Al's Insights – Fri 24 Feb, 2012

What Big Al thinks.

I woke up last night thinking about yesterday’s comments and here is what I came up with.

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show


Featuring:
Al Korelin

Comments:
  1. On February 24, 2012 at 9:58 am,
    web says:

    I think if you read the Bible you will start worshiping God on the Sabbath.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 10:21 am,
      Big Al says:

      Morning web,

      I definitely do worship God on the Sabbath.

      I have also read the Bible and I pray each and every single day.

      God Bless,

      Big Al

  2. On February 24, 2012 at 10:03 am,
    irishtony says:

    HEAR HEAR………MR KORELIN, YOU SIR, ARE A GENT.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 10:22 am,
      Big Al says:

      Got it from you Mr. Irish. Your comment re: Sandy was excellent.

      Best to you,

      Big Al

    • On February 24, 2012 at 11:33 am,
      Marc says:

      DITTO, DITTO…..great to hear you are still with us Mr. Irish! I agree with all this – wholeheartedly!
      All the best,
      Marc

      • On February 24, 2012 at 11:55 am,
        Big Al says:

        Thanks Marc,

        Go Huskies!

        Big Al

  3. On February 24, 2012 at 10:27 am,
    JUSTIN says:

    NICE COMMENTARY.

  4. On February 24, 2012 at 10:33 am,
    Big Al says:

    Many thanks Justin,

    Just makes sense to me.

    Big Al

  5. On February 24, 2012 at 10:44 am,
    CFS says:

    I think people seem nowadays have very short memories.
    Ron Paul became a republican in the mid seventies. In about 1987 he resigned from the republican party with a scathing attack on Ronald Reagan and ran as a libertarian, siphoning off republican votes and probably swinging things in favor of the democrats for two elections. Only after total failure as a libertarian did he return to the Republican party. (Such is not consistent behavior)
    Yes, he is pro-constitution, but most of his views are still libertarian bordering on anarchist, not republican. Having said that; I happen to agree with many of his views.
    I have problems his his opt-out approach to defense. I have some reservations with his drug policies. however, given a choice between Paul and Obama, especially given Obama’s marxist views and his tendency to outright lie whenever he opens his mouth, I have great difficulty in asuming anything other than complete ignorance or utter selfishness and laziness for any that would consider for one moment voting for the destructiveness of Obama.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 1:28 pm,
      Matthew says:

      You have problems with his opt-out approach to OFFENSE – not defense. The founders (most, anyway) would agree with RP. It’s clear that General Eisenhower would too. Let us not forget that, though Reagan was a former Democrat, he actually remained a collectivist. He was the first POTUS to spend more than all prior presidents PUT TOGETHER. Every Republican president since Eisenhower has been a collectivist. Consider Nixon’s closing of the gold window, then proclaiming that “we’re all Keynesians now” and then instituting price controls. Because the people are so incredibly ignorant, Carter got the blame for the ensuing inflation. In reality, the blame rests with the Federal Reserve (and those who own it), then Nixon, THEN Carter (for not doing something about it). Next, Reagan took credit for the disinflationary period that followed, even though it was brought about by the end of the commodities bull market. With the bear market in bonds ending, silver up 35 fold and gold up 24 fold, a very long consolidation was due for the entire commodities complex. Extraordinary strides in technology further aided the disinflationary environment. Then there was the Plaza Accord. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord
      There’s nothing conservative or free market about that. Then there’s the Working Group on Financial Markets (AKA Plunge Protection Team). More central planning. People assume that good times are due to sound policy. They don’t understand that deficit spending transfers prosperity from the future to the present.
      With most on both sides of the aisle suffering under the consensus trance, most place a high degree of confidence in the opinions they hold which have not been developed through study or even thought.
      When it comes to big spending and big government, the neocons are really no different than left-wing “liberals”. One relies on force and redistribution in order to fund social welfare; while the other relies on force and redistribution in order to fund military, banking, and corporate welfare. Neither is sustainable. Both lead to lost freedom and the gutting of the middle class.

      Politics is sorcery, not magic.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm,
        Big Al says:

        Pretty interesting observations, Matthew. Not sure that I would disagree with most of what you wrote.

        Best,

        Big Al

      • On February 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm,
        John W. Robertson says:

        Excellent description Matthew. I’ve done my own study on 1970′s inflation and agree with you totally. The Plaza accord is one thing I need to bone up on. Very topical. Sounds very Volcker-ian.

