About Me

Name: m0t0r1zed
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Supply n Demand my arse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices;_ylt=ApM7xPL8MKTugUcdGzFNRFaAsnsA
 
The apes are in control of the oil markets.  You know they're itching for any excuse to drive it up over $140 and then to $150.  And we're all just captives getting hosed.  Hellooooo, world-wide recession.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LMAO how NASA discovered ice on Mars

 
So their carefully laid out plans to scoop up dirt and cook 'em in ovens didn't detect ice, but simply kicking up some dirt did.  Jebus, no wonder we're not anywhere near colonizing the Moon or Mars yet.  Oh well, hope the probe gets some exciting results.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No surprise. Obama 15pt lead over McCain, 51-36

Obama's opened up a huge lead over McCain according to Newsweek. 
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465/page/1

Doesn't surprise me at all.  I was wondering when the numbers would go up.  McCain could barely stay even with Obama when both Hillary and McCain were ganging up on him.  You see, the Republicans have a slight problem.  They are almost in a no-win situation.  If things stay poor, Obama will get elected for "change."  If things go well, then people will feel less worried about voting for Obama despite his lack of experience.  The fact that things are going well in Iraq helps Obama - as long as Obama says that he will not withdraw troops too quickly to jeopardize blah blah blah.  You get it?
 
I could be wrong, but I think there is nothing McCain can do to win the race.  There are only two possibilites for a McCain victory.  1) Obama implodes - either in the debates or due to scandal.  2) Hillary stabs him in the back.  The electoral college isn't going to save McCain because most of the battleground states are going to go to Obama.
 
Oh well, looks like America will continue trending left towards the Europeans.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arctic sea ice decline update

Despite the colder winter, Arctic sea ice melt quickened and has caught up with last year.
 
Hmm, why the huge change in sea ice off of Alaska in 1 month from May to June?
 
Interesting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cancer treatment with cloned CD4+ T cells

Very interesting!!!  I need to read up on this.
Link to news article: http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2008/06/18/T_cells.html
Actual paper is in NEJM, June 19 issue.
 
just an excerpt from the news article (not the journal)

Patient's own infection-fighting T cells put late-stage melanoma into long-term remission — without chemotherapy or radiation

Case is first to show safety and effectiveness of using cloned cells alone to kill tumors

SEATTLE — June 18, 2008 — Researchers describe the first successful use of a human patient's cloned infection-fighting T cells as the sole therapy to put an advanced solid-tumor cancer into long-term remission. A team led by Cassian Yee, M.D., an associate member of the Clinical Research Division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, reports these findings in the June 19 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yee and colleagues removed CD4+ T cells, a type of white blood cell, from a 52-year-old man whose Stage 4 melanoma had spread to a groin lymph node and to a lung. T cells specific to targeting the melanoma were then expanded vastly in the laboratory using modifications to existing methods. The lab-grown cells were then infused into the patient with no additional pre- or post-conditioning therapies, such as growth-factor or cytokine treatment. Two months later, PET and CT scans revealed no tumors. The patient remained disease free two years later, when he was last checked.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Idle speculation

Hmm ... is Israel pushing for peace for some reason?  Do they think that Obama will win and is not going to be as supportive of Israel, and so they feel some pressure?  Just wondering ... could be wrong, of course.
 
Exerpt from Laurie Copans, AP.
"Israel officially confirmed Wednesday that a cease-fire with the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip will begin this week in an effort to end a year of fighting that has killed more than 400 Palestinians and seven Israelis.
...
"The confirmation came as Israel on Wednesday also urged Lebanon to open peace talks, the latest in a flurry of developments aimed at easing the multiple conflicts in the region."
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oil oil oil

From USA Today ...
"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will now require trades placed on the ICE Futures Europe, an electronic exchange based in London, to adhere to the same position limits and reporting standards that apply in the USA. The more stringent rules apply to the "West Texas Intermediary crude oil contract, which is linked to the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex) crude oil contract. The new rules, which must be met for ICE traders to access U.S. markets, take effect in 120 days.

"This change will, in effect, undo some of the regulatory differences between the CFTC and the Financial Services Authority, which oversees British trading. It will enable the CFTC to gather more detailed overseas trading information — especially on large positions — on a more frequent basis.

