Friday, November 11, 2005
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Virginity!
Hog On IceVirgins Rule
Assuming They Still Exist
Comcast is still running on one cylinder today. If I haven't responded to your emails or popped up on AIM to say hi, this is the reason. Every once in a while, the lights on the modem go on and I get a couple of minutes during which I can just barely use the Internet, but that's about it.
It's amusing to me that people are saying negative things about virginity in my comments. Arguing with people who take this ridiculous attitude reminds me of arguing with the folks who thought the 21st century began with "Y2K, DUDE!" They're very obviously wrong, but you can't make them understand it.
Human beings are not capable of fornicating and getting away with it. Yes, you—one individual—may get away with it (or tell yourself you do), but when society endorses it and it becomes a standard practice, terrible problems arise, and we can't prevent them. And once they occur, we are often incapable of fixing them.
Tell that to a walking hard-on who measures his self-esteem by the number of women he's screwed, and he'll generally get angry. You're threatening the whole foundation of his high regard for himself. If you think he's a boob and a user for screwing around, you're cheating him of the admiration he thinks you owe him.
"You're just jealous!" That one always tickles me. Yes, yes mighty Penis Warrior. It is inconceivable that the rest of us would not envy you and admire you almost as much as you admire yourself. I wish I had what it takes to sit on a bar stool and tell lies to extremely ordinary women I don't care about. "You wish you were me! You just can't admit it! Now excuse me while I put more ointment on my sores."
Whatever, dude. If you don't like it, consider doing something of actual value. That might impress me. If inserting your unit in females is your idea of an impressive achievement, you must not have much to be proud of. The biggest dogs I’ve known were men that didn’t have much else to offer.
It's 2005, and it has been over three decades since we sent people to the moon. But no matter how much money we pour into research, we still haven't been able to solve the horrible problems fornication causes.
Laugh it up, bed-hoppers. But answer this for me: if screwing around is safe and wonderful and wholesome, why are thirty million people dying because of it in Africa? Call me hysterical; I think that's a serious negative consequence.
AIDS is causing suffering on a gigantic scale in Africa, and it has killed thousands and thousands of people here in the US, and it has made many more very ill--incurably so--without killing them. A big percentage of Americans have genital herpes and/or genital warts (caused by a virus which also causes cervical cancer). There are still Americans going insane and dying from syphilis. There are many, many women who can't bear children because VD has ruined their machinery.
If we've got it all figured out, how can all that be true?
Why do we still have millions of unwanted pregnancies every year in this country alone? Can't you admit the obvious, which is that human contraception is still primitive? We can vaccinate against smallpox with a single shot which is totally harmless and works for decades, but contraception is still sloppy and difficult, and I’m sorry to say that on a societal scale, it AIN’T working.
Right now, all over America, women are poisoning themselves with synthetic hormones—get this—because the men they sleep with are too whiny to give up a little friction. Can’t you see the absurdity? Does that seem like an elegant, advanced solution to you?
We now deal with the hazards of sex outside of marriage about as well as we dealt with polio before the Salk vaccine. We do a lame job of preventing them, and when we fail, we do a lame job of responding to them.
If you can’t see the obvious truth, I still love you, but don’t expect me to take your opinion seriously. I realize people are herd creatures, and the herd says, “If it feels good do it,” and most members of the herd would rather die than think for themselves. Besides, if the herd said sex outside of marriage was bad, you’d say it, too.
How can anyone think virginity is a bad thing? I’ve known women who were virgins, and I admired them tremendously. While the other girls were pulling trains on spring break and doing whatever it took to fit in with their classy tongue-pierced friends, the virgins were thinking for themselves and doing what they themselves wanted to do. They weren’t letting themselves be manipulated. That impresses me.
Apart from that, virgins don’t have AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, PID, HTLV, or any of the other hideous ailments you get from screwing around. That’s fantastic. And they also don’t have the other sexually transmitted viruses and microbes medical science hasn’t discovered yet. You think we’ve found them all? Yeah, right. I was an adult before they discovered the bacterium that causes most ulcers. And when I was a kid, no one knew cervical cancer was transmitted through sex. Enjoy living in your cocoon of arrogance. I for one know better. If you think more links between promiscuity and incurable disease aren’t on the way, you my friend are a true idiot.
Haven’t you noticed that promiscuous people are unhealthy and die younger? Are you aware that gay men—the most promiscuous people in our society—have a low life expectancy even after correction for things like AIDS and suicide?
Disease and expensive little bastards aren’t the only problems that arise from promiscuity. Women who screw around become hardened toward men, because they get used so much. I don’t want to deal with an emotional porcupine, do you?
Men say they prefer women who “know what they’re doing” in bed. Do you really think sex is that difficult? It’s not rocket science, folks. And if you’re monogamous, you have a whole lifetime to figure out how to make each other happy. And is it really important to get the best sex partner possible? If that’s your goal, you are what is known as “a shallow person.” You are probably not capable of actual “relationships,” so you might as well grab whatever pleasure you can. I hear the brothels in Thailand are inexpensive.
In the long term, “okay” sex combined with true love and trust will make you happier than great sex and a troublesome bitch.
I’ve pretty much written women off, and even if I hadn’t, I know there is virtually no chance I could land a virgin. I wouldn’t expect that; I realize it’s unrealistic. But I have nothing but admiration for women who wait until they’re truly ready. Other women may hate you because you make them feel like whores, and men may hate you because they can’t get between your legs, but I am your faithful fan. So keep it up.