        Your point about Carter or Reagan blame/credit is largely the problem I see commonly. That was the subject of my other comment today. Some people feel that a Democrat President, Clinton, was to credit for the 1990′s budget surplus. Others, thinking they are more intelligent, note the Congress at the time had a Republican majority, and therefore, Republicans were to thank. Still others, like you and I would hope myself and a few others out there, realized the baby-boom spending was coming into its peak years during the 1990′s, right after several other catalysts occurred (Asian tiger economies coming online, cheap oil after a decade of efficiency initiatives, cheap commodities as you mentioned, etc.) Bonzo could have been president, and the decade would have turned out the same. The boom of the 1990′s was felt all over the world, yet politicians in every country — both in nations left and right of center — obtusely felt it was their own brilliant understanding of economics that led to the good times.

        Politics is indeed sorcery.

  6. On February 24, 2012 at 11:25 am,
    Sandy says:

    Al,

    Nice commentary. I will attempt to restrain my emotions in future postings
    despite the inflamatory remarks made against our president by many of
    the more regular posters here.

    I saw in today’s news that a whole list of religious leaders came out in support of Obama re: his health care policy and contraception etc… I was glad to see that.
    They tended to be the more rational factions of Christianity, not the right wingers. It shows that there is great diversity within Christianity as well as among the society as a whole.

    Sandy

    • On February 24, 2012 at 11:57 am,
      Big Al says:

      HI Sandy,

      Haven’t seen any of that yet, but I will certainly make it a point to look.

      No need to restrain emotions!

      Big Al

      • On February 24, 2012 at 1:13 pm,
        Sandy says:

        Al,

        Here is the reference to the article I saw this morning on this.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/president-obama-faith-pastors_n_1297827.html?ref=mostpopular

        Sandy

        • On February 24, 2012 at 3:46 pm,
          Superdobbs says:

          …..LOL, she posts from the Huff-n-Puff post……

        • On February 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm,
          Big Al says:

          Thanks Sandy,

          Just read the article. I still maintain that, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the President shot himself in the foot.

          I am simply surprised that he did that. I mean, why bother?

          Best,

          Big Al

          • On February 26, 2012 at 4:51 am,
            Jerry O^OTB says:

            Al…..”you will know them by their fruits”….matt. 7:16

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm,
      Keep Stacking says:

      Hi Sandy,
      Welcome back today. Seems you have an open mind. Myself and many others here are self made people. A few weeks ago, Big Al introduced New Zealand Energy to us all. I purchased 10,000 shares @ $1.15 per share after doing my due diligence, and now the shares are about $3.10. If I were to sell them today, it would be a gain under $20,000.00 Just wondering your thoughts on this risk and how much of the potential profits should I be allowed to keep after taxation. Best to you.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm,
        Sandy says:

        Keep Stacking,

        I do not consider this kind of investing as a productive activity. To me it seems to fall more in the line of speculation rather than investing. I think of investing as more of a long term prospect. I would expect to pay a higher tax rate on this kind of short term profit. As to the exact rate, that should be on a sliding scale depending on your overall income (ie. progressive taxation). I totally support higher percentage taxes on those with higher incomes. There was a time when we had a 90% top marginal tax rate for high income people. We need to head back in that direction if you ask me.

        You say you are a “self made person”. Can you elaborate on this? Did you benefit from public education in your early years? Do you benefit from having an educated employee pool from which to hire people? Do you benefit from safe neighborhoods in which to live, a good transportation system (roads, bridges)? Do you benefit from a safe drinking water supply? From safe food? Just curious.

        Sandy

        • On February 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm,
          Matthew says:

          Sandy,
          There is no good or service that the government can provide better or more efficiently than a free marketplace.
          Public education equals public indoctrination. There’s a huge conflict of interest at work.

          “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

          The average citizen is the world’s most efficient censor. His own mind is the greatest barrier between him and the facts. His own ‘logic proof compartments,’ his own absolutism are the obstacles which prevent him from seeing in terms of experience and thought rather than in terms of group reaction.

          If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.”

          –Edward Bernays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

        • On February 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm,
          Keep Stacking says:

          Hi Sandy,
          Thanks for writing back. Yes the trade would beconsidered a speculation. I think the buy and hold model is broken, and the only equities I would hold as investments would be in the resource sector.
          What I mean by self made person is, I was born and raised in rural Wisconsin on a farm. Six in the family and we were poor. And our neighbors were poor, but as children we did’t know it. We raised a garden and chickens and shot a few deer
          for meat to eat. Had well water to drink and never locked the house doors at night. Always had clean cloths to wear and it wasn’t that bad. Didn’t have health insurance and we all made it. Never on welfare because that would be shameful.
          What we all learned was a work ethic. Nothing was going to get better by itself.
          I try to pass that ethic on to my children and it works. Now in my upper middle class neighborhood, the doors are locked, twice license plates were stolen, 1 truck stolen and 1 breaking and entry. I hire college graduates and one tells me how he n learned how to sue me in a college class. They have a degree but hold my hand because they have no experence.

