Stonehead

Wasn't something similar brought up here perhaps a year ago? The so-called 'creation of wealth'. Just seems the grand illusion is produced by low interest rates and artificially elevated demand through people pushing money around--investors. What's the term for it? ---"flipping"? As far as population and land space, I read somewhere that one should look at the situation in Japan where real estate prices have been stagnant or depressed for a long period. That's the opposite situation that you would expect given the number of people per unit land.

Wasn't the dot.com bubble burst by a credit squeeze caused by rising interest rates? I'm not sure if I have that right, didn't look it up. 'Cause I seem to recall also that Greenspan eased rates just prior to the turn of the millenium. Do you have a chart of interest rates too?

Yeah, summertime's nearly here. Time also for Click It or Ticket season. Here's the shizzle: --A cop stops you at a checkpoint. The officer peers inside. What's he looking for? A kidnapper? A terrorist? This week, chances are good the officer is looking for a less frightening perpetrator—the unbuckled motorist.-- Buckle Boondoggle

Summer. What's it without uffos?

Didn't Greenspan or one of the other Federal Reserve yokels characterize the situation as 'froth'? In other words, they didn't want to send any alarmist signals, just precautionary, because locally there are overinflated markets that which if deflated wouldn't necessarily induce a general collapse?

The history of our country is largely a history of social experiments. The costs and benefits are evident with the passage of time. Often when the costs appear to outweigh the benefits, then change is propagated. Freedom of choice, consumer choice especially, is consistent with our heritage, even if that choice leads unfortunately to illness and/or death. Should I regulate entirely my brother's behavior because I know what is best for him? Don't each of us have the responsibility to choose which of the alternatives that are available? I realize these are chemical substances, some of which are addictive to certain individuals. Therein, lies the crux of the problem. But, are all of us who use these substances, are we alcoholics or nicotine fiends?

I would not go so far as to make direct comparisons with tobacco in an argument to justify usage. As far as causing death or leading to death, well, just about anything can be argued as such. For instance, a person could drink himself to death by consuming too much water. I am approaching this from an economic standpoint and I believe it could be argued that the social impact could be better mitigated if marijuana were legal for adults and regulated.

The way I see it, is that all of us, this one great truth about life, is that all of us will die sometime. We don't know when or how but we will all die. Two of the most dominant influences on death are genetics and behavior. Genetics is fixed upon conception; the dice are rolled. Behavior, on the other hand, is determined by choice. I wouldn't say all behavior is subject to the conscious process of decision because the environment is so influential in ways that subdue the autonomy of the individual but we often have the opportunity to change our lifestyle. So anyway, the beauty of it all is that we could have the opportunity to choose to use or not, just as we have the opportunity to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or to gamble. It won't be a free-for-all. Put some social guidelines on its use such as restrict usage to adults As I see it, the general public shuns indiscriminate drinking, gambling, etc. Most of us are responsible adults and condone responsible behavior (with some exceptions ). It seems these vices are somewhat a socially manageable behavior for society as a whole.

Milton Friedman: Legalize It! -- Forbes.com "...Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University, estimates that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year. In response, a group of more than 500 distinguished economists -- led by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton Friedman -- released an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods." Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis Dr. Miron's full report, the open letter to public officials signed by more than 500 economists, and the full list of endorsers are available at http://www.prohibitioncosts.org.

Here's another link: Scientists Experiment With 'Trust' Hormone

Trust can be bottled: study People who sniff a certain hormone become more trusting and willing to give away their money, a Swiss study suggests.