Assuming They Still Exist
Comcast is still running on one cylinder today. If I haven't responded to your emails or popped up on AIM to say hi, this is the reason. Every once in a while, the lights on the modem go on and I get a couple of minutes during which I can just barely use the Internet, but that's about it.
It's amusing to me that people are saying negative things about virginity in my comments. Arguing with people who take this ridiculous attitude reminds me of arguing with the folks who thought the 21st century began with "Y2K, DUDE!" They're very obviously wrong, but you can't make them understand it.
Human beings are not capable of fornicating and getting away with it. Yes, you—one individual—may get away with it (or tell yourself you do), but when society endorses it and it becomes a standard practice, terrible problems arise, and we can't prevent them. And once they occur, we are often incapable of fixing them.
Tell that to a walking hard-on who measures his self-esteem by the number of women he's screwed, and he'll generally get angry. You're threatening the whole foundation of his high regard for himself. If you think he's a boob and a user for screwing around, you're cheating him of the admiration he thinks you owe him.
"You're just jealous!" That one always tickles me. Yes, yes mighty Penis Warrior. It is inconceivable that the rest of us would not envy you and admire you almost as much as you admire yourself. I wish I had what it takes to sit on a bar stool and tell lies to extremely ordinary women I don't care about. "You wish you were me! You just can't admit it! Now excuse me while I put more ointment on my sores."
Whatever, dude. If you don't like it, consider doing something of actual value. That might impress me. If inserting your unit in females is your idea of an impressive achievement, you must not have much to be proud of. The biggest dogs I’ve known were men that didn’t have much else to offer.
It's 2005, and it has been over three decades since we sent people to the moon. But no matter how much money we pour into research, we still haven't been able to solve the horrible problems fornication causes.
Laugh it up, bed-hoppers. But answer this for me: if screwing around is safe and wonderful and wholesome, why are thirty million people dying because of it in Africa? Call me hysterical; I think that's a serious negative consequence.
AIDS is causing suffering on a gigantic scale in Africa, and it has killed thousands and thousands of people here in the US, and it has made many more very ill--incurably so--without killing them. A big percentage of Americans have genital herpes and/or genital warts (caused by a virus which also causes cervical cancer). There are still Americans going insane and dying from syphilis. There are many, many women who can't bear children because VD has ruined their machinery.
If we've got it all figured out, how can all that be true?
Why do we still have millions of unwanted pregnancies every year in this country alone? Can't you admit the obvious, which is that human contraception is still primitive? We can vaccinate against smallpox with a single shot which is totally harmless and works for decades, but contraception is still sloppy and difficult, and I’m sorry to say that on a societal scale, it AIN’T working.
Right now, all over America, women are poisoning themselves with synthetic hormones—get this—because the men they sleep with are too whiny to give up a little friction. Can’t you see the absurdity? Does that seem like an elegant, advanced solution to you?
We now deal with the hazards of sex outside of marriage about as well as we dealt with polio before the Salk vaccine. We do a lame job of preventing them, and when we fail, we do a lame job of responding to them.
If you can’t see the obvious truth, I still love you, but don’t expect me to take your opinion seriously. I realize people are herd creatures, and the herd says, “If it feels good do it,” and most members of the herd would rather die than think for themselves. Besides, if the herd said sex outside of marriage was bad, you’d say it, too.
How can anyone think virginity is a bad thing? I’ve known women who were virgins, and I admired them tremendously. While the other girls were pulling trains on spring break and doing whatever it took to fit in with their classy tongue-pierced friends, the virgins were thinking for themselves and doing what they themselves wanted to do. They weren’t letting themselves be manipulated. That impresses me.
Apart from that, virgins don’t have AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, PID, HTLV, or any of the other hideous ailments you get from screwing around. That’s fantastic. And they also don’t have the other sexually transmitted viruses and microbes medical science hasn’t discovered yet. You think we’ve found them all? Yeah, right. I was an adult before they discovered the bacterium that causes most ulcers. And when I was a kid, no one knew cervical cancer was transmitted through sex. Enjoy living in your cocoon of arrogance. I for one know better. If you think more links between promiscuity and incurable disease aren’t on the way, you my friend are a true idiot.
Haven’t you noticed that promiscuous people are unhealthy and die younger? Are you aware that gay men—the most promiscuous people in our society—have a low life expectancy even after correction for things like AIDS and suicide?
Disease and expensive little bastards aren’t the only problems that arise from promiscuity. Women who screw around become hardened toward men, because they get used so much. I don’t want to deal with an emotional porcupine, do you?
Men say they prefer women who “know what they’re doing” in bed. Do you really think sex is that difficult? It’s not rocket science, folks. And if you’re monogamous, you have a whole lifetime to figure out how to make each other happy. And is it really important to get the best sex partner possible? If that’s your goal, you are what is known as “a shallow person.” You are probably not capable of actual “relationships,” so you might as well grab whatever pleasure you can. I hear the brothels in Thailand are inexpensive.
In the long term, “okay” sex combined with true love and trust will make you happier than great sex and a troublesome bitch.
I’ve pretty much written women off, and even if I hadn’t, I know there is virtually no chance I could land a virgin. I wouldn’t expect that; I realize it’s unrealistic. But I have nothing but admiration for women who wait until they’re truly ready. Other women may hate you because you make them feel like whores, and men may hate you because they can’t get between your legs, but I am your faithful fan. So keep it up.
Hammorabi
Hammorabi: "War against terrorism
The suicidal bombs in Jordan yesterday by the Jordanian Abomusaab Al-Zarqawi are just the beginning of many other attacks. The next attacks will be much tougher and only a matter of time. Jordan is still a target as well as others. In Iraq the attacks are happening daily and on variable and bigger scales.
It is so wrong to blame terrorism for one man or a group of people only. Terrorism requires a lot of elements. It needs people to carry out its effects, large amount of cash, armaments, equipments, logistic and brainpower support, media, and above all theoreticians among clergy men. These can not be provided by Binladen, Alzarqawi, or Alzawahri alone?
There are three countries connected to three elements of terrorism especially its promulgation in Iraq. Terrorism is born and incubated in Saudi Arabia. Then adopted by Syria and exported to kill inside Iraq while kept alive by the Jordanian Islamists who act as the energy and brain providers. However these roles are overlapping between these countries.
"
The suicidal bombs in Jordan yesterday by the Jordanian Abomusaab Al-Zarqawi are just the beginning of many other attacks. The next attacks will be much tougher and only a matter of time. Jordan is still a target as well as others. In Iraq the attacks are happening daily and on variable and bigger scales.
It is so wrong to blame terrorism for one man or a group of people only. Terrorism requires a lot of elements. It needs people to carry out its effects, large amount of cash, armaments, equipments, logistic and brainpower support, media, and above all theoreticians among clergy men. These can not be provided by Binladen, Alzarqawi, or Alzawahri alone?
There are three countries connected to three elements of terrorism especially its promulgation in Iraq. Terrorism is born and incubated in Saudi Arabia. Then adopted by Syria and exported to kill inside Iraq while kept alive by the Jordanian Islamists who act as the energy and brain providers. However these roles are overlapping between these countries.
"
U.S. Trade Deficit Hits High on Storms
U.S. Trade Deficit Hits High on Storms: "The trade deficit soared to a record in September as the Gulf Coast hurricanes helped push America's foreign oil bill to an all-time high. The politically sensitive deficit with China also set a record.
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the deficit jumped to $66.1 billion in September, 11.4 percent higher than the $59.3 billion imbalance recorded in August. It was a far bigger increase than analysts had been expecting and reflected in part a record $23.8 billion in oil purchases as the price skyrocketed, reflecting widespread shutdowns of production facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
So far this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $706.4 billion. This puts the country on track to far surpass the old deficit record of $617.6 billion set last year and gives critics ammunition to argue that President Bush's trade policies are not working."
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the deficit jumped to $66.1 billion in September, 11.4 percent higher than the $59.3 billion imbalance recorded in August. It was a far bigger increase than analysts had been expecting and reflected in part a record $23.8 billion in oil purchases as the price skyrocketed, reflecting widespread shutdowns of production facilities following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
So far this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $706.4 billion. This puts the country on track to far surpass the old deficit record of $617.6 billion set last year and gives critics ammunition to argue that President Bush's trade policies are not working."
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Arthur C. Clarke Unauthorized Homepage
Arthur C. Clarke Unauthorized Homepage: "Arthur C. Clarke Unauthorized Homepage
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' - Clarke's Third Law."
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' - Clarke's Third Law."
Arthur C. Clarke Laws
Arthur C. Clarke Laws: "Arthur C. Clarke Laws
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
Arthur C. Clarke Laws
Arthur C. Clarke Laws: "Arthur C. Clarke Laws
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
In the book Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible Arthur C. Clarke states his three Laws, which are formulated as follows:
Clarke's First Law:
'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'
Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :'In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory'. (in Profiles of the Future.)
Clarke's Second Law:
'The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.'
Clarke's Third Law:
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'
Thought he wrote after the laws that 'Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here', he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:
'Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software.'"
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Stopping the Riots Might Be The Easy Part
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Stopping the Riots Might Be The Easy Part: "Stopping the Riots Might Be The Easy Part"
France's Woes __EconoPundit
EconoPundit: "
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Yesterday's explanations no longer need apply...
With my Tuesday evening international finance seminar I reviewed a twenty minute segment of this Frontline documentary last night. Interestingly, everyone agreed the documentary combined with the day's headlines would lead to conclusions precisely opposite to the puzzlingly standard current MSM approach:
WHEN THE MEDIA began covering the spreading violence in France, it appeared to go out of its way to avoid the notion that Islam had anything to do with the riots or their organizers. After all, even the French viewed the first couple of nights of unrest with a jaundiced eye. A nation that experiences nationwide protests every decade over some real or perceived injustice doesn't react quickly to a few burning cars in the Parisian suburbs. France averaged 80 cars a day lost to arson this year even before the riots began, and they assumed the riots meant little.
After a few straight days of increasing violence, however, the only people still believing that comforting line appeared to be members of the French government and the media, who insisted on doing everything they could to miss the story. Twelve days into the riots, even after they had spread across France and inspired violence in Germany and Belgium, the media for the most part still could not bring itself to mention the 'M' or 'I' words: Muslim and Islamist. The lack of even any suggestion that radical Islamists might have initiated the violence, or at least be taking advantage of it, boggles the imagination.
Anyway, read the whole thing for Ed Morrisey's solution to the puzzle."
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Yesterday's explanations no longer need apply...
With my Tuesday evening international finance seminar I reviewed a twenty minute segment of this Frontline documentary last night. Interestingly, everyone agreed the documentary combined with the day's headlines would lead to conclusions precisely opposite to the puzzlingly standard current MSM approach:
WHEN THE MEDIA began covering the spreading violence in France, it appeared to go out of its way to avoid the notion that Islam had anything to do with the riots or their organizers. After all, even the French viewed the first couple of nights of unrest with a jaundiced eye. A nation that experiences nationwide protests every decade over some real or perceived injustice doesn't react quickly to a few burning cars in the Parisian suburbs. France averaged 80 cars a day lost to arson this year even before the riots began, and they assumed the riots meant little.
After a few straight days of increasing violence, however, the only people still believing that comforting line appeared to be members of the French government and the media, who insisted on doing everything they could to miss the story. Twelve days into the riots, even after they had spread across France and inspired violence in Germany and Belgium, the media for the most part still could not bring itself to mention the 'M' or 'I' words: Muslim and Islamist. The lack of even any suggestion that radical Islamists might have initiated the violence, or at least be taking advantage of it, boggles the imagination.
Anyway, read the whole thing for Ed Morrisey's solution to the puzzle."
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
Everything I Know Is Wrong: The Truth About Avian Flu
Everything I Know Is Wrong: The Truth About Avian Flu: "The Truth About Avian Flu
Michael Fumento has written an excellent article about the 'avian flu':
'Race to Prevent World Epidemic of Lethal 'Bird Flu,'' and 'Hong Kong 'Bird Flu' Could be the Next Big Outbreak,' blare the headlines. Former Washington Post reporter and author of a book on viruses, Robin Marantz Henig, penned an essay called 'Danger in the Air: Why Hong Kong's 'Bird Flu' Signals a Serious Threat,' chock full of scary 'what-ifs.'
Meanwhile, 'What is frightening about this flu strain is that it is unlike any that has infected people before,' NBC News tells us. We repeatedly hear of this new 'deadly flu,' or 'killer flu,' or to cite one headline: 'Mutant Killer Virus.'
Now, for a reality vaccination.
All influenzas are 'mutant killer viruses.' Flu always mutates at least slightly each year. That's why you need a flu shot each year, because the antibodies that you got from the last one (or the bout of flu you caught last year) will no longer afford you full protection from the new strain.
A flu that didn't kill would never be noticed. It would just be one of zillions of viruses we carry around that do us little or no harm. Each year on average, about 20,000 Americans die of flu.
Finally flu, of course, is always a virus.
Indeed, all flu is probably also 'avian.' Its 'reservoir' is generally ducks, and sometimes geese and chickens. They usually suffer little from it or not at all. But when their feces infects a water supply (or domesticated animals, usually pigs), they can transfer it to humans.
Oh, by the way, this isn't a recent article. Fumento wrote this in 1998 about an altogether different--yet all to familiar--'avain flu'. So why all the hubbub? I"
Michael Fumento has written an excellent article about the 'avian flu':
'Race to Prevent World Epidemic of Lethal 'Bird Flu,'' and 'Hong Kong 'Bird Flu' Could be the Next Big Outbreak,' blare the headlines. Former Washington Post reporter and author of a book on viruses, Robin Marantz Henig, penned an essay called 'Danger in the Air: Why Hong Kong's 'Bird Flu' Signals a Serious Threat,' chock full of scary 'what-ifs.'
Meanwhile, 'What is frightening about this flu strain is that it is unlike any that has infected people before,' NBC News tells us. We repeatedly hear of this new 'deadly flu,' or 'killer flu,' or to cite one headline: 'Mutant Killer Virus.'
Now, for a reality vaccination.
All influenzas are 'mutant killer viruses.' Flu always mutates at least slightly each year. That's why you need a flu shot each year, because the antibodies that you got from the last one (or the bout of flu you caught last year) will no longer afford you full protection from the new strain.
A flu that didn't kill would never be noticed. It would just be one of zillions of viruses we carry around that do us little or no harm. Each year on average, about 20,000 Americans die of flu.
Finally flu, of course, is always a virus.
Indeed, all flu is probably also 'avian.' Its 'reservoir' is generally ducks, and sometimes geese and chickens. They usually suffer little from it or not at all. But when their feces infects a water supply (or domesticated animals, usually pigs), they can transfer it to humans.
Oh, by the way, this isn't a recent article. Fumento wrote this in 1998 about an altogether different--yet all to familiar--'avain flu'. So why all the hubbub? I"
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless by Leon Hadar
Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless by Leon Hadar: "Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless" Beltway Intellectuals Are Useless
Washington intellectuals seem to have little idea
of how to fix US foreign policy
by Leon Hadar
by Leon Hadar
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
When he was once asked to define what exactly an "intellectual" was, British writer Aldous Huxley proposed that it was "a person who's found something in life that's more interesting than sex."
Based on Huxley's definition, I'm here to report to you that I had a very, very interesting weekend which I spent with a group of some of Washington's leading policy intellectuals, AKA policy "wonks" in a Big-Ideas retreat outside of the US capital, where one of those wealthy foundations wined and dined us for three days, in what could be described as a mini-Davos.
In return, we were expected to come up with new ideas on how to fix the universe or, more precisely, draw up the outline of a strategy that would permit the Master of the Universe, the United States, to stabilize Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East, re-energize the Western alliance and accommodate the Chinese, among many other things.
I have to admit that most of these wonks are clearly more intelligent, more knowledgeable and more experienced than your humble scribe here. Some of them have Ph.D.s from the most prestigious universities in the land, are fluent in many foreign languages, including Chinese, Persian and Urdu, and have served in top positions in the White House, Pentagon, State Department and Congress, where they provided advice to US officials, lawmakers and generals as they attempted to manage American foreign policy and resolve international crises.
No Big Ideas
Hence the expectation among the conference's organizers that some of these Washington's Best of the Brightest – I'm not including myself in that category – would have one of those eureka! moments and 72 hours of food consumption, beer drinking and long debates into the early morning hours would produce – Boom, Gee Whiz – the Big Idea in the form of, say, an exit strategy from Iraq or a new approach to deal with Iran.
Well, don't hold your breath. The long weekend failed to generate either Big Ideas or even tiny ones. While I'm prohibited by the off-the-record ground rules from revealing the names of the conference's attendees or what exactly was said during that retreat in Virginia, I can convey to you my main and very depressing impression: American foreign policy in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere is in a mess, and no one really knows how to get out of it.
Most of the participants suggested that Americans have to "stay the course in Iraq," expressed hope (wishful thinking?) that we will soon "turn the corner" there and things will get better in Mesopotamia, that perhaps the Sunnis will join the political process and that the elections in December will be "successful" (whatever that means).
In short, just continue muddling through and pray for a miracle.
There are some signs of the emergence of a foreign policy debate in Washington – clearly reflected in the discussions at the conference – which pits Kissinger-style Realpolitik types against Wilsonian idealists.
But taking into consideration some of the comments and predictions I heard during the weekend, the idealists – that is, the neoconservative ideologues who had hijacked US foreign policy after 9/11 – have not lost their momentum.
The notion that the US has the right and the obligation to promote American-style freedom and democracy not only in the Middle East but worldwide seems to be a dominant view among many of Washington's policy wonks. In fact, one of the panels during the conference was devoted to a discussion of how America could use its power to "democratize" Southeast Asia, including Singapore.
Even those Democrats participating in the event who have been critical of the neocons have not expressed opposition to the Global Democracy project itself. They just seemed to suggest that unlike the neocons, they would be able to achieve it at less cost especially in military terms, for the US. Call it Neocon Lite.
Interestingly enough, the harshest denunciation of the conduct of the Bushies' foreign policy and the neoconservative Global Democracy agenda that one can hear these days doesn't come from the direction of the Democratic Party but from Republican establishment figures who had served in the administration of President George the First.
Democracy by force
Hence Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Bush I, in an interview he gave to New Yorker magazine, criticized Vice-President Dick Cheney for siding with the militant neocons who wanted to reform the Middle East by force.
Scowcroft said in the interview that he believed that Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons "got a Utopia out there." Democracy cannot be imposed by force, and not everyone values freedom above all, Scowcroft argued.
As a realist, Scowcroft expressed in the interview the necessity of considering the consequences of action, or "outcomes." For Scowcroft, "the second Gulf War is a reminder of the unwelcome consequences of radical intervention, especially when it is attempted without sufficient understanding of America's limitations or of the history of the region," concluded the New Yorker article.
But it's important to remember that one of the main reasons that Scowcroft feels comfortable expressing such views that run contrary to the policy paradigm dominating in Washington is that this elder statesman is not looking for a job in the administration, Congress or the other centers of power in Washington.
Most of the policy intellectuals I met over the weekend are still relatively young and are marketing their ideas as part of a strategy to win professional benefits, and challenging the conventional wisdom on Iraq ("stay the course") and other issues wouldn't help advance that goal.
They might have found something more interesting in life than sex – but it's not an exit strategy from Iraq.
November 4, 2005
Washington intellectuals seem to have little idea
of how to fix US foreign policy
by Leon Hadar
by Leon Hadar
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
When he was once asked to define what exactly an "intellectual" was, British writer Aldous Huxley proposed that it was "a person who's found something in life that's more interesting than sex."
Based on Huxley's definition, I'm here to report to you that I had a very, very interesting weekend which I spent with a group of some of Washington's leading policy intellectuals, AKA policy "wonks" in a Big-Ideas retreat outside of the US capital, where one of those wealthy foundations wined and dined us for three days, in what could be described as a mini-Davos.
In return, we were expected to come up with new ideas on how to fix the universe or, more precisely, draw up the outline of a strategy that would permit the Master of the Universe, the United States, to stabilize Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East, re-energize the Western alliance and accommodate the Chinese, among many other things.
I have to admit that most of these wonks are clearly more intelligent, more knowledgeable and more experienced than your humble scribe here. Some of them have Ph.D.s from the most prestigious universities in the land, are fluent in many foreign languages, including Chinese, Persian and Urdu, and have served in top positions in the White House, Pentagon, State Department and Congress, where they provided advice to US officials, lawmakers and generals as they attempted to manage American foreign policy and resolve international crises.
No Big Ideas
Hence the expectation among the conference's organizers that some of these Washington's Best of the Brightest – I'm not including myself in that category – would have one of those eureka! moments and 72 hours of food consumption, beer drinking and long debates into the early morning hours would produce – Boom, Gee Whiz – the Big Idea in the form of, say, an exit strategy from Iraq or a new approach to deal with Iran.
Well, don't hold your breath. The long weekend failed to generate either Big Ideas or even tiny ones. While I'm prohibited by the off-the-record ground rules from revealing the names of the conference's attendees or what exactly was said during that retreat in Virginia, I can convey to you my main and very depressing impression: American foreign policy in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere is in a mess, and no one really knows how to get out of it.
Most of the participants suggested that Americans have to "stay the course in Iraq," expressed hope (wishful thinking?) that we will soon "turn the corner" there and things will get better in Mesopotamia, that perhaps the Sunnis will join the political process and that the elections in December will be "successful" (whatever that means).
In short, just continue muddling through and pray for a miracle.
There are some signs of the emergence of a foreign policy debate in Washington – clearly reflected in the discussions at the conference – which pits Kissinger-style Realpolitik types against Wilsonian idealists.
But taking into consideration some of the comments and predictions I heard during the weekend, the idealists – that is, the neoconservative ideologues who had hijacked US foreign policy after 9/11 – have not lost their momentum.
The notion that the US has the right and the obligation to promote American-style freedom and democracy not only in the Middle East but worldwide seems to be a dominant view among many of Washington's policy wonks. In fact, one of the panels during the conference was devoted to a discussion of how America could use its power to "democratize" Southeast Asia, including Singapore.
Even those Democrats participating in the event who have been critical of the neocons have not expressed opposition to the Global Democracy project itself. They just seemed to suggest that unlike the neocons, they would be able to achieve it at less cost especially in military terms, for the US. Call it Neocon Lite.
Interestingly enough, the harshest denunciation of the conduct of the Bushies' foreign policy and the neoconservative Global Democracy agenda that one can hear these days doesn't come from the direction of the Democratic Party but from Republican establishment figures who had served in the administration of President George the First.
Democracy by force
Hence Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under Bush I, in an interview he gave to New Yorker magazine, criticized Vice-President Dick Cheney for siding with the militant neocons who wanted to reform the Middle East by force.
Scowcroft said in the interview that he believed that Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons "got a Utopia out there." Democracy cannot be imposed by force, and not everyone values freedom above all, Scowcroft argued.
As a realist, Scowcroft expressed in the interview the necessity of considering the consequences of action, or "outcomes." For Scowcroft, "the second Gulf War is a reminder of the unwelcome consequences of radical intervention, especially when it is attempted without sufficient understanding of America's limitations or of the history of the region," concluded the New Yorker article.
But it's important to remember that one of the main reasons that Scowcroft feels comfortable expressing such views that run contrary to the policy paradigm dominating in Washington is that this elder statesman is not looking for a job in the administration, Congress or the other centers of power in Washington.
Most of the policy intellectuals I met over the weekend are still relatively young and are marketing their ideas as part of a strategy to win professional benefits, and challenging the conventional wisdom on Iraq ("stay the course") and other issues wouldn't help advance that goal.
They might have found something more interesting in life than sex – but it's not an exit strategy from Iraq.
November 4, 2005
When Will America’s Housing Bubble Burst? by Eric Englund
When Will America’s Housing Bubble Burst? by Eric Englund
When Will America�s Housing Bubble Burst?
by Eric Englund
by Eric Englund
Throughout 2005, my clients � contractors of all trades, fabricators, and suppliers � have watched housing continue on its tear. Housing demand seems insatiable. Residential, commercial, and public works contractors are busy all across the U.S. When housing subdivisions and condominium complexes are built out, commercial and public works projects often follow. Strip malls, supermarkets, restaurants, and department stores are constructed to serve these new population centers � much to the delight of the commercial construction trades. With these new population centers comes the "need" for new public schools and other public infrastructure. Public works contractors get a piece of the action as well. Most of my clients are quite busy and turning nice profits. However, during a recent business trip, a common theme emerged in meeting after meeting. My customers are seeing severe shortages in building materials and quality labor. Many are outright stating that the heady pace of construction is simply unsustainable. In turn, some of the more seasoned contractors are predicting a bust � but they just don�t know when; yet I will hazard a guess.
In my meeting notes, I found that contractors were running into shortages of the following (pre and post-Hurricane Katrina):
* Certain dimensional lumbers
* Concrete
* Labor
* Oriented strand board
* Plumbing supplies
* Plywood
* PVC pipe
* Quality architectural designs and plans (indicating a strained architectural labor pool)
* Roofing materials
* Steel
Of these shortages, the one causing the most frustration pertains to a dearth of quality labor. Contractors, frequently, have little choice but to load their construction budgets with ample overtime pay in order to keep quality (and often shorthanded) crews together for the duration of a project. One client quipped: "This constant battle for labor and materials can�t go on forever. Things have to cool down sooner or later. But when?"
As to precisely when the bust will occur, this is not knowable. As to why boom turns into bust, only the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle provides the intellectual framework allowing one to understand the boom-bust cycle. What we will find, as explained by Roger Garrison, is that central banking is at the epicenter of the business cycle. Dr. Garrison provides the following explanation in the Mises Institute�s fabulous book The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle:
The Austrian theory of the business cycle emerges straightforwardly from a simple comparison of savings-induced growth, which is sustainable, with a credit-induced boom, which is not. An increase in saving by individuals and a credit expansion orchestrated by the central bank set into motion market processes whose initial allocational effects on the economy's capital structure are similar. But the ultimate consequences of the two processes stand in stark contrast: Saving gets us genuine growth; credit expansion gets us boom and bust.
Undoubtedly, the current American housing boom has not been built upon a foundation of savings � keeping in mind that, presently, America has a negative savings rate. This boom has been fueled by the Federal Reserve�s aggressive creation of money and credit. Correspondingly, the federal funds rate hit a low of 1% in June of 2003 � about the same time the housing boom began to accelerate.
Since money and credit can be created out of thin air, yet building materials and other resources cannot, does it not stand to reason that relentless credit creation would lead to resource shortages? Of course, the answer is "yes" � and Austrian economists know this. Accordingly, Roger Garrison covers this issue in his excellent book Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure:
In sum, credit expansion sets into motion a process of capital restructuring that is at odds with the unchanged preferences and hence is ill-fated. The relative changes within the capital structure were appropriately termed malinvestment by Mises�The boom is unsustainable; the changes in the intertemporal structure of production are self-defeating. Resource scarcities and a continuing high demand for current consumption eventually turn boom into bust.
It is not often one finds an economic theory that describes reality � and Austrian theory does so magnificently. In fact, from the labor and materials shortages my clients have described, it would seem the bust phase of the business cycle is nearly upon us.
