractions. Case-in-point, I managed to turn our next home's pool into a frog sanctuary.

Anyhow, after our dog ate all the Koi -- took about 3 weeks sine a couple were good at hiding, I drained the pond, filled it in and covered it with some nice sod.

I'm not sure whether the dog liked the yard or fish snacks better, though. Now that we have a son, I'd fill it in on day 1.