          • On February 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm,
            Big Al says:

            Hi Sandy, Keep Stacking and Matthew,

            Many of our gains are in the area of short term capital gains on which I have to pay 30%.

            Do I mind doing that? Of course not. The law is the law.

            Do I consider it fair given the risks that I take? Of course not. But you know what? I choose to belong to this country club and those are the dues.

            Best,

            Big Al

            P.S. Keep stacking, your story is pretty similar to mine. And you know what? I am quite proud.

        • On February 24, 2012 at 4:14 pm,
          Superdobbs says:

          “I do not consider this kind of investing as a productive activity.”

          We’re in it to make money, right?

          “higher tax rate on this kind of short term profit”

          Huh?

          “I totally support higher percentage taxes on those with higher incomes.”

          Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder….

          Most people here are about making money. Personally, I spend a significant amount of time researching/analysing JR mining companies. I cant speak for anyone else, but when I put money into a stock, I’m looking for gains….I dont care if they are the same day, next week or next month. I’m in it to make money.

          This notion that people who are smart investors should be penalized by a specialized tax rate is not only disgusting, but completely un-American…..people who make profitable investments should get the money, right? Or do you think a 3rd party is entitled to my profits?

          I didn’t reply to your post yesterday, but today I have no choice. After reading such nonsense, I encourage you to take your Left-Wing drivel back to Moveon.h-a-t-e, or where ever you came from…..

          ….lol, she said “progressive taxation”…..Whew, you need help lady….like frontal lobotomy help….

          • On February 24, 2012 at 4:44 pm,
            Big Al says:

            Common Superdobbs,

            As I have said over and over and over again, no point whatsoever in calling people stupid.

            Everybody has an opinion.

            What the hell, that is what America is all about!

            I have a friend who who an elected official in Washington state when he and his family lived in Chehalis-Centralia. I’ll bet he would agree with me.

            By the way, as you are aware, I too am in it for the money. I don’t like paying 30% short term capital gains but it does beat the hell out of jail!

            Big Al

          • On February 24, 2012 at 6:47 pm,
            Sandy says:

            Let me clarify,

            I believe in “enough is enough”, share the wealth, etc… I know you probably
            think I’m crazy but as Al says, everyone has an opinion. To my way of thinking
            when one has income to a certain level (which can be quite high) then
            it’s time to step aside and let someone else have a shot at it. Who needs 100 million per year income anyway? How can anyone possibly spend this much?

            Sandy

  7. On February 24, 2012 at 11:28 am,
    John W. Robertson says:

    Is there still time for Al Korelin to run for President??

    One technical point I’d like to mention, which I’ve said a few times, so pardon me if this seems repetitive…presidents do not and cannot conduct policy on their own. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and back we go. I think Executive Orders are too often used in a reprehensible manner, and in that, Presidents do wield some serious unilateral power. That’s why I stopped my list back at Nixon, as that’s about the time EO’s started to become much more prominent. But all of the issues discussed yesterday, and really anytime US politics are discussed, seems to presume that “event x happened under President y”, and therefore, President y should be blamed/credited. It’s usually irrelevant.

    I realize that for reasons of brevity, we have to abbreviate the time and place events occur in order to have conversations about them which don’t require lengthy introductions. But the cause and effect of political policy can move slowly, with a bill like CRA or Glass Steagall or “deficits do not matter” taking years for the effects to be known. Those bills, and this is largely the point I’m making, are passed by the Senate, the Congress, and are often authored by the Defense and Budget Committees (made up of people from both sides of the aisle), plus any number of strategists and internal party executive, and sometimes even private gift givers. Trying to correlate good and bad consequences of any given bill with any given President’s “reign” is illogical.

    So don’t worry too much who is the President, whether that person seems socialist or libertarian or some other -ist or -ian. The Executive is not the most powerful branch in US governance, and certainly isn’t the only one. When you understand that, you’ll feel less compelled to defend or criticize any given President, and with that, more easily see the origin of many policies without reference to a single political party or person.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 11:35 am,
      Marc says:

      Yeah, right on!
      John W…..How about RP for Pres AND Big Al for VP…ok?
      All the best,
      Marc

      • On February 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm,
        John W. Robertson says:

        Marc,

        Sure. That or the other way around!

        • On February 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm,
          Marc says:

          Yep

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:00 pm,
      Big Al says:

      Thanks John W,

      Are you available for a campaign manager position?

      Oh, I just remembered that would take me away from my golf practice. What can I say!

      Big Al

      • On February 24, 2012 at 1:09 pm,
        John W. Robertson says:

        I think for many campaign managers, the course is where much of the action occurs…good for you to think of keeping them separate!

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:09 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      Very good comment John W., and to Clay your obedient servant says, right on!

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:12 pm,
      Sandy says:

      I whole-heartedly agree with John. This is why I always said “Congress and the President enacted …”. What we’ve been seeing esp. since the 2010 election proves this: half of Congress (house) blocks anything that the President or the Senate proposes. This is why we need to get off this divided government stalemate so we can have one party or the other actually get something done so the public can then see if it works or not.

      Frankly in a weird warped sort of way I wouldn’t mind giving all three bodies to the Republicans again so they can truly mess it up so badly that even the asleep public will see that their free market, no regulation, policies don’t work.

      I thought this would have been obvious after the last part of the Bush years
      but apparently the propaganda machine is so powerful that a lot of the public still buys the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Fox News line.

      There is a reason after the crash of ’29 that the house and senate went overwhelmingly Democratic and stayed that way for a long time (esp. the house).
      Things were much worse then; we have not hit bottom yet I’m afraid.

      Regards,
      Sandy

      • On February 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm,
        Big Al says:

        HI Sandy,

        I think that you will find that many of us do not even come close to supporting much of what happened during the Bush years.

        Big Al

  8. On February 24, 2012 at 11:29 am,
    Clay says:

    Wars Al, not war. Perhaps minor issue but more accurate to the point. But the real issue not considered or discussed by majority, is why does the Federal Government go to war? Are they truly protecting Americans and anyone else in the World, or are they protecting special interests and if so who’s interests?

    I don’t think the American citizens are told the truth, but more important I think they are actually told lies. Because of this trust, confidence and direction of the country are going downhill fast and how ironic is this that polls actually show it.

    People generally want to look forward to improvement which is natural and right, but anyone who thinks that just wanting something better will actually make it so, are gravely mistaken.

    My own opinion is there are a vast number of citizens who are unaware or don’t care to know, but what is more troublesome is that there are a majority of politicians and money powerful who actually do know whats wrong but because the fix would would cause them to lose money and power they are unwilling to do whats right for the nation.

    In America’s early days even before Columbus, the nations of this land were many. Most had hereditary chiefs and leaders, where some and not coincidentally the most powerful expected their leaders to do whats right for the best of the nation even if it meant harm or loss to their immediate family. George Washington was such a man, so to was Capt. Jack, Chief Joseph and many more.

    Americans of all stripes and colors need to remove the bad chiefs and replace them with good ones. Some time this will happen, but I believe the people must suffer a great deal more before then.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 11:43 am,
      Marc says:

      Clay,
      Your last line is probably right on the money, unfortunately for many of us.
      Marc

      • On February 24, 2012 at 11:46 am,
        Marc says:

        BTW, Clay, great commentary!
        All the best,
        Marc

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:12 pm,
      Big Al says:

      Hi Clay,

      Of course “wars”

      Bad chiefs need to be voted out by an INFORMED voting public. And therein lies a lot of the problem.

      Big Al

    • On February 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm,
      John W. Robertson says:

      Absolutely Clay. Re your last line…the problem is, there aren’t too many “good ones” running these days.

  9. On February 24, 2012 at 11:50 am,
    Dennis Brophy says:

    Hi Al quite a time all day into the night having to read up on comments that Sandy and others had said and try to get an answer to counter or explain what the level playing field was in her attacks upon reason. Made me feel I was out street witnessing again with the cults, occult; the JW`s(Jehovah`s Witnesses) were the most skilled and cunning of all, but I mostly had the upper hand with winning, but it became apparent that winning wasn`t really as important as it was in reaching them for Christ`s sake. So I had to have a way to use facts that they would have go back and try answering them to their own satisfaction, which I knew had no way out but to believe the impossible that perhaps, perhaps Jesus was The God of the Bible. The Liberal be it a Democrat or a Republican has to be approached the same way. You have to the language defined, terms, words explained, because everybody has different meanings to what he/she means or knows, hence common ground, needs to be established before dialogue is achieved.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm,
      Big Al says:

      That my friend Dennis is a very interesting observation. We have to be very careful to accurately understand just what the person is saying. That can be much easier said than done!