"The CFTC will now be able to observe a trader's full position in both U.S. and foreign futures markets to "ensure that traders are not gaming one market to influence the other," noted CFTC's acting Chairman Walter Lukken. "

 
Also, I listened to Rush Limbaugh a few days ago defending speculators.  He is missing the point.  Of course, speculators are necessary and serve a purpose.  However, rampant speculation or price manipulation is the issue here.  The recent, rapid spike in oil prices is not due to supply and demand.  Demand has not increased anywhere near that much in such a short time span.  It is speculation and a massive shift of investors into the oil market and other commodities trying to get better returns.  The problem is, they're going to cripple the world economy and destabilize gov'ts.  It's time to tell them to GTFO.  Go into corn or gold or whatever ... just stay the hell away from oil.
 
I'm not one of those quick to jump on the latest "gloom and doom" bandwagon *cough cough* Glenn Beck.  I never panicked over the credit or housing crises nor was I quick to proclaim a recession or depression.  I prefer to take my time in looking at a problem.
 
Sadly, I think the oil bubble will cause a world-wide recession unless it is fixed.  I don't really see a way around it.  Also, all long-term oil supplies near the US better be secured through drilling / exploration to avoid future complications and potential conflicts that may arise.  Other nations, such as China, may be a tad more ruthless and direct about their methods of oil acquistion.  Furthermore, we better have an alternative energy source ready to replace oil in the coming decades before it becomes an issue of national defense.
 
Oh well, just mindless thoughts.
Tags: ctfc   oil  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Create oil glut to drive out speculators?

Okay, so a ton of people jumped into the oil market. They realized that they could drive the price higher without a decrease in demand - or at least there would be a long lag in response time since it's hard for industries, gov't, people to change their oil consumption and usage patterns.

However, now oil and gas have hit a point where gov'ts are reducing their subsidies, Americans are driving less and buying small cars, manufacturers are switching to alternative materials, reducing manufacturing of big cars, other energy sources are looking more attractive, etc. The problem is, it takes time for demand to adjust, and if we wait that long, we will be in a world-wide recession, thanks to the speculators.

Gas prices are high.  The oil market's thrashing around on a daily basis.  It's getting rather annoying.  Very annoying.

I think it's time to drive out the speculators.  How?  Supply and demand.  Drop prices by creating an artificial glut on the market.  If you intentionally release more oil on the market than is needed, you will drive prices down and hopefully chase the speculators out the door, and then you should make it hard for them to come back in by shutting the door.  Not completely, of course.  Just raise the threshold of entry or implement some other measures to prevent the nonsense that's been going on. 
 
I'm not an economist, so maybe I'm wrong.  It's just an idea for a quick, short-term fix to avoid a global recession.  No big deal really.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What the heck is Multi-level Utilitarianism?

It's something I made up many years ago because I was dissatisfied with the arbitrariness of existing political theories and philosophies.  I combined evolutionary multi-level selection theory with utilitarianism to try to develop a more rational basis for political thinking.  Never got around to doing anything with it aside from randomly posting about it here and there and rambling mindlessly like a disturbed homeless person collecting soda cans to recycle for some sweet, sweet alcohol.  What was I talking about again?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CNN - what's the deal with Michael Weir?

Okay, Michael Weir is a CNN correspondent in Iraq.  One would assume that by being in Iraq, he would have the heads up on any new developments and provide a better analysis of the situation.  However, he was one of the last people to realize that the conditions in Iraq had radically improved.  In fact, he seemed to be in denial about it.
 
Instead of providing greater insight, he provides a predictable drumbeat of doom.  Always.  Before he makes his report, I can predict everything that he will say.  Whoa, Iran is the real winner!  Whoa, the US is losing the "real" war!  Whoa, this is a tentative peace that could fall apart at any moment!  Whoa, it's an endless fiasco that we cannot win, and I see no end to it!  Whoa, the big winner is Muqtada al-Sadr!  Whoa, the big winners are the extremists!  Whoa, the big winner is anybody except the US!  Whoa!  Defeat!  Whoa!  Death!  Whoa!  Doom!
 
An unrelenting desire for bias against the forces of unreasonable truth is the new standard of excellence in our partisan media, and it's just plain annoying.  It's sad when I watch this guy just to see if he'll ever change his tune, but it's always the same damn note over and over and over again.  You might as well just replace him with an angry monkey.  Whenever it's time for the monkey to give a report, just hit it on the tail with a hammer.
 