Tom Barrack, widely considered to be among the world�s greatest real estate investors, wittingly or not, has an Austrian perspective as to why the United States� real estate/housing boom will soon come to an end. He stated the following, about real estate, in a recent Fortune article: "There�s too much money chasing too few good deals, with too much debt and too few brains�. That�s why I�m getting out." Tom Barrack certainly understands the dangers of high-octane credit expansion. Yet, what about the inevitable resource scarcities caused by the Federal Reserve�s accommodative credit policy and how will this affect the housing bubble? In the following excerpt, from this article, Mr. Barrack hits the ball out of the park:
�he sees the bubble deflating soon. Barrack thinks the catalyst will be a trend that few others are talking about, a steep rise in the price of building materials and labor. "Construction costs have spiked 30% in the past nine months," he says. The reasons: shortages of labor and materials like lumber because of the building boom, and increases in the price of oil, needed to produce everything from plastic piping to insulation to shingles.
The slump will show up first in speculative hot spots like Miami and Las Vegas, he says, where condo developers are preselling their projects for what look like big profits. When they actually build the units over the next year or two, he predicts, they will end up spending more than the units are now selling for. At that point, says Barrack, the developers will try to raise prices. "But most of these buyers are speculators," he says. "They will either sue the developers to get the original prices or get their deposits back and walk away." The developers will then put the units back on the market, and the glut of vacant condos will drive prices down. "It's the busted deals caused by construction costs that will cause a turn in the market," he predicts.
To be sure, the severe construction labor and materials shortages, seen throughout the U.S., signify the housing boom is nearing its end. Not surprisingly, Austrian economic theory predicted such shortages would emerge before boom turns to bust.
For good measure, let�s throw in the following housing affordability and financial-stress factors into the fray � which also point to the impending demise of the housing bubble:
* The average American household has $10,000 of credit card debt and, due to pressures brought to bear by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, minimum payments are now doubling.
* Soaring energy prices are going to make for financially punishing heating bills this winter � McMansions are energy hogs.
* The Federal Reserve just raised the fed funds rate to 4%. Hence, there should be no surprise that mortgage interest rates are at 15-month highs.
* Price inflation is much higher than Uncle Sam�s Consumer Price Index suggests � just go to the gas station and to the grocery store.
* The ratio of house prices to rental values is at an all-time high.
* The ratio of house prices to disposable income is highly elevated.
But what about my promise to hazard a guess as to the timing of the bust? After all, Tom Barrack indicated that he sees enough busted deals materializing, over the next year or two, to bring about a downturn in the real estate market.
In order to make a reasonable prediction, I am going to bring into the mix a September 2005 Federal Reserve discussion paper titled House Prices and Monetary Policy: A Cross-Country Study. Per this discussion paper�s abstract: "This paper examines periods of pronounced rises and falls of real house prices since 1970 in eighteen major industrial countries, with particular focus on the lessons for monetary policy." Here is what I found to be most interesting: "House price booms are typically preceded by a period of easing monetary policy, with policy rates bottoming out about the same time that house prices take off, about three years before house prices peak." Considering the fed funds rate did not bottom out, at 1%, until June of 2003 (and remained at 1%, until June of 2004, before being ratcheted upwards) one could reasonably surmise house prices will peak somewhere between June of 2006 and June of 2007 � and then, of course, will break downwards (for the reasons mentioned above).
With a plausible timeframe in hand, I am predicting the housing bubble will begin to burst within the next 14 months � perhaps by around December of 2006. Ultimately, we have a housing boom built on credit (and not savings) which has lead to labor and materials shortages and has lead to overleveraged consumers. This is why I see a bust � as indicated by accelerating mortgage defaults and a general decline in housing prices � commencing well before June of 2007. To close, always remember Austrian theory allows us to know there will be a central bank-induced bust. As to timing, I am only providing an educated guess.
November 4, 2005
When Will America�s Housing Bubble Burst?
by Eric Englund
by Eric Englund
Throughout 2005, my clients � contractors of all trades, fabricators, and suppliers � have watched housing continue on its tear. Housing demand seems insatiable. Residential, commercial, and public works contractors are busy all across the U.S. When housing subdivisions and condominium complexes are built out, commercial and public works projects often follow. Strip malls, supermarkets, restaurants, and department stores are constructed to serve these new population centers � much to the delight of the commercial construction trades. With these new population centers comes the "need" for new public schools and other public infrastructure. Public works contractors get a piece of the action as well. Most of my clients are quite busy and turning nice profits. However, during a recent business trip, a common theme emerged in meeting after meeting. My customers are seeing severe shortages in building materials and quality labor. Many are outright stating that the heady pace of construction is simply unsustainable. In turn, some of the more seasoned contractors are predicting a bust � but they just don�t know when; yet I will hazard a guess.
In my meeting notes, I found that contractors were running into shortages of the following (pre and post-Hurricane Katrina):
* Certain dimensional lumbers
* Concrete
* Labor
* Oriented strand board
* Plumbing supplies
* Plywood
* PVC pipe
* Quality architectural designs and plans (indicating a strained architectural labor pool)
* Roofing materials
* Steel
Of these shortages, the one causing the most frustration pertains to a dearth of quality labor. Contractors, frequently, have little choice but to load their construction budgets with ample overtime pay in order to keep quality (and often shorthanded) crews together for the duration of a project. One client quipped: "This constant battle for labor and materials can�t go on forever. Things have to cool down sooner or later. But when?"
