Bits Bucket for December 5, 2015
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here. Please visit my Youtube channel which you can also find here:
http:tinyurl.com/http-hbb-com
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
April 2025 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
Then one foggy Christmas Eve Santa came to say…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX5hyj0vRE0 - 208k -
Anyone have a recipe for Venison Roadkill Stew?
It lived. A Christmas miracle.
To see that critter get up and run off into the brush is a great lesson in resilience.
I wonder how long the deer survived after taking the hit.
“It lived. A Christmas miracle.”
Yes, but he won’t be allowed to play in any reindeer games until he completes the protocol for Reindeer with concussions.
The test measures, memory, concentration and balance. as well as measuring how quickly and thoroughly the Reindeer recalls words given to them at least five minutes earlier. The team doctor asks the Reindeer to name the month, date, day of week, year and time. The additional questions include specific roadside orientation questions that ask the Reindeer to identify the highway, speed limit, who scored most recently, the Reindeer’s previous opponent and whether the Reindeer won or lost its most recent game. This process takes about 8-12 minutes.
R u planning on seeing this?
I can’t be,Eve they are trying to wheel Frank Gifford out as an example of this end all masculine sports like football concussion push. He died at 85 and seems to have had a pretty rich life.
I wonder how much our politics and culture have been warped by having many of our leaders play a game while growing up that damages your brain.
Acting must damage your brain too
Robert Loggia, star of ‘Scarface,’ ‘Big,’ dies at 85
By Todd Leopold, CNN
Fri December 4, 2015
(CNN)Robert Loggia, the gravelly voiced actor whose roles in such films as “Scarface,” “Prizzi’s Honor,” “Big” and “Independence Day” generally consisted of tough guys with (occasionally) soft hearts, has died. He was 85.
Loggia died at noon Friday at his home in Brentwood, California, after a five-year struggle with Alzheimer’s disease, according to his wife of 41 years, Audrey Loggia.
One of my family played center back in the day. He said he used to stay quiet on the bus home from away games until he heard who won the game. His last years were pretty rough, but he had a room full of trophies.
People who hate masculinity are have for several years been trying to push the idea that football is very dangerous, which is ridiculous.
FB is dangerous, so is fishing in Alaska. Dont take away my TV!
Venison Roadkill Stew?
The only deer I ever killed was with a baseball bat.
Reader caution advised:
When I was about 19 my friend and I were driving around in the country drinking 3.2 beer (because that’s what you did back then) when he hit a big, mid-western white-tailed deer with his Chevy truck. We got out and the poor doe had her whole hind end broken and was crying a kind of honking baying sound.
My friend starts crying and says “we gotta call the cops and take it to a vet!” I said look, it’s 1 in the morning and we’ve been drinking there’s no vet that’s going to help a big broken wild deer. The deer kept honking and baying and it was sad. We had no guns but he had a Louisville Slugger in his truck. (Because that’s what we did back then.)
He couldn’t do it so I put it out of its misery with one swing to the top of the head. I did not feel good about it at all but I didn’t feel that badly either because it had to be done.
We took it to his grandpa’s house, woke him up and dressed the deer in the barn. My friend took most of the meat because his truck was messed up. It made for some great Venison Roadkill Stew.
“He couldn’t do it so I put it out of its misery”
You did the right thing.
Why do your stories always seem made up to me? Am I that cognitively biased against you? You have plenty of detail that normally I would count towards a story being truthful. But this just doesn’t ring true to me. I don’t know exactly what it is. This friend of yours being a poor little farm kid who wanted to take a deer to a vet at 1 am but also is out driving his Chevy at 1am drinking beer and has a grandfather who dresses deer and makes roadkill stew? Just doesn’t seem to add up.
I am not saying you are lying or not. It’s just when I read these it always happens to me that the details seem not to jibe.
Why do your stories always seem made up to me? Am I that cognitively biased against you?
I am not saying you are lying or not. It’s just when I read these it always happens to me that the details seem not to jibe.
So you’re asking other people to explain what goes on in your brain.
This friend of yours being a poor little farm kid
He wasn’t a farm kid. Lived in town with a single mother. His grandpa had a barn.
Why do your stories always seem made up to me?
Because you hate me ProxyClubberMangoStrawberry?
But this just doesn’t ring true to me
I know. Because I’m a “leftist”.
when I read these it always happens to me that the details seem not to jibe.
Not much jibes for you anymore in this big world, but keep fightin’.
What’s the mango strawberry stuff?
Did this really happen to you? Seriously. Maybe it is the way you tell the stories. I admit I have cognitive bias because you are a leftist so I tend not to believe you, but that really shouldnt carry over to this story. There isn’t a hint of anything political in it and I’m trying to discount for that possibility anyway.
I admit I have cognitive bias because you are a leftist so I tend not to believe you, but that really shouldnt carry over to this story.
It’s good to attempt to be aware, and questioning, of your own biases…
Did this really happen to you?
If I wrote it, it happened.
I tend not to believe you, but that really shouldnt carry over to this story.
It shouldn’t but it did.
There isn’t a hint of anything political in it
Until you read it.
Should I change my moniker to RoadkillStu? I really like that.
Are JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs too big to fail?
“Are JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs too big to fail?”
Of course! That how we bankers set these things up.
Others work, bankers reap. God’s plan.
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Economy & Politics
Project Syndicate
Opinion: We still haven’t gotten rid of too-big-to-fail banks
By Simon Johnson
Published: Dec 3, 2015 9:36 a.m. ET
Failure at Financial Stability Board shows biggest banks are still a problem
Cate Gillon/Getty Images
Seven years after the failure of Lehman Brothers, global regulators still can’t guarantee that the collapse of a large bank wouldn’t be catastrophic.
WASHINGTON (Project Syndicate) — At least since the fall of 2008, leading economies’ officials have agreed — in principle — that something must be done about financial firms that are “too big to fail.”
Great efforts, including countless international meetings, working papers, and communiqués have been devoted to this end. Earlier this month, the Basel-based Financial Stability Board (FSB) announced, to some fanfare, the completion of a major stage in this project. But the announcement only served to underscore how little progress has been made. The world’s largest banks remain too big to fail, and this is likely to have dire consequences in the near future.
The problem of too big to fail is not new — the phrase was first used in the United States in the 1980s. It refers to any firm — usually in the financial sector — whose failure would have major negative spillover effects for the rest of the financial system and for the real (non-financial) part of the economy.
Prior to September 2008, there was some doubt as to whether large non-bank financial firms would be regarded as too big to fail. Bear Stearns came close to failing earlier that year, before the Federal Reserve stepped in to facilitate a purchase by JPMorgan Chase (JPM, +3.18%). Bear Stearns’ shareholders did not do well and much of its management immediately left the scene, but creditors were fully protected (in fact, ensuring this protection was a central motivation for the Fed’s intervention).
On the sidelines of Heard on the Street’s live event in Tokyo, Dec 3, panelists discuss the dangers lurking in the Federal Reserve’s possible rate increase later this month.
When Lehman Brothers came under severe pressure in September 2008, uncertainty reigned in financial markets (and at the top of Lehman): perhaps the Fed would help out again in some fashion. By all accounts, the U.S. Treasury and the Fed did indeed consider providing assistance, but then held back, worried about overstepping their legal authority and sufficiently confident that permitting Lehman to fail would not have dire consequences for the broader economy.
The second view proved to be spectacularly wrong. Within 24 hours of Lehman’s failure, the U.S. authorities were scrambling to prevent asset fire sales, a run on money market mutual funds, the collapse of other investment banks (such as Merrill Lynch BAC, +2.89% , Morgan Stanley MS, +2.53% , and Goldman Sachs GS, +2.59% ), and even the demise of large, integrated, global banks (such as Citigroup C, +2.95% ).
While deploying an unprecedented amount of financial firefighting equipment, officials and lawmakers — on both sides of the Atlantic — were clear that this was a “never again” situation. As soon as the fires were out, they pledged, they would work diligently to ensure that the “next Lehman” could fail in a government-managed “resolution” process that would not cause panic and a collapse of credit.
