Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wide Open Wallet: 50 Awesome Open Source Financial Tools | Free Geekery
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Mostly Cajun, All American and Opinionated
Ah sure, and it’s St. Patties day a’comin!
I believe it, I do!
Paddy was driving down the street in a sweat because he had an important meeting and couldn’t find a parking place. Looking up to heaven he said, “Lord take pity on me. If you find me a parking place I will go to Mass every Sunday for the rest of me life and give up me Irish Whiskey!”
Miraculously, a parking place appeared.
Paddy looked up again and said, “Never mind, I found one.”
Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra
Father Murphy walks into a pub in Donegal, and says to the first man he meets, “Do you want to go to heaven?”
The man said, “I do, Father.”
The priest said, “Then stand over there against the wall.”
Then the priest asked the second man, “Do you want to go to heaven?”
“Certainly, Father,” was the man’s reply.
“Then stand over there against the wall,” said the priest.
Then Father Murphy walked up to O’Toole and said, “Do you want to go to heaven?”
O’Toole said, “No, I don’t Father.”
The priest said, “I don’t believe this. You mean to tell me that when you die you don’t want to go to heaven?”
O’Toole said, “Oh, when I die, yes. I thought you were getting a group together to go right now.”
Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra
Paddy was in New York
He was patiently waiting and watching the traffic cop on a busy street crossing. The cop stopped the flow of traffic and shouted, “Okay, pedestrians.” Then he’d allow the traffic to pass.
He’d done this several times, and Paddy still stood on the sidewalk.
After the cop had shouted, “Pedestrians!” for the tenth time, Paddy went over to him and said, “Is it not about time ye let the Catholics across?”
Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra
Gallagher opened the morning newspaper and was dumbfounded to read in the obituary column that he had died. He quickly phoned his best friend, Finney.
“Did you see the paper?” asked Gallagher. “They say I died!!”
“Yes, I saw it!” replied Finney. “Where are ye callin’ from?”
Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra
An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding in Connecticut The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest’s breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car.
He says, “Sir, have you been drinking?”
“Just water,” says the priest.
The trooper says, “Then why do I smell wine?”
The priest looks at the bottle and says, “Good Lord! He’s done it again!”
Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra
Walking into the bar, Mike said to Charlie the bartender, “Pour me a stiff one - just had another fight with the little woman.”
“Oh yeah?” said Charlie, “And how did this one end?”
“When it was over,” Mike replied, “She came to me on her hands and knees.
“Really,” said Charles, “Now that’s a switch! What did she say?”
She said, “Come out from under the bed, you little chicken.”
Too Ra Loo Ra Loo Ra
Flynn staggered home very late after another evening with his drinking buddy, Paddy. He took off his shoes to avoid waking his wife, Mary.
He tiptoed as quietly as he could toward the stairs leading to their upstairs bedroom, but misjudged the bottom step. As he caught himself by grabbing the banister, his body swung around and he landed heavily on his rump. A whiskey bottle in each back pocket broke and made the landing especially painful.
Managing not to yell, Flynn sprung up, pulled down his pants, and looked in the hall mirror to see that his butt cheeks were cut and bleeding. He managed to quietly find a full box of Band-Aids and began putting a Band-Aid as best he could on each place he saw blood.
He then hid the now almost empty Band-Aid box and shuffled and stumbled his way to bed.
In the morning, Flynn woke up with searing pain in both his head and butt and Mary staring at him from across the room.
She said, “You were drunk again last night weren’t you?”
Flynn said, “Why you say such a mean thing?”