Wolf:  So how is the situation in Baghdad?
Monkey:  Screeech!
Wolf:  It's that bad?
Monkey:  Screeech!
Wolf:  I see. So Iran, al-Sadr, and the extremists are the real winners, and this is a tentative peace that could fall apart at any moment because we are mired in a hopeless fiasco that we cannot win?
Monkey:  Screeech!
Wolf:  Thank you, for that illuminating report.  And now, let's get some insightful commentary from Jack Cafferty.
Monkey:  Screeech!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Short-term solution to oil prices

Question: why should we idly watch as the speculators play a game of economic chicken with each other and try to jump out at the last minute? Seriously, isn't it in the best interest of the nation to curtail their little joyride?
 
When Bush took office, the SPR was at around 545 million barrels of oil. Now it is at 700 million barrels. Set aside 500 million barrels as the strategic reserve to be used only during times of national emergency.  Allocate around 200 million as a permanent, non-strategic petroleum reserve (NSPR) to be used to fight inflation and price spikes and to adjust for short-term shortages due to natural disasters. 
 
The Fed controls interest rates to manage the economy and fight inflation.  Why shouldn't the NSPR be used to alleviate the current economic crisis created by inflated oil prices?  It would be prudent to pop this oil bubble before it gets any worse.  We just went through the credit and housing fiascos, so there is no point in going through another mess - especially one that is dragging down the world economy, transportation, and petrochemical-based manufacturing.
 
Bush should announce that we are effectively putting 200 million barrels of oil on the market and will begin releasing 1 million barrels a day (or something to that effect).  Hopefully, just the shock of the announcement will do the job and not much will actually have to be released.  Also, in the future, the reserves should be expanded to 1 billion barrels, and 750 million set aside as SPR and 250 million as NSPR.  Refilling should resume when the prices are at lower levels.
 
The counterargument to this idea, that this is the strategic reserve and should only be used in a national emergency, is a bit arbitrary.  Exactly how much oil is necessary for the strategic reserve?  750 million barrels? 1 billion? 10 billion? All of the oil in the world?  During a serious emergency, there would be severe restrictions on usage and rationing implemented, so current consumption levels would not be likely.  It is also wise to create two distinct reserves due to the uncertainties of future political happenstance.
 
The only valid reason I see for not tapping into the reserves right now would be a military operation against Iran in the near term.  Although I still think you could open the reserves ... unless you are planning for a full-scale invasion or are expecting severe Iranian counterattacks against oil and shipping.

Naturally, this is only a short-term solution.  It would be wise to also have long-term solutions implemented as well.  Haha ... yeah, right.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Funny quote about Obama

Funny quote from article - "World welcomes Obama win" by Jill Lawless
sauce - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D913D81O0&show_article=1

Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said Obama's win "has sent out a lot of positive signals around the world."

"He has a very appealing persona—elegant, fluent, strings lots of sentences together into paragraphs," Cox said. "But in terms of (his) actual policies towards the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, China, Europe—actually, we don't know."

lol
Tags: obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stupid Flies Live Longer - comments

Read an article on yahoo - "Stupid flies live longer: study"
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080604/sc_afp/switzerlandscienceanimal
 
Based upon experiments, scientists at the University of Lausanne speculated that an increase in neural activity was detrimental to life span.
 
I haven't read the actual journal article, so maybe they left out some key information. However, with the info given in the yahoo article, I don't like this study.  The process of applying selection pressure for any characteristic may have a detrimental effect upon viability.  In other words, if they had also selected for stupidity or wing size or flight time or hairiness, etc. they all might have had an average negative trend for lifespan.
 
Instead of two groups, they should have used three groups - with the third group selective for stupidity.  If the stupid group resulted in an increase in lifespan, then it would have added more credibility to their argument.  My suspicion is that the stupid group would have also suffered a decrease in lifespan, and the control group would have still had the highest lifespan.
 
... And if the researchers had selected for both lifespan and intelligence, they probably would have been able to produce smart, long-lived flies.  But it's all just off-the-cuff conjecture on my part after a quick read, so I could be wrong, of course.  There are probably more things that I haven't considered.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive