Posts Made By: James C Chandler Jr

Yep. Barr lost too, but it was close. If he could only have won 30 more states, he could have pulled it out (grin).

Interesting. Hadn't heard of Anne Wortham. Web-searching, did not find really detailed info, just some asst articles and book references. Not even a wikipedia page. I thought everybody/everything had a wikipedia page by now (grin).

There may be two Anne Worthams who are sociologists. I only say that because some links reference Univ of IL, and there is another link for Rappaport, and photos that look different. But the U of IL references are old, so maybe it is the same lady different places and different ages when photographed.

Certainly no one can be sterotyped by group identification. Yesterday a young black man ahead of me in traffic, his car was festooned with Ron Paul and Libertarian Party stickers.

Thanks Andreas. Funny as usual.

Agreed that Bush really fouled it up. He completely wasted what at one time appeared to be a very-long right wing reign. He had a little help, but managed to do most of it all by his lonesome. At one time not long ago the democrats looked in similar disarray. Not even a stupid war and Sorros' fortune could buy a victory in 2004.

If the democrats manage to foul it up 'even more worser', it could be a short reign. Add a little hyper-inflation here, a little mass-unemployment there, further collapse of USA industry, further collapse of the health care system, expensive energy exacerbated by govt policy, a few well-intentioned but tragic military follies in Africa... Wouldn't take too much bad judgement, though they could successfully blame the situation on GWB for at least four years, perhaps eight.

Am not predicting bad judgement. Am not hoping for bad judgement. Am not claiming republican judgement is better. Merely playing the odds (grin). How many times do we see good judgement in Washington?

Another long-term issue is the democrats' typical inability to raise up a candidate who is even remotely likeable. Just because they occasionally score with an Obama or Bill Clinton, doesn't necessarily affect the long-term batting average (grin).

Looked over the Hyperion website, but didn't quickly find design details. The 'meltdown proof' detail, and the small size, makes it sound like maybe a pebble bed reactor? Or some other design? Anyone know?

I read a couple of years ago that (if recalling correctly) Hitachi is/was developing small pebble-bed standardized commercial reactors, but I don't think the Hitachi reactors were quite this small.

Small Plutonium 238 'batteries' power some spacecraft and such, but the output of those guys is quite low.

Perhaps someone here who knows and could tell us the applicable FCC laws.

Am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that broadcast media are the only sources which have applicable FCC censorship knobs. AM/FM radio and broadcast TV. FCC can't control speech on cable, internet or print.

FCC somewhat regulates satellite radio/TV, but dunno if FCC has the same 'content' authority over satellite feeds.

Censorship of privately owned media delivery channels would fail 1st amendment challenges. The theory for regulating broadcast, is that the airwave frequencies 'belong to the people' and therefore radio/TV broadcasters must make a case for serving the 'public good' to continue the privilege of a licensed frequency. Speech can be legally censored by the govt on the open-air broadcast media.

A local 5KW talk radio station runs dual programming on two frequencies, one AM and the other FM. One channel broadcasts mostly national conservative heavyweights, sports, special-interest shows.

The other channel mostly carries local talk jocks, most of whom are liberal. Even the liberal local talk jocks are SCARED TO DEATH of a fairness doctrine. For advice on a a faucet-- ask a plumber. Medical advice-- ask a doctor. Sounds serious if the local liberal radio guys don't like it.

There was a fairness doctrine pre-Reagan. A time with no cable or internet. If a little town only had one little radio station, possibly a valid case for a fairness doctrine back then.

Radio/TV broadcasters must routinely renew the license. They publish public-comment documents, so that any granny with a beef about the station can submit complaints. All comments presumably read by an FCC bureaucrat during license renewal. Back then, most citizens had better things to do and didn't care. The 'public good' deeds of stations might be Sesame Street in the afternoon, a local politics show at 4am Sunday morning, or 'this is your brain on drugs' public service announcements.

If a fairness doctrine were re-implemented, the FCC would not tell a station to fire Neal Boortz or to hire Bill Ayres. The way it would work, is that when a conservative talker says something controversial, thousands of emails go out to local activists nation-wide. The activists inundate each local radio station demanding free time to tell the other side of the story.

Day-in-day-out, the station manager is inundated with complaints that must be serviced, or risk losing the license. The station manager doesn't have time for this nonsense, and sponsors will not pay for granny to explain Hannity's numerous errors. So the station just drops talk radio and goes to music or sports.

This format change would also affect the local liberal talk jocks. They would have to get real jobs (grin). It would kill them along with Hannity or Rush.

Since talk radio is the only predominantly conservative broadcast media, some legislators seem to think that a fairness doctrine would be a magic bullet. If shutting down a major conservative outlet also kills some liberal talk jocks, it is an acceptable loss. Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Maybe they could enforce fairness doctrine on radio alone. Dunno. If they also had to enforce fairness doctrine on broadcast TV, then conservatives could play equal hob with CBS, NBC, ABC, and Public TV. Conservative organizations could drive local TV station managers so nuts that the managers just quit broadcasting news or anything political.