      Big Al

    • On February 24, 2012 at 8:04 pm,
      Jerry O^OTB says:

      great point…..

  10. On February 24, 2012 at 12:09 pm,
    CFS says:

    Big Al, Sandy;
    Regret I am far less tolerant than Big Al.
    I find Sandy’s posts as to be so ill-informed that it is not worth my time to read them. Not because Sandy is pro-Obama, which I find stupid, but simply because of factual errors.
    Sandy claims the Firestone XL pipeline is primarily for exporting oil for asia , would not benefit the US and might endanger an aquafer.
    In Truth, the XL pipeline goes from the Alberta tar-sands to the refineries in the midwest and then eventually down to the refineries in the gulf.
    If it is not built the Canadians will probably build a pipeline to the west coast for exportation of oil to Asia. SO ONLY IF THE PIPELINE IS NOT BUILT WILL THE OIL GO TO ASIA.
    Further a major re-design of the routing was undertaken to avoid the Dakota sand-hills aquafer, and anyway, even if it were to go near to any aquafer, please cite any examples of significant water table damage from any of the thousand of miles of exisitng pipelines. Oil pipelines criss-cross the midwest, including the massive aquafer that lies underneath Indiana, Illinois, Ohio.
    Next Sandy claims the republicans in the Dakotas are against the pipeline.
    I find that incredible. If you could please cite an opinion pole showing that to be anything other than absolute bullshit, I will apologize. If not, please disappear Sandy; I do not suffer fools lightly.
    Apologies, for my language, Big Al.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      I love it.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 12:22 pm,
        Dennis Brophy says:

        CFS, I love your language, BS is_bullshit, MS is_more shit, and PhD is_piled high & deeper.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:19 pm,
      Big Al says:

      CFS, it is very important to me that all statements made here are verifiable. Also it is very important to me that we don’t call each-other stupid.

      My nemesis in this world constantly calls people who he disagrees with stupid and I find that to be distasteful.

      You have great comments, my friend and I believe that you are a very bright and well-informed person. You, like me, are very passionate. And, what is wrong with that!

      Big Al

  11. On February 24, 2012 at 12:15 pm,
    CFS says:

    Big Al, Sandy;
    Regret I am far less tolerant than Big Al.
    I find Sandy’s posts as to be so ill-informed that it is not worth my time to read them. Not because Sandy is pro-Obama, which I find stupid, but simply because of factual errors.
    Sandy claims the Firestone XL pipeline is primarily for exporting oil for asia , would not benefit the US and might endanger an aquafer.
    In Truth, the XL pipeline goes from the Alberta tar-sands to the refineries in the midwest and then eventually down to the refineries in the gulf.
    If it is not built the Canadians will probably build a pipeline to the west coast for exportation of oil to Asia. SO ONLY IF THE PIPELINE IS NOT BUILT WILL THE OIL GO TO ASIA.
    Further a major re-design of the routing was undertaken to avoid the Dakota sand-hills aquafer, and anyway, even if it were to go near to any aquafer, please cite any examples of significant water table damage from any of the thousand of miles of exisitng pipelines. Oil pipelines criss-cross the midwest, including the massive aquafer that lies underneath Indiana, Illinois, Ohio.
    Next Sandy claims the republicans in the Dakotas are against the pipeline.
    I find that incredible. If you could please cite an opinion pole showing that to be anything other than absolute bullshit, I will apologize. If not, please disappear Sandy; I do not suffer fools lightly.
    Apologies, for my language, Big Al.

  12. On February 24, 2012 at 12:21 pm,
    Sandy says:

    CFS,

    You are incorrect in asserting that Canadian oil will be for US consumption. I will dig up a source as soon as I have time to prove this to you. I will also look back in the news to find where I read about the Nebraska Republicans. I am not in the habit of clipping every article I read so if you will give me some time I will see if I can dig this out for you.

    In future if you could refrain from obscenities I think we all would appreciate it.
    I will attempt to do the same.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 1:24 pm,
      John W. Robertson says:

      My guess of what Sandy’s referring to is that US refineries are exporting refined gas overseas, as there’s not enough demand in the US (as of the last 5 or 6 years). There’s no question, US refined gasoline exports are doing well. On the other hand, there’s already a battle up in Kitimat, BC to extend another pipeline to a port near the area. I think that pipieline gets built, one way or the other. The question is, how much oil goes south to the US, and how much east to Asia?