This task was taken up at the international level by the FSB, established after the G-20 summit in London in April 2009. After many years of working closely with leading national authorities (including in the U.S. and Europe), on Nov. 9 the FSB published “Removing Remaining Obstacles to Resolvability,” along with a number of related technical papers.
Unfortunately, there are three flaws in the FSB’s framework that will prevent it from being effectively applied to large global banks.
…
“By Simon Johnson”
A good man right here.
You have to wonder what kind of threats and other lowball slime tactics the banksters have leveled at him.
No need. As long as 95% of the electorate continue to bend over for the banksters, they have no need to fear anyone who would hold them accountable or reform a broken financial system.
“At least since the fall of 2008, leading economies’ officials have agreed — in principle — that something must be done about financial firms that are ‘too big to fail.’”
Yes! And that something that needs be done is these financial firms must be SUPPORTED - supported FOREVER!
Aren’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac among the firms which proved too big to fail in Fall 2008?
I vaguely recall a plan to wind them down. How is that coming along?
“I vaguely recall a plan to wind them down.”
Statements such as this need to somehow be accompanied by a laugh track.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iYVO5bUFww0
J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs among ‘too-big-to-fail’ U.S. banks downgraded by S&P
By Ciara Linnane
Published: Dec 3, 2015 8:55 a.m. ET
S&P says no longer certain that U.S. government would support banks in a future crisis
Reuters
New rules aim to make banks hold enough capital to absorb any major shock
Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit ratings of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group and six other major U.S. banks, saying it is no longer confident that the U.S. government would step in to support them in a future crisis.
S&P cut its ratings of the nonoperating holding companies (NOHC) of the eight U.S. banks determined to be “globally systemically important” by one notch. That has lowered ratings for Goldman Sachs (GS, +2.59%) Citigroup Inc. (C, +2.95%) Morgan Stanley (MS, +2.53%) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC, +2.89%) to BBB-plus, placing them just three notches above speculative, or “junk” status.
It cut J.P. Morgan to A-minus, and lowered State Street Corp. (STT, +3.29%) Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK, +2.51%) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC, +2.71%) to A.
The move comes as the Federal Reserve works to complete rules that will dictate the amount and type of capital banks must hold to absorb a major shock to the financial system. The Fed said in October that the country’s six biggest banks are facing a $120 billion capital shortfall under rules that will require them to hold large amounts of debt that can be converted into equity in a crisis.
“Based on our review of progress made toward putting in place a viable U.S. resolution plan, we now consider the likelihood that the U.S. government would provide extraordinary support to its banking system to be ‘uncertain’ and are removing the uplift based on government support from our ratings,” S&P said in a statement.
…
These are the world’s 30 ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks
By Sara Sjolin
Published: Nov 3, 2015 8:36 a.m. ET
J.P. Morgan and HSBC pose biggest risk to financial system
Getty Images
J.P. Morgan needs to hold an extra 2.5% to meet ‘loss absorbency requirements’
The U.S. has the dubious honor of having the most banks on the official “too-big-to-fail” list in 2015.
The annually updated list, published on Tuesday by the Financial Stability Board, the global financial watchdog, shows a total of eight U.S. banking mastodons are considered to be among “global systemically important banks”—a.k.a. too big to fail—that pose a threat to the global economy and financial stability if they were to collapse.
…
Does anybody have any insights as to why Megabank, Inc’s share prices shot upwards like a rocket yesterday?
“JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) traded up 2.99% at $67.77. The stock’s 52-week range is $50.07 to $70.61. Trading volume was about 10% below the daily average of about 14.5 million. The company received a favorable ruling late yesterday in a lawsuit brought against it for the $6.2 billion loss in 2012 due to bad trades by Morgan trader known as the London Whale.”
http://247wallst.com/investing/2015/12/04/the-4-stocks-that-lifted-the-djia-on-friday-7/
Higher short term interest rates are good for bank’s profit margins? Discuss.
Borrowing 30 years worth of earnings on throwing it away on a depreciating asset like a house is bad for yours.
“Higher short term interest rates are good for bank’s profit margins? Discuss.”
On the surface, it doesn’t make much sense. Don’t banks make money by borrowing in the short-term market (i.e. from customers with savings accounts) and lending in the long-term market? It seems like higher short-term rates would narrow the short-term / long-term rate spread, which factors directly into a bank’s profit margin.
P.S. One thought that comes to mind:
Perhaps Megabank, Inc is gambling on the Fed making a “surprise” announcement that liftoff will be postponed until 2016?
Higher short term interest rates are good for bank’s profit margins?
Yes. Big banks have been lobbying the Fed to hike rates for this reason. In this low rate environment the spread between what they pay for deposits and loan income is compressed. Raising rates will expand the spread, and they make more profit because of it.
Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!
Maybe a new pill was invented that will allow everyone to live longer and serve an additional decade of debt servitude?
“Maybe a new pill was invented that will allow everyone to live longer and serve an additional decade of debt servitude?”
That pill would certainly hose the life insurance industry. And Social Security.
“That pill would certainly hose the life insurance industry.”
I need to revisit that statement: The pill would hose the sector of the life insurance industry that sold annuities but it would benefit the other sectors.
“Pill that ‘adds 10 YEARS to your life’ could be ready in a decade, scientists predict”
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/586988/pill-health-life-cancer-cells-death-decade-scientists-medicine-research-UCL
What? You say that’s not enough? You say you want more? Well here …
“We can live to 150 and stay healthy’: Professor says first ‘wonder drugs’ could be ready this decade”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2050788/Anti-ageing-wonder-pill-drug-enable-live-150.html
“I need to revisit that statement: The pill would hose the sector of the life insurance industry that sold annuities but it would benefit the other sectors.”
Yes.
Or perhaps a law was passed that allows a father’s debt to be passed on to his heirs upon the father’s demise?
The Fed
Fed approves rule to limit emergency loans
By Greg Robb
Published: Nov 30, 2015 12:09 p.m. ET
Won’t be able to lend to next Bear Stearns or AIG in another crisis
The Federal Reserve on Monday voted to put in place new rules to curb the central bank’s lending powers in a financial crisis.
By a unanimous vote, the Fed approved rules limiting lending to help specific “too-big-to-fail” firms that are in trouble as it did in the last financial crisis with loans to Bear Stearns and American International Group.
The Fed’s lending to big Wall Street firms was controversial, and Congress moved quickly to restrict the practice in the sweeping Dodd-Frank bank reform law.
Now, under the new law, failing firms must go through a resolution process run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The too-big-to-fail firms must first come up with “living wills” to guide regulators in how to shut them down.
Under the new rules approved Monday, the Fed’s crisis lending will be limited to setting up credit facilities to help liquidity in markets frozen by panics.
“Emergency lending is a critical tool that can be used in times of crisis to help mitigate extraordinary pressures in financial markets that would otherwise have severe adverse consequences for households, businesses and the U.S. economy,” said Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, in a statement, noting that the Fed had used its powers “sparingly.”
…
Dumb question of the day: Should anyone rationally expect that rules the Fed passes now, when their is no crisis, would still apply in a moment of panic?
A moment of panic would be a terrible thing to waste.
Luckily these moments of panics so often come to us all on their own; This saves us bankers from the trouble of having to invent them.
William Randolph Hearst, my idol:
“You supply the pictures, I’ll supply the war.”
My version: “You supply the data, I’ll supply the panic.”
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Furnish, the word should be furnish.
“You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”
A bit off topic …
A recently college graduate I know who majored in journalism - JOURNALISM! - did not know that William Randolph Hearst made his fortune in the newspaper business.
“…did not know that William Randolph Hearst made his fortune in the newspaper business.”
For his crime, he should be sentenced to a punishment of watching Citizen Kane ten times in succession with no food, drinking water or bathroom privileges.
Today’s MSM journalists are nothing more than scribes and stenographers for their Oligopoly meme-crafters and DNC talking points. Must.fit.the.narrative.
Yesterday I said that journalism was what the DUMB people majored in… or landed in when they washed out of STEM.
QED
Are JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs too big to fail?
Not as long as middle class taxpayers and the Fed’s printing press have their backs.
It seems like the interval time between fed members or other central banks being wheeled out is getting narrower. It seems about everyday we have noise from the ppt. Is this bullish?
Or is it thinly-veiled panic?
Hard to say…
Give me a break …
“Paris climate talks: Tuvalu PM Enele Sosene Sopoaga criticises demand for evidence of claims”
“Tuvalu’s prime minister says his country is being expected to provide unreasonably robust scientific evidence to prove it is a victim of climate change to qualify for international support.
“‘
“international support” = Lots and lots and lots of money.
“Enele Sosene Sopoaga issued another stark warning to fellow negotiators at the Paris climate talks that without a binding deal to limit global warming, his tiny Pacific island nation could be wiped out.”
Wiped out! Because …?
“The study found storms and “king tides” are likely to worsen. Sea levels have risen about 20 centimetres in the past century.”
Get real. Twenty centimeters is less than eight inches. Sea levels have risen less than eight inches in the past century. Sea levels have risen less than eight inches during the past century, a time that the planet was emerging from the latest episode of cooling known as “The Little Ice Age”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-05/tuvalu-pm-criticises-demand-for-evidence-of-climate-change-claim/7004090
An Islamic jihadi terrorist attack on American soil is kind of distracting from the oligarchs’ climate change dalliances and press conferences
An Islamic jihadi terrorist attack on American soil is kind of distracting from the oligarchs’ climate change dalliances and press conferences
Citizen! You are deviating from the approved meme. This was gun violence of the sort we must end by confiscating all firearms and nullifying the Second Amendment. Do not attempt to distort The Narrative by pointing out inconvenient truths, or we and our minions shall be forced to put your name on The List of non-compliant Enemies of the Corporatocracy….
No - as pointed out above, this shooting perfectly advances the PTB’s gun-grabbing agenda. Did you listen to Obama’s speech recently? About how we need to “harmonize” our security standards with the UN (code for gun ban & confiscation)?
The sea level in San Diego has fluctuated over the course of geologic time on the order of 1000s of feet. Why get so hot and bothered over changes that are smaller in magnitude than the height of the waves that wash up on San Diego beaches on a daily basis?
Why get so hot and bothered over changes that are smaller in magnitude than the height of the waves that wash up on San Diego beaches on a daily basis?
My gosh! No one’s ever thought of that before! Eight inches of water? Build a curb! Problem solved. And a world full of scientists never could figure this out. What have we been worrying about?
I foresee a Nobel Peace Prize in your future, professor. For thinking outside of the box.
“And a world full of scientists never could figure this out. What have we been worrying about?”
Funding? A world full of scientists have been worrying about funding?
NSA hiring climate scientist 150k a pop fast as they can
on your dime
A worldwide conspiracy of scientists to shut up and keep the money. And the money is coming from?
Again, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste; If a crisis isn’t readily available then one must be conjured up.
What is the intent of the scam? Cui bono?
Also lots of money needs to be spent studying and figuring out how to survive the crisis. And politicians have to sound the warning on the crisis, followed with assurances that they have a plan underway to resolve it.
“A worldwide conspiracy of scientists to shut up and keep the money. And the money is coming from?”
Here’s some clues …
“The summit refocused leaders’ attention on climate change and set the stage for major new commitments of more than $200 billion.”
“… more than $200 billion”. That’s BILLION - with a “B”.
(snip)
“Finance approved for new projects to address climate change has increased by almost 50% since November 2013. A large share of this increase can be attributed to the Climate Investment Funds, which approved $2.3 billion for projects (many of which had been in the pipeline for some time). $1.6 billion came from the Clean Technology Fund for projects in Morocco, Ukraine, Turkey and Chile.”
(snip)
“Mitigation finance continued to increase in 2014. The Clean Technology Fund, Scaling Up Renewable Energy Programme and the Global Environment Facility approved $0.9 billion for mitigation activities. The largest share, $346 million, supported new credit lines and financing facilities for low carbon technologies, as well as mini-grids and other infrastructure that enable the use of energy generated by remote technologies, followed by support for the deployment of solar power. But while funding has increased, it remains small relative to continued investment in conventional energy, including by developing countries. For example, China and Mexico recently launched a new fund which may invest as much as $5 billion in conventional energy.”
(snip)
“Finance to help developing countries reduce emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and related activities (REDD+) reached $1.9 billion in project approvals. In September countries, companies, civil society organisations and indigenous peoples agreed to ‘cut natural forest loss in half by 2020, and strive to end it by 2030’. Peru, the host of this year’s climate conference, received more than $350 million in pledges and approvals in 2014; of this, $300 million was from Norway, and $200 million will only be paid when emission reductions are demonstrated.”
(snip)
“Adaptation finance has now reached $2 billion, after 2014 saw a further $214 million approved for adaptation projects. The largest sum, $54.6 million, went towards incorporating climate risk and resilience measures into national development planning. This year a further $34 million went to disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts such as early warning systems, bringing the total to $202 million since 2003. Of this, least developed countries (LDC) and small island developing states (SIDS) received 95% – the top recipients being Dominica, Niger, Grenada, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Samoa. But investment in disaster risk reduction is much bigger than it appears, as other adaptation sectors – such as water management, or efforts to increase the resilience of agriculture – often include a component that addresses disaster risk. A full 43% of the adaptation finance approved this year included a disaster risk reduction component.”
(snip)
“Under the oversight of the Standing Committee on Finance of the UNFCCC, the first Biennial Assessment of international climate finance identified $40-175 billion flowing from developed countries to developing countries annually between 2010 and 2012. While total climate finance flows may be falling, in 2014 multilateral climate finance increased to $2.9 billion, almost doubling the estimated average approvals of $1.5 billion a year between 2010 and 2012. Despite growing efforts to monitor climate related spending by major data providers, (the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, multilateral development banks, the Climate Policy Initiative, and Climate Funds Update), huge uncertainties remain around climate-related spending. Reporting of underlying data needs to become more complete, and more precise definitions for adaptation and mitigation finance are needed.”
(snip)
“A large proportion of climate finance continues to be channelled through multilateral development banks, but funds are increasingly partnering with developing country institutions. There are now about 40 implementing agencies – a fourfold increase over the past five years – including regional development banks, international organisations, developing country ministries, trust funds and NGOs. The Adaptation Fund pioneered this shift by offering developing country based institutions direct access to its finance and now has 21 institutions accredited as national or regional implementing entities. The Global Environment Facility has also expanded its implementing partners, accrediting the Development Bank of South Africa, Brazil’s biodiversity fund (FUNBIO) and several international NGOs.”
(snip)
“The Green Climate Fund is now the largest and fastest-growing climate fund, with $9.7 billion pledged ahead of the Lima climate conference in December 2014. Of this the United States pledged $3 billion, Japan $1.5 billion, the UK $1.2 billion, France $1 billion, and Germany $1 billion. Developing countries also pledged support, including South Korea ($100 million) and Mexico ($10 million). As a financial mechanism of the UN climate negotiations, the speedy fulfilment of pledges will help foster trust in long-term negotiations to secure ambitious climate action. As the Green Climate Fund prepares to fund its first projects, it must build and improve on the achievements and experiences of existing funds and set a high bar for programme implementation. To do this, it will need to find better ways to support national stakeholders and priorities; take a gender sensitive approach; and improve engagement with the private sector.”
(snip)
“There are more than 10 multilateral funds supporting climate action today. Smaller funds were instrumental in catalysing wider action on climate change, but there is now substantial overlap. Successful operationalisation of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) could present an opportunity to simplify, consolidate and increase efficiency, as finance scales up.”
http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/about-climate-fund/10-things-to-know-about-climate-finance-in-2013
There’s an upside to imaginary crises which grab politicians’ attention, which is to reduce the available time and resources that might otherwise be invested in creating real crises through outright military aggression.
So instead of making money waging wars, “They” are going to encourage a world-wide system of cooperation with an overarching goal of reducing pollution and maybe saving the planet as we know it?
Sounds better than waging wars for money and power. I guess you guys prefer the bankers’ wars?