As to precisely when the bust will occur, this is not knowable. As to why boom turns into bust, only the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle provides the intellectual framework allowing one to understand the boom-bust cycle. What we will find, as explained by Roger Garrison, is that central banking is at the epicenter of the business cycle. Dr. Garrison provides the following explanation in the Mises Institute�s fabulous book The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle:
The Austrian theory of the business cycle emerges straightforwardly from a simple comparison of savings-induced growth, which is sustainable, with a credit-induced boom, which is not. An increase in saving by individuals and a credit expansion orchestrated by the central bank set into motion market processes whose initial allocational effects on the economy's capital structure are similar. But the ultimate consequences of the two processes stand in stark contrast: Saving gets us genuine growth; credit expansion gets us boom and bust.
Undoubtedly, the current American housing boom has not been built upon a foundation of savings � keeping in mind that, presently, America has a negative savings rate. This boom has been fueled by the Federal Reserve�s aggressive creation of money and credit. Correspondingly, the federal funds rate hit a low of 1% in June of 2003 � about the same time the housing boom began to accelerate.
Since money and credit can be created out of thin air, yet building materials and other resources cannot, does it not stand to reason that relentless credit creation would lead to resource shortages? Of course, the answer is "yes" � and Austrian economists know this. Accordingly, Roger Garrison covers this issue in his excellent book Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure:
In sum, credit expansion sets into motion a process of capital restructuring that is at odds with the unchanged preferences and hence is ill-fated. The relative changes within the capital structure were appropriately termed malinvestment by Mises�The boom is unsustainable; the changes in the intertemporal structure of production are self-defeating. Resource scarcities and a continuing high demand for current consumption eventually turn boom into bust.
It is not often one finds an economic theory that describes reality � and Austrian theory does so magnificently. In fact, from the labor and materials shortages my clients have described, it would seem the bust phase of the business cycle is nearly upon us.
Tom Barrack, widely considered to be among the world�s greatest real estate investors, wittingly or not, has an Austrian perspective as to why the United States� real estate/housing boom will soon come to an end. He stated the following, about real estate, in a recent Fortune article: "There�s too much money chasing too few good deals, with too much debt and too few brains�. That�s why I�m getting out." Tom Barrack certainly understands the dangers of high-octane credit expansion. Yet, what about the inevitable resource scarcities caused by the Federal Reserve�s accommodative credit policy and how will this affect the housing bubble? In the following excerpt, from this article, Mr. Barrack hits the ball out of the park:
�he sees the bubble deflating soon. Barrack thinks the catalyst will be a trend that few others are talking about, a steep rise in the price of building materials and labor. "Construction costs have spiked 30% in the past nine months," he says. The reasons: shortages of labor and materials like lumber because of the building boom, and increases in the price of oil, needed to produce everything from plastic piping to insulation to shingles.
The slump will show up first in speculative hot spots like Miami and Las Vegas, he says, where condo developers are preselling their projects for what look like big profits. When they actually build the units over the next year or two, he predicts, they will end up spending more than the units are now selling for. At that point, says Barrack, the developers will try to raise prices. "But most of these buyers are speculators," he says. "They will either sue the developers to get the original prices or get their deposits back and walk away." The developers will then put the units back on the market, and the glut of vacant condos will drive prices down. "It's the busted deals caused by construction costs that will cause a turn in the market," he predicts.
To be sure, the severe construction labor and materials shortages, seen throughout the U.S., signify the housing boom is nearing its end. Not surprisingly, Austrian economic theory predicted such shortages would emerge before boom turns to bust.
For good measure, let�s throw in the following housing affordability and financial-stress factors into the fray � which also point to the impending demise of the housing bubble:
* The average American household has $10,000 of credit card debt and, due to pressures brought to bear by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, minimum payments are now doubling.
* Soaring energy prices are going to make for financially punishing heating bills this winter � McMansions are energy hogs.
* The Federal Reserve just raised the fed funds rate to 4%. Hence, there should be no surprise that mortgage interest rates are at 15-month highs.
* Price inflation is much higher than Uncle Sam�s Consumer Price Index suggests � just go to the gas station and to the grocery store.
* The ratio of house prices to rental values is at an all-time high.
* The ratio of house prices to disposable income is highly elevated.
But what about my promise to hazard a guess as to the timing of the bust? After all, Tom Barrack indicated that he sees enough busted deals materializing, over the next year or two, to bring about a downturn in the real estate market.
In order to make a reasonable prediction, I am going to bring into the mix a September 2005 Federal Reserve discussion paper titled House Prices and Monetary Policy: A Cross-Country Study. Per this discussion paper�s abstract: "This paper examines periods of pronounced rises and falls of real house prices since 1970 in eighteen major industrial countries, with particular focus on the lessons for monetary policy." Here is what I found to be most interesting: "House price booms are typically preceded by a period of easing monetary policy, with policy rates bottoming out about the same time that house prices take off, about three years before house prices peak." Considering the fed funds rate did not bottom out, at 1%, until June of 2003 (and remained at 1%, until June of 2004, before being ratcheted upwards) one could reasonably surmise house prices will peak somewhere between June of 2006 and June of 2007 � and then, of course, will break downwards (for the reasons mentioned above).
With a plausible timeframe in hand, I am predicting the housing bubble will begin to burst within the next 14 months � perhaps by around December of 2006. Ultimately, we have a housing boom built on credit (and not savings) which has lead to labor and materials shortages and has lead to overleveraged consumers. This is why I see a bust � as indicated by accelerating mortgage defaults and a general decline in housing prices � commencing well before June of 2007. To close, always remember Austrian theory allows us to know there will be a central bank-induced bust. As to timing, I am only providing an educated guess.
November 4, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