      I think much of the oil intended to come from Canada would have to be used in the US since the US still has to be a net importer of crude. But refined gas exports would also likely be increased with more oil from Canada (it may not be the same physical oil, but imported oil arriving in the Gulf could now be diverted for export after refining). So it’s going to be some of both. Long term, though, I would think the US is going to need to obtain more oil from Canada, however it arrives.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm,
        Big Al says:

        Great point, John W!

        Big Al

  13. On February 24, 2012 at 12:23 pm,
    Marc says:

    CFS,
    Back to PM’s etc., I am currently heavily researching two plays that 321 GOLD likes (Moriarity) one is a junior explorer – Altair Ventures, Inc. AAEEF and for diversity purposes – a great play in the zinc arena, CANADA ZINC metals, CZXMF. They have A LOT of resources and a HOPEFULLY a positive 43-101 coming out March 12 of this year. Any thoughts, if any?
    BTW, I have added Rye Patch AND American Mag to my stuff. Got favorable reviews from other pros like John Kaiser and Ron Hera – via interviews with industry pros. Thanks again, Big Al for the direction. BTW and of course, this is NOT investment advice ESPECIALLY coming from me :).
    All the best,
    Marc

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:46 pm,
      CFS says:

      Marc, I’ll look at these.
      Caution do not mistake Canadian Zinc CZN for Canada Zinc CZX.V
      I know nothing about Altair or Canada Zinc first hand.
      Let’s hope this posts without doubling up!
      I first want to post a follow up to my trend analysis.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm,
        Marc says:

        Thanks, CFS
        Looking forward to your calcs.
        Marc

    • On February 3, 2014 at 2:06 am,
      Yago says:

      I’ve tried this before…but I ntcioed you used “plastic” over the tissue when you heated it??? Is that correct? I had a problem with my was running a little, and I think that would solve the problem…so let me know what you used over the tissue…thanks –C christinescreativecards.blogspot.com

    • On February 3, 2014 at 4:51 pm,
      Doris says:

      Now that the election is over and the relstus are in, attention can now be turned to future elections. While I agree that it is too soon to be thinking about 2016, logistical issues that arose yesterday throughout the nation need to be addressed to ensure for a smoother process. One of the main problems was long lines at the polls, creating multiple hour delays and subsequently frustrated voters. These delays were especially prevalent in some of the swing states including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida as more citizens were voting because of their increased importance in the outcome. Because of state budget cuts, polls in these and other states were forced to consolidate voting areas and have limited opening hours in general. Finding a remedy to this problem will be difficult, but is key in terms of motivating the electorate to vote in future elections. For many, getting to the polls is already a challenge with work schedules and being asked to return or wait hours on end would be impossible for individuals wishing to cast their ballots. Seeing this, some have proposed reforms for strictly mail-in ballots or extended election days. While these reforms may or may not be the answer, as the leading democratic country, the United States has a prerogative to fix these issues sooner rather than later.

  14. On February 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm,
    CFS says:

    Apologies for the double post. THe point I was trying to make is that what makes this blog good is the signal to noise ratio.
    With Sandy around it is mostly noise and no signal, and therefore not worth the effort of going to.

    I bought my first mutal fund 54 years ago, before I entered University, worked for 14 years and then retired, (donated my time for a few more years, cintinuing to teach at university), and have lived off my investments ever since. One comment that I would make about those that post here, which I try to demonstrate by my postings is that time spent in researching companies is rarely wasted. It is infintely easier than it was 30 years ago, when graphs had to be plotted point by point, and yet many are not making full use of internet tools. I heard about Jesse Livermore about the time I sarted investing and gradually taught myself to parallel some of his techniques. One of them is trend analysis. In a strong bull market or a strong bear market, profits may be made just usibg a trend. This is easiest done by plotting out graphs, and when a trend is observed to be in place for a period of time ….two, three or four weeks, jump on and keep tight trailing stops.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:31 pm,
      Sandy says:

      CFS,

      I stand corrected, export is destined for Europe and Latin America,
      not Asia. See source cited below:

      http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

      If you have facts to counter this web site I would be all ears but I want
      hard facts not just bluster.

      I will now look for the Nebraska Republican reference.

      As I said, I am FULLY informed, You, my friend, seem to be on
      the short end of the informed spectrum.