The bastards! The evil BASTARDS!
Looks like we’ve stumped them, professor! Logic makes odd bedfellows, as it were.
You seem pretty touchy on this subject.
geologic time
I don’t think that term means what you think it means.
Sea levels have risen less than eight inches in the past century.
In a geological context, that’s a HUGE increase at an extremely RAPID pace. Care to figure how many cubic miles of ice has to be melted to raise the whole planet’s oceans by eight inches?
Remember, sea level is an average. 8 inches to low lying areas, like Tuvalu, Miami or New Orleans, makes a HUGE difference during storm surges, beach erosion, and loss of seaside homes.
Some interesting trivia from Wikipedia …
“The Galveston Hurricane of 1900, a Category 4 hurricane that struck Galveston, Texas, drove a devastating surge ashore; between 6,000 and 12,000 lives were lost, making it the deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States.”
That was in the year of 1900, presumably when the seal level was eight inches lower than it is today.
Here’s another …
“The highest storm tide noted in historical accounts was produced by the 1899 Cyclone Mahina, estimated at almost 44 ft (13 metres) at Bathurst Bay, Australia …”
So your statement: “Remember, sea level is an average. 8 inches to low lying areas, like Tuvalu, Miami or New Orleans, makes a HUGE difference during storm surges, beach erosion, and loss of seaside homes” sounds like nonsense.
“seal level” = “sea level”
Eight inches is huge in low-lying flat areas. Think about an area with a 1 percent rising slope away from the beach. For every 8 inches vertical, water encroaches 8/.01 = 800 inches or 66 feet inland. Now consider that 1% is relatively steep in some areas. Add a storm surge on a high tide and you’re buying a new carpet.
Funny you should choose Galveston as an example. That city is one of most vulnerable in the U.S. for sea inundation due to global warming.
http://www.texasobserver.org/wp-content/legacy/images/stories/sea-level%20rise%20for%20tx%20cities%202.jpg
And, in a twist of irony, while Texas has a lot to lose in global warming due to cities and energy infrastructure along its coast, it is perhaps the most stubborn states to admit climate change even exists. Global warming will smack them upside the head and get their attention soon enough.
It’s not the eight inches that matters, it’s the storm surge and high surf that matters.
If you don’t like the examples offered up by Galveston then go here for some examples of what happened in Malibu.
(and note that the slope of the beach is a bit more than one-percent)
Link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=storm+surge+malibu&biw=1360&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqiMPOoMXJAhUE6oMKHVRIAfkQsAQINA
So much for the “HUGE difference” the added eight inches make ….
“Along the coast, storm surge is often the greatest threat to life and property from a hurricane. In the past, large death tolls have resulted from the rise of the ocean associated with many of the major hurricanes that have made landfall. Hurricane Katrina (2005) is a prime example of the damage and devastation that can be caused by surge. At least 1500 persons lost their lives during Katrina and many of those deaths occurred directly, or indirectly, as a result of storm surge.
“Storm Surge vs. Storm Tide
“Storm surge is an abnormal rise of water generated by a storm, over and above the predicted astronomical tides. Storm surge should not be confused with storm tide, which is defined as the water level rise due to the combination of storm surge and the astronomical tide. This rise in water level can cause extreme flooding in coastal areas particularly when storm surge coincides with normal high tide, resulting in storm tides reaching up to 20 feet or more in some cases.”
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/
Nice try, but you’re are conflating storm surge with average sea level rise. The latter has a huge impact on the former.
“Just a small amount of sea level rise, including what we may well see within the next 20 years, can turn yesterday’s manageable flood into tomorrow’s potential disaster. Global warming is already making coastal floods more common and damaging.” — Dr. Ben Strauss
It’s like leverage. Small increases in sea level yields big changes in storm surges. Multiplier effect.
“It’s like leverage. Small increases in sea level yields big changes in storm surges. Multiplier effect.”
Please explain the multiplier effect. Please explain how a small increase in sea the level can yield a big change in storm surges.
“sea the level” = “the sea level”
Please explain how a small increase in sea the level can yield a big change in storm surges.
+1. Would love to understand your theory.
At a glance, a storm-surge of 22-ft would be 22-ft, 8-in after an 8′in sea-level rise. In other words: an inconsequential difference.
“Would love to understand your theory.”
WPA did not present this statement as a theory, he presented it as a fact.
Would love to understand your theory. At a glance, a storm-surge of 22-ft would be 22-ft, 8-in after an 8′in sea-level rise. In other words: an inconsequential difference.
Multiplier isn’t a theory, it’s an observable fact. Why are tides over 35 feet in Anchorage but only about 5 feet in So Calif? The reason is that with ocean dynamics, the shape and geometry of the land, both horizontal and vertical, have a huge impact on the height of ocean runup and distance of inundation. Your 22-ft average storm surge might be 15 feet at Beach A but 25 ft 5 miles away at Beach B.
In flat places like Miami, the effects of sea level rise are felt first hand when certain high tides hit.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wlrn/files/201310/IMG_20131018_094620.jpg
“Why are tides over 35 feet in Anchorage but only about 5 feet in So Calif?”
What Anchorage periodically experiences is a Bore Tide
“The bore tide is a rush of seawater that returns to a shallow and narrowing inlet from a broad bay. Bore tides come in after extreme minus low tides created by the full or new moon.
“Bore tides occur all over the world—there are around 60 of them—but only a few are large enough to make a name for themselves. One in China, for example, stretches almost 30 feet tall and travels more than 20 miles per hour. Alaska’s most famous bore tide occurs in Turnagain Arm, just outside Anchorage. It climbs up to 6 – 10 feet tall and can reach speeds of 10 to 15 miles per hour. It takes not just a low tide but also about a 27-foot tidal differential (between high and low tide) for a bore to form in Turnagain Arm.”
http://www.alaska.org/advice/alaska-bore-tide
I’ve seen this tide, complete with Beluga whales.
Note for the record that nothing WPA offered demonstrated any kind of “multiplier effect”, nor any significant difference in storm sure due to a small increase in sea-level.
Instead, s/he offered that waves and tides differ in different places (news flash!), based upon topography. Yeah, I think we already knew that.
Multiplier effect? Highly dubious.
Don’t get all excited about the supposed sea level rise. The data never showed it. The “researchers” used computer modeling with data adjustments in order to show a trend in otherwise flat data.
Besides, if the temperature actually went up as much as said adjusted models suggest it did over the past 140 years, Florida would already be gone, right WPA?
The “researchers” used computer modeling with data adjustments in order to show a trend in otherwise flat data.
I think you are the one who fudges data BlueSky - tries to pull one over on people.
Why did you try to pass a big one by us first implying the N. American data was “tainted” therefore global temperatures were false?
Then implied that the global temperatures where going to get even hotter and hotter going forward, however these global temperature yearly heat records (that you obviously know are coming) would be false because some of the N. American temperature records had been “fudged”
Why?
For whatever reason I sometimes feel compelled to say “well, that’s not necessarily true or proven” or “in fact that seems to be illogical” when dingleberrys like you try to beat people into submission by parroting falsehoods.
It isn’t lost on me that the “we’re all going to die unless you let us run things” crowd here are all the diehard socialists, and that they all start screaming personal insults when there is any discussion of inconvenient facts. The rest of us are not so G.D. sure of anything except the smell of corruption.
The researchers who presented the sea level rise over the 20th century conclusion already admitted openly that there was no trend in the raw data. They admitted that they massaged the data to show a trend and they did this in peer review. If I am going to pay for big solutions, I want more truthiness.
For whatever reason I sometimes feel compelled to say “well, that’s not necessarily true or proven”
Look, you were caught Bullsh!tting us. But BS is the initials of Blue Sky.
Again:
Why did you try to pass BS by us, implying the North American data was “tainted” therefore global temperatures were “false”?
Then you figured that global temperatures where going to get hotter, but these global heat records (that you know are coming) would be “meaningless” because some of the North American temperature records had been “fudged” (according to you.)
“you figured that global temperatures where going to get hotter”
That is quite possibly not true at all, but it gives you something to scream about. I think only you are entertained by these outbursts. That’s what makes a dingleberry.