My two cents... First, war is a necessary ‘evil’. A country must use forceful means (the big stick) to defend its interests or suffer at the hands of other nations who have no reservations concerning the use of power. For those who believe otherwise, a certain naivety about the world is displayed in one’s understanding of how the world actually operates. In the same vein as the opening sentence, it was John Adams who said, "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." Now, I do have some reservations concerning the use of pre-emptive force because in some cases a regional balance of power is a better stabilizer than an imbalance. For instance, Israel has nuclear weapons which many believe is necessary in order for it to protect itself. Yet, this imbalance of power is a source of friction. While the Israeli government cannot be blackmailed by the threat of nuclear extortion, the governments (or perhaps the military) of Arab nations see strategic advantage in acquiring nuclear capacity. Our fear in this scenario is that somehow the governments of Arab nations will not act responsibly with this power because we have been so negatively influenced by the image of the wild-eyed fanatical Islamist fundamentalist. As I see it, it is the terrorists, the unlawful combatants, who represent the wild card. Governments, even those such as Kim Jong’s North Korea exercise some rational basis to decision making. They may perform a seemingly outrageous act but it is designed to elicit a particular response in accordance with their strategy. Regarding pre-emptive action, it was John Adams who said, "The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea." Might we not take this as justification for assassination? The justification follows the utilitarian ethic of the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ or the death of one or few individuals in order to save the lives of many. In the case of Saddam, it seemed that taking out the head was not enough, that we had to strike the body of the organism, the Baathist Party structure, and to reconfigure it. We would point out that Saddam was a ruthless dictator because who in his right mind could support such a monster? This was the rationale presented and sold to the public, ‘here is a tyrant who kills his own people with impunity and who has proven his willingness, if not the capacity, to cause great destruction.’ Here we venture into situational ethics or moral relativism. Machiavelli pointed out that ‘a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.’ Similarly, so must we respond as a nation. We must protect our interests around the world however disfavorable it appears in your eyes. We must protect our way of life, our free access to oil, because I know damn well that all of you would be singing the same tune if your standard of living were to change drastically. It was Oliver North during the Iran-Contra hearing who said, “covert actions are necessary to maintain a viable democracy.” And yes, overt action is sometimes necessary though I disagree with a pattern of sustained military aggression. Political strategist, Newt Gingrich, once said, “Politics and war are remarkably similar situations.” So it is and this is a battle of words, of ideas. But it was Mao Tse-Tung who said it better: “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” I am a believer in the dialectical process of conflict and the resolution of that conflict that leads to solutions. We lack the ‘crystal ball’ to see the future but may we have the fortitude and conviction to have political battles in the hopes of limiting the potential for future bloodshed.

MIT student, Adam augmented this sofa with a two-stroke gasoline engine. Soon to be fitted with a virtual X-Box station, and the 'Emergency Pizza Button', this feat of MIT imagineering genius is sure to be harolded as a major advance in the reclaiming of the American male persona. Adam's future plans include a trip to the local drive in with a 'hot date'. Motorized Couch

"I'm crushing your head." "I'm crushing it."

Mother Jones has an interview with Erik Saar, a former Gitmo translator who has written a book describing his experiences. Selected excerpts follow: MJ: Why didn't anyone speak to General Miller, the commander of the camp, about their concerns? ES: I would say that junior ranking soldiers don't ever think they can talk to a general that way. Nobody really thought to express their concerns to him because that's just not done in the Army. I've been asked a number of times why I didn't say things about what I didn't like. I think it shows a lot of people don’t understand the way things work in the military. Take Lynndie England. She was an E-3—a very, very junior ranking soldier. Yes, technically you're taught you only follow lawful orders. That's what we're all taught. But you're not taught extensively—and especially for someone who is not very sophisticated—you don't know what the hell a lawful order is. Am I saying, for her situation, that she should not have known as a soldier that what she was doing was wrong? No, I'm not saying that. She should have known what she was doing was wrong. But at the same time, it's drilled into her head the she follows orders. Your reaction as a soldier when you doubt something is not initially to say, "Wow, I need to say something to someone." In your training, it's never encouraged that the minute you see something you don't like to go and tell your superior officer. No way. If anything, you're encouraged to keep your head down, not ask questions, and go do your job. MJ: Do you think that the reports are holding the right people accountable? ES: Definitely not. For them to be saying that low-ranking individuals simply went off and did their own thing and are solely responsible is wrong. From the perspective of a former soldier, leaders are responsible for what happens in their command. And they're responsible to ensure that their soldiers are effectively trained. In the case of Abu Ghraib, the fact that a leader got a letter of reprimand and the junior-ranking soldier, who was following orders, goes to jail, blows my mind. When you're a leader, you're responsible for the actions of your subordinates. Bottom line. We're talking about leaders who have prepared their entire career for what they are now experiencing: a war-time mission. Essentially, when they're not on a mission, they're training for that mission. This is someone who should be at the top of their game because this is what is going to make or break their career. And now they're saying they didn't really realize that this is what was going on in their command, and they weren't really responsible for it because these were just people who went off and did their own thing? It just contradicts everything you're ever taught in the Army about being a responsible leader. -- Mother Jones article--Inside the Wire: An Interview With Erik Saar

We have the means--NASA's subvocal speech system (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2004/subvocal/subvocal.html NASA scientists have begun to computerize human, silent reading using nerve signals in the throat that control speech. In preliminary experiments, NASA scientists found that small, button-sized sensors, stuck under the chin and on either side of the ‘Adam’s apple,’ could gather nerve signals, send them to a processor and then to a computer program that translates them into words. "What is analyzed is silent, or sub-auditory, speech, such as when a person silently reads or talks to himself," said Chuck Jorgensen (pictured), a scientist whose team is developing silent, subvocal speech recognition at NASA Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley. --from source at link above

"If you want to change the world, change the world inside yourself." --Jello Biafra?? "All politics is local." --former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil??