“Well,” Mary said, “it could be the open front door, it could be the broken glass at the bottom of the stairs, it could be the drops of blood trailing through the house, it could be your bloodshot eyes, but mostly…..it’s all those Band-Aids stuck on the hall mirror.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
VIX and More: ISE Implied Volatility Charts
Monday, March 03, 2008
Uninvited observations | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse
by Kjell Aleklett"
InvestmentTools.com
US economy a '$3 trillion' casualty of war in Iraq
Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true cost is at least US$3 trillion, under what they call an ultraconservative estimate. They say it could surpass the cost of World War II, which they put at US$5 trillion, adjusted for inflation.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Millionaire Now!: TOP HOLDINGS OF MINING STOCKS BY TOP GOLD FUNDS
Midas MIDSX: GCGC, GG, GOLD, MNG
Van Eck Intl Investors Gold INIVX: AEM, KGC
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals OPGSX: AUY, AEM, ABX, KGC, GG
Vanguard Precious Metals and Mining VGPMX: Lonmin
OCM Gold OCMGX: GG, NEM, AEM, GFI, IAG
Tocqueville Gold TGLDX: AUY, GG, GFI
RiverSource Precious Metals & Mining INPMX: GG, AEM, NEM, KGC
Evergreen Precious Metals EKWBX: Newcrest Mining Ltd, ABX, GFI, MDG
DWS Gold & Precious Metals SCGDX: GG, ABX, GFI, Lonmin, FCX
Bill Cara's recommended goldminers for 2007 & Mine
Gold & Silver: Company Rankings from Reuters
Top stocks by relative strength:
Bespoke Investment Group: New Inverse Gold ETNs
THE SHARK REPORT: WEEKEND TIMES
1- POT
2- ISRG
6- AUY
9- RIMM
18- RIO
28-MOS
33-RIG
37-MA
55-NDAQ
56-DE
84-CNQ
95-MTW"
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : Peak Oil: Simmons v. Saudis, Round Two
Peak Oil: Simmons v. Saudis, Round Two
Neil King in Washington, D.C. reports:
Both Nansen Saleri, former chief of reservoir management at Saudi Aramco, and Houston-based investment banker Matthew Simmons are feeling good these days about the famous–and weighty–debate they held four years ago at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Are Saudi Arabia’s massive oil fields in great shape—or falling apart? Can Saudi Aramco help slake the globe’s soaring energy thirst far into the century—or has that ability already peaked?

Simmons, in his book “Twilight in the Desert” argued that several big Saudi fields, including the massive Ghawar field, were showing signs of serious strain. Their debate before a packed house at CSIS marked an unprecedented moment of openness for the secretive Aramco.

Saleri now says in an interview that time has proven Aramco right. Simmons “was saying four years ago that Ghawar was going to collapse and that Saudi Aramco was going to go into decline….[But] that precipitous decline never occurred,” he says.
Saleri, who left Aramco last year to create his own Houston-based reservoir-management company, insists Ghawar will keep pumping five million barrels a day far into the future. Aramco also managed to revive some other behemoths, like Abqaiq.
“Abqaiq became a renaissance story for Aramco,” he says, insisting that the field’s pressure remains strong and its water content is going down even after more than 60 years in production. Abqaiq “is doing fantastically,” Saleri says.
Simmons, reached by phone in Houston, says he feels equally vindicated—and increasingly alarmed. He based his book largely on information dug up in old technical journals. In recent weeks he has hit the archives again, with thoughts of writing a second book.
What he has found, he says, “is so unbelievably scary you can’t believe it.” He claims that there is mounting technical evidence that Aramco is struggling to deal with increasing volumes of water at its hugest fields. With water production going up, he says, oil production is going down.
“It is absolutely clear as a bell now that all of those fields are heading toward being another Cantarell,” referring to the massive Mexican offshore field, which is now in rapid decline.
So how different are the world views of Simmons and Saleri?
Saleri says he’s convinced technology will help revive aging reservoirs all over the globe, and world oil production won’t hit peak until well after 2050.
Simmons believes we may already have hit that peak. After his recent studies, he now fears he has “grossly underestimated how savage the post-peak oil reality will be.”
I do not believe that Simmons ever claimed that Ghawar would collapse. I think he claimed that Ghawar production was falling faster than the Saudis were admitting.
This would be a non-issue if the Saudis would provide the data, and it is primarily because of the Saudi secrecy that I tend to believe Simmons.
Also, the Saudis are doing an awful lot of drilling for a country that claims to be so awash in oil.
There are more rigs in Mexico. There are more rigs in India. There are nearly as many rigs in egypt. The Saudi’s are certainly doing more drilling than two years ago, but certainly not a lot relative to their production or relative to most other large oil producing countries.
If Simmons is right, the world economy is doomed. So let us embrace conservation and renewables as fast as we possibly can. We will eventually need to do so anyway, and if we do it now, the landing will be softer and the climate less severe…
There are many oil fields that produce alot of water some produce water from day one. This is another example of someone who does not understand the engineering jumping to conclusions. Ghawar is probaly the most studied oil field in the world. I cannot image someone with access old technical papers makeing a valid conclusion. There are a few of my papers I would like to have back.
The truth is you are all, including S and S, a bunch of guessers that have NO idea of what the future holds. So shut the pie hole.
Currently we are only able to get 50% of the fossil fuels out of the ground. New biotechnolgy is in the making which processes unpumped oil in the ground and turns it into methane. This should revolutionalize the industry and increase world-wide reserves.
Also, don’t discount huge new reserves found off-shore.
Simmons, as an investment banker in the oil industry would have a pretty good view of “new technology” looming on the horizon. I think he has stated, more than once, that no such technology has made an appearance. My inclination, based upon past track records and what I’ve seen of these optimistic predictions (and how different the operating regimes would have to be for the optimisitic predictions to bear out) is to go with Simmons on this one.
Nine Secrets Health Insurers Don’t Want You to Know - Health.com
A Message from the President - HealthCare Advocates, Inc.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Honestylog.com: Honesty in Food & Fitness
When I began pushing weights last May I wanted to focus on that, so I did and I built muscle and lost a little fat. Tried to eat good some of the time, but still lots of burgers (which are fine, without the bread). I was losing about 1 pound per month net (I was also gaining muscle).
Then around October I began to eat well most of the time. Probably the closest approximation is "Paleo." This is the authoritative resource:
http://thepaleodiet.com/index.shtml
http://thepaleodiet.com/faqs/
http://thepaleodiet.com/articles/2006_Oxford.pdf
Now I was losing maybe 2 lbs. net per month. However, I kept hearing about intermittent fasting at Art's site...
...and so I decided to try it. It made a lot of sense from and evolutionary perspective. After the first 30-hr fast, ending with a workout and a nice meat dinner, I knew I was hooked for life. I just cannot begin to express all the benefits. I simply think that we evolved to go long periods with hunger and that the body adapted itself to do things over those periods of time that just might be necessary for full health and well being. Think about it: the average person has sufficient fat stores to go two, possibly three months with no food. That didn't just happen by accident.
So that was the major piece to the puzzle, and then I realized something. Since I was putting myself in a state of evolutionary hunger, I was allowing for gene expression to mold my appetite to a greater extent than the complex hormonal biochemistry that prevails when we're perpetually in a fed state. (That's my speculation, so it may be gobbledygook, but I doubt it.)
I just really can't believe how my appetite has so dramatically changed with the fasting. I seriously don't even have a craving in the world for a pizza, and that is almost unbelievable to me. I always crave pizza -- every day of my life. Haven't been to a fast-food place in 2-3 months (I haven't paid attention) and that was probably 3-4 times per week for years. Love fast food burgers & fries.
But this has nothing to do with will power. For me, it takes no will power to fast for 30 hours (well, maybe the first two did) twice per week, and the change in appetite is a natural result. And what I crave is lots of animal fat and meat. I couldn't even finish a light vinaigrette salad last night coming off a 30-hr fast. Instead, I ate nearly a pound of ribeye smothered in butter-sautéed mushrooms, and broccolinni blanched and bathed in melted butter, lemon, and parmesan.
So, I think the Paleo and all those are fine, but a person ought to feel great doing them; naturally great. Given my experience with fasting, I now understand that I would have never known and understood my true appetite had I not started that.
As to the specific question, yea, I eat quite a bit of cheese. And butter; and bacon dripping and dipped in the grease. I now eat the strip of fat on steaks because it's so appealing.
Radical; but I feel fabulous, I'm gaining strength and muscle, and fat is falling away.
Your mileage may vary, but that's my story.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I have also recently started Art's EvFit. I am about a month into it. Now I too am going to take the IF plunge. I bought EatStopEat and am going to use that system. But I have a question for you. Why do you go for 30 hours? Art himself says he usually goes for about 17 (lunch to breakfast) and EatStopEat recommends two 24 hour fasts. Why did you settle upon 30 hours? Did you read that this is a better time frame than anything shorter?
Anyway I enjoy your blog and I love reading about your success with Paleo and IF.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It was by accident. I actually did two fasts before getting the Eat Stop Eat book. I wanted to be able to skip three complete meal cycles, so rather than after dinner to dinner, I chose to do before dinner (i.e., after lunch) to dinner. Then, as Brad shows in ESE, the max fat burn is from 18 to 30 hours where it begins to taper off. I concluded that I had by accident extended my fasts to the most efficient time period, 30 hours.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Language Matters: The Ultimate Dilemma for Oil-Dominated Economies
By Peter McKenzie-Brown
Energy security, always a critical mission for any nation, will steadily acquire greater urgency and priority. As it does, international tensions and the risk of conflict will rise, and these growing threats will make it increasingly difficult for governments to focus on longer-term challenges, such as climate or alternative fuels – challenges that are in themselves critical to energy security yet which, paradoxically, will be seen as distractions from the campaign to keep the energy flowing. This is the ultimate dilemma of energy security in the modern energy system. The more obvious it becomes that an oil dominated energy economy is inherently insecure, the harder it becomes to move on to something else.
I am a big fan of Paul Roberts, whose book The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World (from which I copied this passage) is one of the best tomes available about the current energy situation. The book was published in 2004, though. Although Roberts accurately spotted the major trends and concisely explained the issues, the period in which he did his research and writing was one of high optimism compared to the situation today. Sometimes he seems almost naïve.
The big word today is recession, with fears around the world that the US may already be there, and that Europe and Japan will soon follow. Perhaps the ballyhooed “disconnect” between growth in the developing world and that in the west is nonsense, goes the thinking: growth in China, India and other rapidly developing countries actually will respond to a slowdown in the West. Those fears have raised concerns in the oil markets: Will demand for the commodity decline so much during the recession that surpluses will wash around the world, driving prices down?
Fearing a crash in demand, the price of West Texas Intermediate briefly dropped to its lowest level in three months at the end of January. Then, as I suggested elsewhere, reality began to intrude: OPEC doesn’t have a lot more oil (in the sense of productive capacity) they can produce. Geopolitics, rising demand and historically tight supply still govern the price of oil. Traders aren't likely to let oil prices decline from their current lofty levels. (Natural gas prices, by contrast, are likely to rise rather quickly.)
Won’t a slowing of oil demand give the world a respite – buy a bit more time during which we can “do something” about the energy mess? Not if the decline in demand is caused by recession. The world’s energy problems need money to be solved. In an era of job loss, declining consumer spending, huge government and trade deficits (in the United States and other western countries), rising inflation, tightening credit and seemingly interminable religious and energy wars around the world, money for energy solutions is increasingly unavailable. Add to these problems the uninspired leadership in the US, Canada and much of the rest of the world (especially in respect to the intimately related issue of carbon emissions) and the outlook seems particularly bleak.
How bad can things get? I’ll give the last word to Paul Roberts, who describes a grim worst case in which crude oil production has peaked, followed by “global recession, worldwide unemployment, economic chaos, and, perhaps, a dangerous and escalating competition among the big oil-importing nations over the remaining reserves in the Middle East.”
In an afterword to the reissue of his book, Roberts describes an important change in people’s awareness – by which he mostly means that of the American people. He writes,
More people and policymakers now seem to understand that the energy system is in serious and growing trouble and that without a fundamentally new approach we are almost assured of a catastrophic failure. What our new awareness actually means is hard to say. It may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won’t be so surprised.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
A trainwreck in Maxwell
I wonder how much you'll hear about this cancer study?
Because the cause is NOT evil tobacco this time.
Nope, it's the hippies best friend- Mary Jane. Which according to these studies is 20 times as cancer causing as the evil tobacco.