It is well documented that the head of NASA oversaw a downward rewrite of historical data. Even a bonehead should be able to grasp that this creates an illusionary rate of rise to current. It is also well documented that S. American data has been transmogrified. As long as the previous revisions stand we can have a series of records for years to come whether it actually gets hotter or not. All you have to do is to mug anyone speaking up.
Following the theme of the day, I have said too much to you.
“Funny you should choose Galveston as an example. That city is one of most vulnerable in the U.S. for sea inundation due to global warming.”
Panama City Beach, FL is also really flat. You can walk really far out into the surf before your hips are submerged unlike the Pacific coast in California.
Something weird is going on in amerikka - Nobody at work talked (even briefly) about events in france, colorado and san bernardino. New normal, perhaps?
France? So what’s going on in France?
And, anyway, where is France?
95% of ‘Muricans are sheep. Ask about DWTS or the Kardashians and your work colleagues’ faces will light up with vapid rapture.
I am in a service waiting room with 20 at car dealer. News features on the san Bernardino killings and features of Muslim community being against the killings. No one commented. News was surprisingly reasonable. Interview with a nice looking Muslim woman who dressed as a normal western woman.
Be objective and don’t treat a person by group.
There have been 355 mass killings in US this year. At what point do people become numb?
Because people generally don’t care? Nobody is talking about the two angry white men mass shootings, ether.
It’s almost as if only a tiny fringe of the population lives in a state of perpetual fear and rage.
Uber
10x sales
I’m in
no one can ever do what they do
you have to have a car
you have to drive the car
you have to let people into the car
You have to collect money from the people you let into the car.
Uber wins until somebody else fields a fleet of self driving cars.
Comment by Jingle Male
2015-12-05 04:50:08
“If I sold today, I would receive over $250,000 from the sale. I have already received $42,000 in cash flow.
I invested $75,000 in 2008. Seven years later, I could have $292,000 in total proceeds. That is a $217,000 gain on a $75,000 investment.
300% ROI in 7 years. Wow, if only I had 5 or 6 of these…..oh, wait, I do! The HBB has been very, very good to me. That’s why I send in a nice donation every year! I pay it out of cash flow because I am not interested in selling anything today.”
Oh that accounting school, the college of OPM. In my world, ROI is a rate, meaning that there is a time factor (per year). $1 of profit over ten years is not equal to $1 of profit per year. You will have to forgive me as I work in a world where capital is invested to increase capacity, improve quality or reduce expenses and it is different from the world where borrowed money is used for speculation. In my world, 6% might be great and 1% would be really crap. So again, sorry to say that your ROI is really crap, it’s just the way I look at things.
Anyway, you’ve confirmed that your primary “return” is the imagined capital gain. Since this ROI is calculated off of your Zillow estimate, I guess that makes you a Zillionaire!
My respect as always for your generous support of the blog owner’s efforts. That reminds me that it is the season for one of my own miserably meager contributions.
The fact Jingle_Frauds stories change depending on his desired outcome suggests anything he says should be taken with great doubt.
I invested $75,000 in 2008. Seven years later, I could have $292,000 in total proceeds…if only I had 5 or 6 of these…..oh, wait, I do! ??
Wow…A 21%+ rate of return per year during a period of the great recession….You should be a hedge fund manager dude….Then you could float around on this…
https://www.google.com/search?q=most+expensive+yacht&espv=2&biw=1342&bih=718&site=webhp&tbm=isch&imgil=Z6V3Zr7_yxdkKM%253A%253BIBn-yXNVejPWtM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.businessinsider.com%25252Fadmiral-x-force-145-could-be-worlds-most-expensive-yacht-2015-6&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Z6V3Zr7_yxdkKM%253A%252CIBn-yXNVejPWtM%252C_&usg=__MKaHUOTuTad1mcsdSolVRLtXZpk%3D
Well my friend Dave….. the question is… Is it true?
I would compute that as an 8% cash-on-cash ROI: 42K over 7yrs is 6K/yr. 6K/75K = 8%.
Now, due to the swings in the market, there is likely some significant unrealized capital gains as well—but if you’re going to include those in your ROI computation now, you also need to include them as negative returns in down years…
Time will tell how this echo bubble unwinds.
We already know how that works.
Hold onto your cash and dump the house now. You’ll thank us later.
“Trump: ‘My numbers go way up’ after tragedies”
Of course they do. It’s because we all know the ones in office now are not there to protect and serve.
“It’s because we all know the ones in office now are not there to protect and serve.”
Themselves, they are there to protect themselves and to serve themselves.
I don’t want to fight anymore. Can’t we all just agree that it’s going to be Hillary v. Trump and my the best man win?
Count your blessings for the entertainment in store.
Can’t we all just agree that it’s going to be Hillary v. Trump
No. It’s 11 months before the election. My prediction: 3 way Race and Dems win.
I don’t want to fight anymore.
Are you talking to your other handles?
I know that’s what you want but it seems kinda unlikely. Trump is far ahead and has been for months. There is a great establishment backlash at this time. And there is no precedent so all the models are off. Trump is the difference.
Trump is far ahead and has been for months.
“Far ahead” of what? Do the math based on reality, not on a small minority subset of Americans. Do you know your own country anymore?
‘If Trump is the nominee, we lose — as Republicans we lose the Senate, we lose most of the House and we lose the presidency. It is nice to go for somebody that has hot rhetoric that makes you feel good, but this is somebody that has turned off 80 percent of America. He may have the support of 25 percent of Republicans which is about 12 percent of America. But 80 percent of America really does not like this man.”
John H. Sununu (R-NH)
Yea yea, I know. Sununu is an establishment tool but even a tool can understand math sometimes. Good luck with your “President Trump” thing.
On the other hand, Trump could win the presidency. We Californians have seen the gullible electorate fall in love for unqualified entertainers who turn out to be disasters, e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger.
95% of the electorate are stupid. Stupid people make poor choices. Hillary Clinton is the worst possible choice; ergo, she will be our next president.
Next topic….
I’ve never used another handle. Who is that ?
I’ve never used another handle
Always been “anklepants”, eh? I bet there’s an interesting story behind how you gained the nickname.
‘I bet there’s an interesting story’
There it is again; a Democrat smearing someone by suggesting he’s gay.
What does his use of that name suggest?
a Democrat smearing someone by suggesting he’s gay.
Oh. I thought it was the other side that started all the Lola and Liberace stuff.
Always been “anklepants”, eh? I
No. Anklepants is HA Mafia, Senior Housing and any “lola”. He came up with “anklepants” the day after he said I was in an alley with my pants around my ankles implying I had anal sex. Classy people on this board huh?
I just ignore all of the above with the Joshua tree extension. He says the same thing 99% of the time.
Oh. I thought it was the other side that started all the Lola and Liberace stuff.
Of course it was, and everyone knows it.
The Lola and Liberace stuff is infantile and does nothing to raise the level of discourse on this forum.
+1 RKH
He keeps bringing up thongs though.
You got your wires cross connected again Lola.
Can’t we all just agree that it’s going to be Hillary v. Trump
Trump will be gone by Thanksgiving.
Trump will be gone by Thanksgiving ??
I am glad I was wrong….I hope he goes all the way to election day…That should pretty much finish off the radical GOP members that highjacked the party in November 2000….
The Establishment GOP are corrupt to the core. If Trump succeeds in overthrowing their stranglehold on the levers of power, I will be delighted.
See, right there, we can agree, me and scdave that we’d both like to see Trump v. Hillary. For all the bashing of Trump from people on the other side, why wouldn’t you come out and say that’s what you hope for also? It screams of fear of Trump being the nominee.
They said of Perot that he couldn’t be an effective president because he didn’t have party machinery behind him. Interesting how much different the conversation is today.
It screams of fear of Trump being the nominee ??