      Sandy

      • On February 24, 2012 at 12:50 pm,
        CFS says:

        tarsandsaction.org
        Boy, That sure looks like an un-biased well-informed source. NOT!

        Like, I said, Big Al. Signal to Noise going to zero!

        • On February 24, 2012 at 1:19 pm,
          Sandy says:

          CFS,

          OK, so I rest my case. You cannot refute this web site with any information
          except a broad brush “Of course this must be wrong” statement.

          No information presented as to why this web site is wrong makes
          me conclude you are full of bluster and nothing more.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 4:23 pm,
        Big Al says:

        HI Sandy,

        As I have said over and over again. We are all here to learn. No reason in the world to get personal.

        Isn’t it interesting how we all seem to mellow with age!

        Big Al

  15. On February 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm,
    CFS says:

    Apologies for the double post. THe point I was trying to make is that what makes this blog good is the signal to noise ratio.
    With Sandy around it is mostly noise and no signal, and therefore not worth the effort of going to.

    I bought my first mutal fund 54 years ago, before I entered University, worked for 14 years and then retired, (donated my time for a few more years, cintinuing to teach at university), and have lived off my investments ever since. One comment that I would make about those that post here, which I try to demonstrate by my postings is that time spent in researching companies is rarely wasted. It is infintely easier than it was 30 years ago, when graphs had to be plotted point by point, and yet many are not making full use of internet tools. I heard about Jesse Livermore about the time I started investing and gradually taught myself to parallel some of his techniques. One of them is trend analysis. In a strong bull market or a strong bear market, profits may be made just using a trend. This is easiest done by plotting out graphs, and when a trend is observed to be in place for a period of time ….two, three or four weeks, jump on and keep tight trailing stops.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm,
      Big Al says:

      HI CFS,

      I don’t think that anything on this site is just noise. It all really makes a person stop and think and then either agree or disagree. That is what makes it fun!

      Big Al

  16. On February 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm,
    Bobby says:

    Al, great commentary regarding yesterday.
    One thing we need to remember is that God is in control, he knows who will be the next president. He knew BO was going to be president and he calls us to respect our leaders in all cases except when they direct us in non-biblical ways.
    I appreciate all comments, except the profanities, and I am willing to listen, evaluate and comment. God Bless this site.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      Bobby I will try to refrain from using eco(b,ms) friendly/unfriendy statements in the future.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 1:30 pm,
        Dennis Brophy says:

        Bobby in regard to what god(God) is in control that is not certain. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God , should shine unto them.(2nd Corinthians 4:4) True God knows who has control, but that He has control is not certain. Since we are under grace and we have free will, to do or not to do His will. We his creatures are not robots like the angels.———Everybody knows where down this slippery slope this goes, like NOWHERE, like leave it up to another SITE…http:…..

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:27 pm,
      Big Al says:

      Thank you Bobby. God is in control and maybe that is why I react the way that I do.

      God bless,

      Big Al

  17. On February 24, 2012 at 1:13 pm,
    CFS says:

    Interesting totally-biased tarsandsaction.org cite.
    What you did not know, as a newbe, is that one of my houses is in walking distance of the University of East Anglia, and I do occasional talk with researchers from the Zuckerman Institute for Connected Environmental Research (Known locally as ZICER)
    I do have a PhD in Physics, and a MA in Applied Math, and even did teach at Oxford for a while before moving to the US. I only mention that so you can evaluate my comment when I say that the report on global warming is deeply flawed. I cannot prove it, although I could point out research flaws, which, by omission of consideration of sun-spots, volcanic atmospheric dust and particulates, deny validity to the research. Time will inform society of the invalidity of global warming and the stupity of Al Gore and his ilk, who call for carbon taxation, etc.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 1:30 pm,
      Sandy says:

      CFS,

      I’ll counter your list of degrees with my BS in Physics from UC Berkeley
      and MS in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University (GPA: 4.0).
      Granted no PHd as of yet, give me time…

      So you’re a global climate change denier as well? OH boy, that’s a good one!
      You really need to listen to the people who have done the research, a-la
      the NASA head guy (was it Hansen?, I forget), and the vast majority of the scientific community who have actually done the research on this.

      You may be right, unfortunately, by the time we conclude 100% for sure it will be too late to do anything about it. We may already be beyond that point. I would think a conservative position would to take our current near certainty as a worst case and not risk destroying the climate of the planet to prove a point.

      I never could understand the conservative viewpoint, seems very contradictory to me.