Anybody who's taken a hit will know that the smoke can't be good for you, as heavy and harsh as it is.
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.
Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.
In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.
The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.
"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.
"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."
Ok, it's a small study, but I expect the truth to be known shortly as all the hippies start dying like flies because of their past indiscretions.
AND I expect Cali, Washington and all the other Liberal Meccas to do away with their pro dope stance and get on the anti-cancer bandwagon ASAP.
Because not only is the secondhand smoke bad...they need to do it "for the children!"
But we all know they won't because if they do it it's somehow ok.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
WorldNetDaily: Fear doesn't control my vote
Fear doesn't control my vote
Posted: January 29, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It seems to matter little where I go or who I am with, the question I am repeatedly asked many times with breathless anticipation is: "What do we do if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and/or who can beat Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?"
Those of you with whom I correspond already know my feelings, but for those who do not, let me make my position unequivocally clear. I don't care who wins the Democrat presidential nomination, and I don't care, as such, if Obama or Clinton win the Holy Grail of politics. I care that the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate I can support as a true conservative left in the race.
I am a conservative, but I'm not an ideologue – nor is my vote governed by fear. That is to say, I will not vote for a Republican nominee to whose positions I am vehemently opposed and/or whom I do not trust, just to keep Obama or, more likely, Clinton out of the White House.
Fear is a powerful motivator that can be used to coerce well-intentioned persons, groups or even the entire nation into making incredibly poor decisions – and the Republican National Committee is not above using same. The idea that I must abandon my moral compass and vote for a candidate I could not find more objectionable – in order to shut out a liberal candidate who bears little or no substantive difference to the one I voted for – is offensive to me.
(Column continues below)
Some have told me they will vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, for fear of those whom a Democrat president will appoint to the Supreme Court – to which I respond: Who was the president that appointed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor? Who was the president that appointed David Souter, and who appointed John Paul Stevens? Here's a hint – they weren't Democrats.
Under which president has the federal government grown exponentially? Which president thumbed his nose at the voters and arrogantly pledged his support for an amnesty bill for illegal aliens? Which presidents supported abortion, race-based preferences and race-based affirmative action? Which president signed McCain-Feingold? Which president's attorney general vigorously opposed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative? Which president's attorney general dropped the ball in Lawrence vs. Texas, which opened the door to homosexual marriage and the undermining of the family? Which president campaigned vigorously for Arlen Specter when, in fact, Pat Toomey was the true conservative? Which president had his Justice Department undermine a lower-court ruling in the District of Columbia pursuant to the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment? Want a hint? Once again, they weren't Democrats.
Voting, in my opinion, is one of the most important acts of citizenship an American can perform. The value of that act should not be taken lightly or under duress.
As my grandmother used to say, "No good is no good," to which I add, my voting for one "no good" over another "no good" doesn't make same less "no good." Thus, as I have been forthright in stating from the beginning, I plan to write in the name of my choice, devil be damned, if Democrats win in the meantime. I survived Carter and Clinton. I can endure whomever and whatever they come up with this time, including the certainty of their punitive tax increases.
Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie is to be credited, in part, for the calcification of my position. While still RNC chairman, Gillespie, referencing a possible Giuliani-Clinton New York senatorial contest, dismissed conservative concerns pursuant to Giuliani by insisting the conservative base would support Giuliani just to keep Clinton out, even though he favored all that we opposed. I found his arrogance indefensible then, as I do the same mindset that embodies the party today.
I am well aware that many will disagree with me for an avalanche of reasons – that said, so be it. The battle lines must be drawn somewhere. I believe the future of our party depends on it. The party cannot continue in the state of decline it now experiences. Where are the substantive differences that set us apart during the Reagan years? How offensive it is to his memory and to the movement he set in place when we hear liberal Republicans and/or Republican charades claim to be in the image of Ronald Reagan.
I agree with Thomas Sowell and others calling for a revolution to reclaim the Party of Lincoln. Obviously, the RNC has not taken the lessons of 2006 to heart. Perhaps a few more defeats will jar them into listening to us.