If he gets the nomination he will raise a lot of legitimate concerns most americans have and those concerns will need to be answered by Hilary…But he is so egotistical that IMO, he will alienate so many demographic groups starting with woman (even republican woman), he may lose in a landslide/mandate to Hilary…He could lose all 50 states due to the fact that many on the right may just stay home…Honestly, I think Kasich has the best shot with this current group…
Scdave, in all honesty, I’d have to think you are out of touch with Rs. I know many R women and they love him, crazy. I was surprised myself. The American woman is not some clone of the SJW feminists.
It’s because we all know the ones in office now are not there to protect and serve as well as W. Bush did before 9/11.
How’s the weather going to be next week? Some of my crew will be down doing project work.
How’s the weather going to be next week?
How’s the weather in Brazil?
I’d guess a 90% chance warm to hot, mid to high humidity with varying chances of wind and rain.
Perfect! Just like New Orleans in the summer.
Because he is beloved by frightened overgrown infants who crave the security of the DaddyState.
Closed borders.
Yesterday I mentioned this:
‘New Republic. The other day I watched a video about the debate between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal. Very interesting.’
RioAmericanInBrasil
What was most interesting?
Oddfellow
Had to be when William F. said to Gore, “listen you queer,if you don’t quit calling me a crypto-Nazi, I’m going to sock you in the nose, and you’ll stay plastered”, in his arch little fake English accent, as he defended the cops’ indefensible actions in the Chicago Police Riot.
Oddfellow is another person not worth the time to talk to.
Thanks for the shout out. I thought that line encapsulated the debate perfectly.
At the risk of wasting even more time, let me point out how you are wrong. First, I didn’t know Gore was gay until I watched a documentary about him made near his death. But I had read his book Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated.
“Introduction
It is a law of physics (still on the books when last I looked) that in nature there is no action without reaction. The same appears to be true in human nature— that is, history. In the last six years, two dates are apt to be remembered for longer than usual in the United States of Amnesia: April 19, 1995, when a much-decorated infantry soldier called Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent men, women, and children. Why? McVeigh told us at eloquent length, but our rulers and their
media preferred to depict him as a sadistic, crazed monster—not a good person like the rest of us—who had done it just for kicks. On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terrorist organization struck at Manhattan and the Pentagon. The Pentagon Junta in charge of our affairs programmed their president
to tell us that bin Laden was an “evildoer” who envied us our goodness and wealth and freedom.”
“None of these explanations made much sense, but our rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention, in McVeigh’s case, our own. All we are left with are blurred covers of Time and Newsweek where
monstrous figures from Hieronymus Bosch stare out at us, hellfire in their eyes, while the New York Times and its chorus of imitators spin complicated stories about mad Osama and cowardly McVeigh, thus convincing most Americans that only a couple of freaks would ever dare strike at a nation that sees itself as close to
perfection as any human society can come. That our ruling junta might have seriously provoked McVeigh (a heartland American hero of the Gulf War) and Osama, a would-be Muslim Defender of the Faith, was never dealt with.”
“Things just happen out there in the American media, and we consumers don’t need to be told the why of anything. Certainly those of us who are in the why-business have a difficult time getting through the corporate-sponsored American media, as I discovered when I tried to explain McVeigh in Vanity Fair, or when, since September 11, my attempts to get published have met with failure.”
I’m not sure how that shows I’m wrong about thinking their altercation was the most interesting part about that debate, which took place decades before McVeigh and 9-11.
I’m guessing Mr Oddfellow will oddly have nothing intelligent to say in response to this post.
I’m guessing you guys will gang up to poo poo any response, change the subject and declare victory by numeric superiority.
Chess with a whole flock of pigeons.
When Buckley and Gore had this debate, they were probably true liberal and conservative. It was around the Vietnam war that the neocons left the Democrats for the Republicans, largely because of opposition to this war. The New Republic became infected by the neoconservatives, like much of what we now call conservative, and liberals have become infected by them too, in the form of “interventionism”. What we are left with is two wings of a war party. There are no Gore’s on the stage.
What initially interested me in the New Republic reference was the character assassination attempt of Trump, another guy who hasn’t decided where he fits into the war party. This outburst by Buckley came at his frustration that Gore went after him personally, while Buckley was plodding through the issues as he liked to do. It was a debate tactic that the neocons learned well.
So here we are, in another war, this time with ISIS, which the US created, directly and indirectly. We’ve learned nothing and there isn’t much hope that we will leave this quick-sand of violence, resentment and even more violence. It is worth noting just how bad things have gotten in the discussion:
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/29/what-debate-means-on-face-the-nation/
‘CBS’ Face the Nation is the most-watched Sunday morning news television show in the U.S., attracting roughly 3 million viewers each week. On this Sunday morning, the show is focused on foreign policy, as it interviews Ben Carson, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham on the issues of ISIS and refugees. As it always does, the program has assembled a panel of “experts” to discuss those matters’
‘In addition to host John Dickerson and Goldberg himself, the rest of the panel is composed of former Bush 43 speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and former Bush 41 speechwriter and current Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan.’
‘Aside from the glaring demographic homogeneity — all middle-aged-or-older white people who have spent their careers in corporatized Washington establishments — there is a suffocating ideological and viewpoint homogeneity on this panel as well, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. All of the panelists, for instance, were vocal, aggressive advocates of the invasion of Iraq (as were all three GOP presidential candidates featured on this morning’s show).’
‘Goldberg, in a 2006 profile of Gerson, wrote that “Gerson, like Bush, has never wavered. ‘The people of the Middle East are not exceptions to this great trend of history, and, by standing up for these things, we are on the right side of history,’ he said.” Ignatius repeatedly used his Post platform to argue for the war: Eight months after the invasion, he wrote a gushing profile of Paul Wolfowitz (“a rare animal in Washington — a genuine intellectual in a top policymaking job”) and decreed, “This may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times”; in 2004, he proclaimed, “I don’t regret my support for toppling Hussein.” Noonan, in February 2003, told Slate: “I have come to the conclusion that we must move. I do not imagine an invasion will be swift and produce minimal losses. But I believe not stepping in is, at this point, more dangerous than stepping in.”
‘Other than Tom Friedman, Goldberg himself was probably the journalist most responsible for tricking Americans into supporting the war by circulating blatant falsehoods under the guise of “reporting,” using his New Yorker perch to legitimize claims of the non-existent Saddam/al Qaeda alliance (which he continued to tout as late as 2010) and the Iraqi nuclear program. The Face the Nation host, John Dickerson, was a reporter for Time magazine at the time and therefore pretended not to express opinions about Iraq, but he disseminated “objective” reporting.’
‘Many have observed that no American journalists or pundits (let alone political officials) other than Judy Miller paid any career price whatsoever for their dissemination of falsehoods about Iraq and the use of their platforms to vocally cheer for one of the worst, most destructive crimes of their generation. That’s true, but it’s worse than that.’
‘To this day, being regarded in establishment circles as a serious and credible foreign policy expert for a journalist or pundit all but requires that one have supported the Iraq War along with subsequent military actions. The few public figures who opposed the war and are admitted to such circles are admitted despite that opposition, and a requirement is that they opposed the invasion on pragmatic and strategic grounds, not moral or legal ones.’
‘This dynamic is particularly thriving right now in the U.K., as scores of political and media figures who cheered Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq malign Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed it, as an “extremist.” In order to be a serious “moderate” in Western imperial capitals, one must endorse the right of your government to invade, bomb and attack countries that haven’t attacked yours; only an “extremist” would oppose such a radical precept (anger at Corbyn is currently at its peak because he opposes U.K. bombing of Syria against ISIS). To see how this mentality works, watch this amazing 2003 BBC program as one of the U.K.’s most despised-among-the-establishment figures, George Galloway, debated the invasion of Iraq with numerous still-respected pro-war pundits; virtually everything Galloway said in opposition to the war proved prescient and virtually everything the war cheerleaders said proved utterly false, and yet they are still regarded as credible and serious while he is loathed and dismissed as an extremist.’
‘There is, needless to say, an enormous amount of viewpoint, experience and mentality homogeneity among these Face the Nation panelists extending far beyond their vocal enthusiasm for the attack on Iraq. The fact that the nation’s most-watched Sunday morning news TV show convenes such similar “experts” to comment on foreign policy illustrates how illusory the supposed “free debate” is that establishment media outlets permit.’
So you see, there is much about that debate that is relevant to today and illustrates just how lost we have become. Calling someone a queer is insignificant in comparison.
I guess I’m not clear on your point, Ben. Are you lamenting that we don’t have any old-school liberals like Gore anymore?
We don’t have opposition anymore. We don’t have honest debates on issues, even the most serious issues like war. I’ve said before, as a libertarian, I always hoped the Democrats would protect me from Republicans and vice versa. Around the time of their coalescing around globalism in the 1990’s, we lost the checks and balances which are key to our system. We now have Empire. We now have Globalism; on that there will be no challenges. Yet these two things are at the heart of many of our ills.
Along comes Trump, the most imperfect of candidates. But he says globalism stinks. He says policing the world stinks. (He also opposed the Iraq war, not after the fact but before it, and sticks to that). I wish there were more candidates giving us an opposition to Empire and Globalism, but as they say, it is what it is.
The phenomenon of Trump is more significant than the candidate. He has uttered the words of Gore, admittedly in a clumsy way. And he got away with it. He wasn’t cut off at the knees by this monolithic media of warmongers. The New Republic isn’t pleased, which would give Gore a special delight in its irony I’m sure, were he alive.
A question from Oddie is merely an invitation to be insulted. It is never a conversation.
He gets especially nasty if you poke holes in his absurd religious beliefs, like catastrophic global warmingism. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that he also believes in space alien economics.
I think Sanders and Trump both offer us more of a choice than we’ve had in a while, at least as potential candidates of the two main parties. Trump even seems to offer the potential end, or major revamp, of the two party system.
Codswallow
Oh, look! I’ve attracted a gathering of know-nothings celebrating free speech and open debate!
Vomiting is not free speech.
Vomiting is not free speech.
I assume you’re referring to anklepants’ juvenile post.
Donald Trump just called the San Berdoo terrorists “chickenshit” at an Iowa rally!
Insanity really doesn’t need an explanation, it just sort of is.
The way the whole San Berdoo incident has unfolded has left me completely dumbfounded. For example, when the story began, there were three shooters. Can anyone tell me what happened to that alleged third shooter? Anyone? Anyone?
Ok, so then, first it was an incident of workplace violence. And it was reported that the male shooter had been hassled over his religion by a Messianic Jew who worked with him. Now, it’s ISIS-supported “terror” (never let a good crisis go to waste, be sure to keep ISIS front and center).
So I read about how this “family” owned a modest two bedroom house in the Redlands. Except the house has now morphed into a rental. The most bizarre part: the landlord tearing the plywood off the front entrance and opening it up to a media mob, which swarmed the place and went through all the family possessions. To add to all the crazy, the FBI supposedly left behind a written list of things they found in the place. WTF? It’s almost as if this incident is being treated as a colossal joke, deliberately. Like, OK guys, let’s strike the set.
Then we get Loretty Lynch threatening people who say bad stuff about Muslims with legal action. And just to cap it all off, she announces she’s bring legal action against Irving Texas for giving the clock kid a hard time.
Well, that was a real fun 48 (or is it 72? I’ve lost track) hours. I have no doubt people lost their lives in this whole clusterfark, but it stinks like one giant con to me.
In times like these I do not miss having a TV.
Who needs a TV? The internet is loaded with MSM tripe and the google news aggravator page culls the best of it.
Go to Reddit it’s all answered there.
Ha-ha, nothing on Reddit that I can see, except for a link to some videos of the “reporters” tossing the apartment.
“Google news aggrivator page”
Absolutely perfect!
If At First You Don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again
“This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”
97% Climbs to 99.5%: Obama Increases Percentage of Scientists Who Agree on Climate Change
By Barbara Hollingsworth | December 2, 2015 | 2:10 PM EST
Obama’s claim that there is a 99.5 percent consensus among scientists on climate change represents a 2.5 percent increase since May 16, 2013, when the president tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
In a 2013 paper published by the Institute of Physic’s IOPScience and cited by NASA, University of Queensland climate communication fellow John Cook also stated that 97 percent of scientists who took a position on global warming agreed that humans were the primary cause.
“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming,” Cook and his co-authors stated.
However, a peer review of Cook’s paper by David Legates, a former state climatologist and professor at the University of Delaware, that was published in the April 2015 issue of Science and Education debunked the 97 percent consensus figure.
Legates pointed out that only 41 of the 11,944 academic papers Cook examined in his meta-analysis (0.3%) explicitly stated that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by human activity.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when in the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” Legates wrote.
Cook’s paper was also criticized by other scientists for what they said was a number of methodological errors.
“Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that ‘97% of scientists agree’ that climate change is man-made and dangerous,” the three authors of Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming wrote in a just-released book published by the Heartland Institute.
“This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/…/obama-ups-climate-change-consensus-paris-995-scientists - 127k -
It should not be called a debate when the participants just make stuff up to fit their agenda. It should be called something else. Maybe it should be called politics.
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming wrote in a just-released book published by the Heartland Institute.
Heartland received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006. Money flows have gone increasingly dark so that doesn’t mean Heartland isn’t receiving Exxon money today, it’s likely unreported.
Paid propaganda, pure and simple.
If posters here want to copy and paste what are essentially paid climate denier advertising and infomercials, I don’t care. Now matter how it’s presented it will never be real science and it doesn’t refute science.
That’s actually pretty funny. $100,000 a year in donations from about the biggest company in the world, and supposedly nothing since 2006. Must not be much of an agenda. BTW, this amount would not be more than one of Obama’s paid paper writers. How many of those are there?
WPA’s problem with scientists is that they have to wear his brand to qualify. I think Obama feels the same way.
On Thursday, the Department of Education announced that it’s offering about $28 million in student debt relief to over 1,000 former students of the defunct for-profit school operator Corinthian Colleges Inc.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-canceling-millions-dollars-001432039.html
i think this is the right thing to do since they were obviously ripped off. If you cant transfer degrees or credits why should you have to pay for it twice?
why should taxpayers pay?
because you guaranteed the loan in exchange for legitimate education courses, and the government failed to hold the school accountable until it was too late…ya think?
I’ve been ripped off but the federal govt didn’t do the right thing and give me debt relief.
I couldn’t afford college or high school for that matter, I had to go to work. Now I get to pay, as a taxpayer for other’s student debt relief?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for a student debt relief jubilee.
A vote for Hillary is being over and grabbing your ankles for the corrupt, venal Oligopoly that deployed her.
i think this is the right thing to do since they were obviously ripped off. If you cant transfer degrees or credits why should you have to pay for it twice?
Do dumb a$$es who don’t do their own due dilligence and attend scam for-profit colleges are entitled to having me, the taxpayer who paid his own way through school by working his a$$ off in a night job, should pay for their mistake?
The new ‘Murican Way…”It’s never my fault…I am a victim.”
look above it was the gov that didn’t do due diligence and allowed them to keep getting student loans for years…
Victims, victims! So many victims.
Geez, Vanguard’s business model could be in trouble…
Vanguard Whistleblower Could Get Billions in Tax Dodge Complaint
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/vanguard-whistleblower-could-get-billions-in-tax-dodge-complaint/ar-AAfZT9w?li=BBnbfcL
President Trump
Practice and get accustomed to uttering these two words.
Voluntaryism. Succinct. Easier to say. And humane. Get used to that instead of statist Trump.
Il Douche!
President Tax Increase.
Unless you believe wall and wars are free.
There are an infinite number of future generations to sell into debt slavery. Deficits don’t matter.
I’m more than willing to pay higher taxes for a wall. But we can also tax Mexico via trade and remittances.
Wall, schmall. What we need is a big soft blankey so that all Americans feel safe and snug when Daddy Trump tucks them in.
Don’t count me in on your taxes for a wall. Why don’t you do a crowd funding for the prison wall you want built, plus donate $5k of your own money?
President Trump…Practice and get accustomed to uttering these two words.
Why should we practice something that didn’t happen when you can’t even practice saying President Obama which really, really happened.