Call me crazy, unfocused, or whatever. We're trying to pose solutions for problems that have no specific answers unless one lives in an ideal world. Ok, so what I’m reading it’s all about accountability on all sides. But wise men know that morality falls by the wayside in the pursuit of power, that a certain ruthlessness is required according to the circumstances. In the grand sweep of history, these incidents will be an aberration in time and the lasting imprint will be our political-economic impact. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Francis Futuyama proclaimed the ‘End of History' with the triumph of liberal democracy--a global free market and capitalist paradise. As such, I don’t see as much threat from a regressive Muslim world as I do from the progressive advance of socio-technological change. Change produces societal upheaval and we strive to maintain control with the same very tools that caused the disruptions. The struggle against Islamic fundamentalism, if we can even call it that, will be a footnote in history compared to the very likely threat of totalitarianism in our own system. "The buck stops here." That’s what President Truman said when he made the decision to drop atomic weapons and took responsibility for that momentous action. But what does that mean? The victor loses nothing in taking accountability. So, accountability is ultimately meaningless. It’s merely political and partisan. I have the feeling though as I did in the Reagan years of an existence of a shadow government. It’s like some kind of crime boss who feigns ignorance because all he did was order his lieutenants to take care of the problem. If it’s intimidation, then intimidate but don’t tell me the details, just do it. Yeah, the Teflon president. Ronald Reagan is dead. But look again. We still see the continuation of that Teflon shield in members of our current administration. And man, I think, they upgraded the quality of that Teflon! So, what's stopping Bush from facing directly into the camera during a State of Union address and boldly admitting mistakes were made at high levels? Going on and saying that we are on ‘terra incognita’. We are striving to forge a new path consistent with our vision of the future, that future generations will recognize our contributions as a lasting American legacy. That’s a fantasy. All I know is that Bush has the luxury of never having to say he’s sorry. I do feel as if we have entered a phase of total war simultaneously attacking on all fronts, the domestic and foreign. That’s boldness. We are facing a party emboldened by the massive consolidation of power. Coming to you soon…a Republican Thousand Year Reich (or at least 45 years as the Democrats had as majority party).

Tom DeLay committed an ethics violation? That's a new one on me. Prove it! And, oh by the way, you liberal media can print this...that the Congressional Republicans reserve the right to use the Nuck-leer Option to defeat any fillibuster. That's right. And anyone else gets out of line, we'll drop a nuke on them too! Beginning with you, liberal media! Don’t mind the turkey. It’s the new symbol for Democrats. Honk! Honk! Uh, I mean, Gobble! Gobble!

My first inclination is that the US will lag other countries that have no moral objections to stem cell research. Yet, somehow I don't believe that will be the major problem. The rich will always have access to best healthcare and medical developments even if they have to access it from other countries. Francis Futuyama in his book,Our Posthuman Future, sees these developments as a threat itself to the foundation of liberal democracy.

Wait a minute…what is going on here? Are you saying that we (or our leaders) have de-evolved to some Old Testament or medieval mindset? Is this not more spin? Have you not presented an entirely grotesque face on this Administration, when in fact this face is composed of a mixture of grotesque and noble? For my part, I'd have to say that the photographs of the abused prisoners evoked the same sense of shock, outrage, and disgust that I felt as an objective observer when I first viewed the Rodney King video. But feelings aside, we have to make distinctions and suppress the urge to generalize, because that urge to generalize plays right into political characterization. Machiavelli says, "The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous." That is the central question (and here I break my own advice). How does a nation remain virtuous in a threatening world?

I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing, but this current Administration has breached, modified, taken steps to discard or rejected (not ratified by Congress) a number of international treaties. This list of treaties would include: Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Outer Space Treaty Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Geneva Conventions (including Conv. III. Treatment of Prisoners of War and Conv. IV. Protection of Civilians..) Kyoto Protocols? Any others...? So, this is an outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War along with its resultant strategic mindset? And, with this Brave New World, we are experiencing a seachange in global strategy that requires us to scrap the old ways and adopt a new way of encountering the world?

What a classic 'pot calling the tea kettle black' (not you PP, but Bush Administration) One word: Curveball

No, no, what this thread really needs is...