Maybe even that would be an acceptable loss in order to squelch Rush Limbaugh and Hannity? It would not affect the internet, CNN, MSNBC, or major network cable delivery. How many folks watch TV sans cable anyway?

Hi Alex

I'm ignorant and hopefully not being alarmist, but a cataract in the early stages might make that effect. Since it is extremely unlikely you would have identical cataracts in both eyes, then if you see the identical effect in both eyes, it probably would not be a cataract.

Even if it is an early cataract, its no big deal. The surgery nowadays is not much worse or riskier than getting a tooth filled. You wait till the thing is 'ripe' then have it removed. I had em in both eyes, and see better than ever after the operations. The replacement lenses are much better than nature's standard equipment (grin).

Maybe other eye issues could cause it. Do you see an opthalmologist yearly?

Really bright stars, low in the sky, sometimes look like speck-sized disco color wheels to my eye, but that isn't as you describe.

Lee Spain said:

No one has solved the challenge of globalism. No major magic bullet will solve the problem either. All humans on Earth are 99.9% genetically the same. People overseas are just as smart as we are and in many cases a little more disciplined (people starving in the street tend to focus your mind on success in the workplace).

If we have a good idea here, it will instantly be transmitted around the world via the internet. Global corporations will seek the smartest and lowest cost provider of the good or service. A biotech revolution won't put 200 million Americans to work.

Seems tough problem. If we had protected US Auto makers from global competition, we would still be driving the 'modern' equivalent of such high-quality vehicles as early 1970's Vega, Pinto, Gremlin or Maverick. Paying thru the nose for the privilege. If we re-institute protections, the quality will begin a sag toward that previous level, while the prices keep heading up.

I would hope that the stable end game is NOT when USA workers have the same wage as the lowest-paying third world nation. That would be one way to regain competitiveness. I got curious about it about 10 years ago and called one of the economists at the local university, and that was his guess.

It is getting possibly into conspiracy theory territory, but I don't think it is a sin to entertain perhaps-improbable ideas, if it is with an open mind and we don't jump to conclusions.

After all, the physics string theory is very elegant, but is criticized because there are not many ways to experimentally validate. Just because you can't validate string theory right now, isn't necessarily a reason to avoid thinking about it (grin).

If OPEC had collusion on oil, perhaps it was more a money grab rather than attempt to throw an election?

The price of oil lately seems to drop before elections. Unless these oil-price drops are wild coincidence-- Wouldn't a manipulated pre-election price-drop tend to prop-up the party in power? I don't understand how a pre-election price-drop could benefit a challenging party?

Or one could imagine that OPEC wants to destroy USA economy, but felt that Republicans would be more inept leaders. So they do both-- economic warfare + a last minute push to keep Republicans in power? That is getting pretty far out unless some evidence could be found.

===

Another 'push' idea that has been floating around-- Soros did it. I don't ascribe to that theory, but OTOH it doesn't do any harm to keep an open mind on the issue. Here is a typical example of the reasoning:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Foreign_Speculators_Like_George_Soros_May_Have_Caused_US_Economic_Crisis.html

Any random set of facts can fit together in the paranoid mind. But given Soros is in a position to pop the bubble, and he said in the 2004 election he would willing lose his fortune to defeat Bush. In a murder trial, sometimes the case hinges on motive and opportunity? Dunno how far out this idea may be. Somebody smart enough to pop the bubble would probably be smart enough to hide the pin...

My main strategy has been zero debt. We don't have a lot of bucks stashed away (except paid-for property), but most is sunk in govt bonds. We don't have fantastic faith that Uncle Sugar will pay it back. A payback assumes that either our children can tolerate incredibly high taxes, or Uncle Sugar can continue to find suckers to buy bonds and keep the pyramid scheme rolling.

Have been putting occasional modest money in precious metals, but only when metals prices sag. The assumption is that metals MIGHT long-term track both inflation and deflation. Which isn't necessarily a safe assumption. Ideally, a half ounce of silver might buy a burger and fries whether future burger&fries costs $1 or $100, but it is a leap of faith, as everything else .

Metals purchased a few years ago-- At some times they could have been converted to cash > doubling my investment. But currently, the price is about what I paid years ago. Arguably less than what I paid years ago, because the value of a dollar is less than when I originally bought the metal.

It is difficult to believe that metal prices will stay this low, but that might just be very faulty judgement. I kinda expect inflation more than deflation, and metals should track inflation pretty well long term. Platinum is cheaper than it was 5 years ago, and platinum price was pretty flat for awhile before 5 years ago. So it would defy reason that platinum purchased now wouldn't be worth more sometime in the future?

If I had enough cash, would buy distressed fire-sale real estate if it got cheap enough. 6 billion people and counting. They ain't making any more land. At some point in the future, it will have to be worth more than it is now?