Twice. (And would happen again if allowed imo.)
Mr. President, You’re occupying a whole lot of empty skulls.
UAW wins historic victory in U.S. South with vote at VW plant
Wow, this is significant news. A crack in the wall of the solidly anti-union southern states. I hope this starts a trend (LOL at the foreign car companies that built in the South as a ploy to avoid unions, serves them right). There’s hope for the middle class — it’s not a coincidence that over the last 30 years middle class incomes have declined in lockstep with declining union membership.
Nobody cares if you have a union or not. It’s just that car buyers over the past 30 or 40 years increasingly could not afford the unions.
It’s just that car buyers over the past 30 or 40 years increasingly could not afford the unions.
Silly boy. Unionized Ford and Chevy pickups outsell non-union Toyota pickups. And for the most part union Ford and GM vehicles cost less than non-union Asian cars. People buy Asian vehicles due to quality perceptions, not because of price or unions.
Frankly I do not take much interest in Asian vehicles. I personally find that a brand new Chevy truck is ridiculously expensive.
Buicks made in China. Not much union there.
If unions would look out for workers instead of being organized crime fronts and DNC fundraisers, and blocking the firing of lazy or shiftless workers, I would wholeheartedly support them.
There it is.
This will now be relegated to “workplace violence” and “weapons of war on our streets” by the MSM.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-says-california-killers-14-were-followers-111704711.html
Can’t believe it’s taken so long for tougher penalties for “SWATing” people you don’t like as a hoax.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/4/federal-bill-attempts-to-address-swatting-phenomenon.html
“… SWATing’ people you don’t like as a hoax.”
It could be worse; The “hoax” could involve a bulldozer …
“Family escapes as man drives through house with stolen bulldozer - video report”
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/jun/08/australian-flattens-house-stolen-bulldozer-video
Some people just cannot take a joke.
No grabber narrative today, just Humboldt Peak:
http://i.imgur.com/MXee4CF.jpg
Region VIII
Nice! Thanks for posting, Goon.
“Climate Experts Say That Winters Are Getting Warmer And Children Won’t Know What Snow Is”
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Monday 20 March 2000
“… the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’. ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he said.”
climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia
gov paid . si?
Nice Pic…
Cool pic Goon Dog
Party on Region VIII
Oligopoly propaganda mouthpieces are waxing shrill about The Narrative.
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-front-page-editorial-gun-control
COL (ret.) Bacevich is probably the most astute military observer and truth-teller of our time. He lost a son, an Army lieutenant, in Iraq.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/sorry-but-just-bombing-isis-in-syria-wont-help-anyone/
The antidote for the oligarchy’s approved Narrative.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/04/7-reasons-buy-gun-san-bernardino/
Meanwhile, 14 years after we went into Afghanistan….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3347137/Has-ISIS-killed-head-Taliban-Attempt-terror-chief-s-life-signals-surge-jihadi-network-Afghanistan.html
Not a single banker has gone to jail (or ever will) for causing the 2008 financial crash, but this guy just might for exercising his First Amendment rights.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/05/former-congressman-unleashes-on-attorney-general-in-rant-against-islam-go-ahead-and-prosecute-me-i-dare-you/
Oh that clown. There’s a good reason Joe Walsh is a former congressman. And it’s not because of his far right ideology. It’s because he’s such a d-ck about it. I mean good grief, Tammy Duckworth lost limbs overseas and Walsh questioned her military service?
Duckworth lost limbs overseas and Walsh questioned her military service ??
And we have a current candidate that says he things people who get captured by the enemy are weak…He likes military who don’t get captured…All the way Trump…Go all the way…
No alarmism here, none at all …
“While many of us discuss the catastrophic impacts of droughts, flooding, and dwindling food supply related to climate change, the authors emphasize that up to 5 meters of sea level rise may happen over the course of 50 years, carrying with it the “economic and social cost of losing functionally all coastal cities…” Seeing as the more conservative IPCC report puts this estimate closer to 1 meter by the year 2100, this news is making an impact.”
(Doin’ some math here … hmmmm … 5 meters is over 15 feet. So over the next 50 years this guy says the sea level will rise by over 15 feet. And some people believe him. Amazing!)
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-eyes-oceansjames-hansen-sea.html
(Doin’ some more math. If the sea level rises over 15 feet in 50 years then that means that from now on the sea level will rise, on average, one foot every 3-and-1/2 years - or thereabouts.)
The worldwide conspiracy of scientists can’t even be bothered to get their fake numbers to work out right. They must already be partying on our dime.
Did you ever figure out if it was better for the PTB to organize us along the lines of worldwide cooperation with a worthy goal (reducing pollution), rather than to have us fight bankers’ wars?
“The worldwide conspiracy of scientists can’t even be bothered to get their fake numbers to work out right.”
Now you are catching on. Maybe there is some hope for you after all.
Now you are catching on.
So you prefer bankers’ wars?
They’re spending all that time and money pimping out their secret lairs with weather machines to cause global warming.
pimping out their secret lairs
Their weatherman caves? With the huge TV locked on the Weather Channel and hurricane centerfolds hanging on the walls?
A few years back I picked up some oyster shells from a road cut in Nebraska. The elevation was thousands of feet above sea level.
In our neighborhood, specifically the Sherwin and Ritter sub-ranges both have sea shells above 13,000′.
Amazing how high plate tectonics can lift old sea beds isn’t it?
lol. Some muttonheads probably think that means there was once a sea at that height.
And then they’ll pretend to have some special insight that disproves settled science, when they’ve already tripped up on elementary school level geology.
In light of this startling revelation Oddie, perhaps you would like to say something intelligent about what is happening in Shanghai? Ocean rising in only one spot or perhaps something else? Please do give it a try. It is quite simple.
Ocean rising in only one spot
The tide? You do understand tides, right? Sometimes the ocean is higher in some spots than others. We call that “high tide”.
Nice try but no, that’s not what’s happening in Shanghai. Poster child of rising oceans, not high tide. You posted an article. Maybe you can learn something with a read of that? Come on, give it a try.
Venezuelans voted their way into a socialist dystopia - now they have a chance to start to undo an epic mistake.
http://www.businessinsider.com/venezuela-election-outcome-violence
How’s that hope ‘n change working out for ya, native-born ‘Muricans?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-05/326000-native-born-americans-lost-their-job-november-why-remains-most-important-jobs
For homes selling for over $1 million, Chinese make up one in 14 buyers in their haste to get their assets (often ill-gotten) out of China. But the party may be coming to an end.
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/12/05/china-could-deliver-another-blow-to-the-u-s-housing-market/
Crater….
http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/the-system-is-starting-into-a-final-collapse/
A case that has been made …
For going to CASH!
Better hurry because the elitists are working on doing away with cash. Greece is first. The canary in the coal mine.
https://news.bitcoin.com/greek-asset-declaration-another-battle-war-cash-will-bitcoin-new-weapon-choice/
Cash, precious metals and crypto currency.
I will get a bad case of math anxiety if our State expects me to tell them how much of X I own.
“Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshiping.”
― Hubert Reeves
Nonsense! God brings presents to all the good girls and boys!
Nice to know that some men can still be men when the occasion calls for it, despite the Left’s attempts to promote pajama-boy as the ideal evolution of the species.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3347281/Co-worker-saved-woman-San-Bernardino-shooters-final-heroic-act.html
Quite the admirer of masculinity…. hmmm…
Relax, cupcake. You are in no danger of being admired for masculine virtues or anything else for that matter.
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15.13
This one goes out to Amy Hoak
Where have all the Cheetos gone, long time passing?
Where have all the Cheetos gone, long time ago?
Where have all the Cheetos gone?
Renters ate them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Another indictor that the real economy, notwithstanding the fake “everything is awesome!” official statistics, is hurting.
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/12/04/orders-for-heavy-trucks-collapse-worst-november-since-2009/
Another “religion of peace” nut-job attacks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12035552/Knifeman-screams-this-is-for-Syria-in-London-tube-machete-attack.html
Its time to wheel out someone from the BOJ next week.
Japanese deflation is just assumed now.