      Sandy

      • On February 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm,
        Karen says:

        Sandy,
        The global warming hoax is nothing more than a reason for government bureaucracies to grow and an excuse to raise taxes. An excuse for Obama to waste taxpayer money on failed solar companies like Solandra. Aside from the facts Lord Monckton brought out more and more scientists are agreeing that it is a hoax. NASA’s recent study indicates that far less future global warming will occur than global warming alarmist have claimed. Perhaps that is why Dictator Obama pulled the plug on NASA.

        • On February 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm,
          Sandy says:

          Wow,

          I sure hope your right but I’m not convinced. Seems pretty risky to
          me to conclude it is all a big hoax. What if you’re wrong?

          Can you provide any information as to who these scientists are that
          are concluding it is a hoax? What about the CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
          Is that data false also? Is the CO2 level really not as high as all that?

          From what I’ve heard there is a pretty tight correlation between CO2
          levels and global temperatures going back a long way (ice core studies).

          I’d really like to know how you are concluding this is a hoax, maybe I’ve been fooled also.

          • On February 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm,
            Karen says:

            Sandy,
            Watch some of Lord Moncton’s youtube video. He has a great deal of factual information. The bottom line is the more the government can alarm Americans the more the governemnt can control what we buy and how we live. For instance, the toilet that you now have to flush twice and the hazardous mercury filled light bulbs we are forced to have in our homes. Just a few of many examples. Also with the bulbs, follow the money to Obama’s friends at GE.

          • On February 24, 2012 at 6:41 pm,
            John W. Robertson says:

            Bit of an aside, but I really hate fluorescent lights. Give me a 60 Watt incandescent on a light dimmer…same power draw, no mercury, and my living room doesn’t feel like a hospital waiting room.

          • On February 24, 2012 at 9:44 pm,
            CFS says:

            The problem with all global warming models is that before 1910 and after 1970 all models fail to correlate.
            Prior to 1910 there were periods when the earth was much hotter, but CO2 levels much the same as 1900.
            After 1970, since China and other countries have caused significant increases in CO2 levels, the temperature has totally failed to increase sufficently
            .
            Al Gore knowingly and deceitfully truncated the more recent times from his graphs.
            Researchers have scrambled to modify coefficients, and in other factors like methane concentration levels, but have failed to model current temperatures.
            (primarily because they are given grants to produce global warming, they have stubbornly refused to include actual causal factors such as sun-spot cycles and volcanic dust, which, of course, would disprove the “fact” of global earming.

          • On February 26, 2012 at 8:25 pm,
            castanheiro says:

            Sandy,
            Alright Ms Sandy, You’ve dragged me into the fray with your Marxist/Socialist ideas. Before I get started, let me address an issue, but only because you seem so intent on having everybody respect you based on your degrees. Well, a degree is worthless if you can’t perform.
            You wrote, “I sure hope your(sic) right but I’m not convinced.” Your confusion with “your” and “you’re” just goes to prove that your higher education degrees may not be worth all that much. “Your” should be “you’re”, and you should have placed a comma at the pause, before the word “but”. Maybe that BS and MS didn’t include English Punctuation???? By the way, higher education is seriously lacking in terms of teaching people “how” to think. Instead, we’re all too often, taught what to think and what to believe. What if most of what you were taught isn’t true? Then, what you think you know is really false. And out of this quagmire, comes people like you.
            And dear Sandy, Why is it, that some people, like yourself, apparently, believe that only when others espouse positions that they agree with, are these folks then reasonable, rational, or intelligent? This seems to me to be a horribly self-centered method of assessment. Do you then, hold yourself out as the sole arbiter of truth, reason, and logic. This is the arrogance of the left.
            “Once a nation gets hold of it’s citizen’s health care, all personal freedoms disappear.”
            Oh, those crazy, right-wingers… tsz, tsz, tsz,… we really must do something about them!
            “Any ol’ dead fish(intellectually speaking) can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream.”
            Stick around. We may change you before it’s all over.

      • On February 24, 2012 at 4:22 pm,
        Superdobbs says:

        “I’ll counter your list of degrees with my BS in Physics from UC Berkeley
        and MS in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University (GPA: 4.0).”

        LOL, more a like “BS” in Toilet Paper studies…….(snicker!)….

        • On February 24, 2012 at 6:42 pm,
          John W. Robertson says:

          I’m impressed with both Sandy’s and CFS’s quals. Better than mine!

      • On February 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm,
        Big Al says:

        Holy smoke, CFS and Sandy you two should be running this site. I am just a poor shmuck with a B.S. (dual major economics and Russian lit) and an MBA in finance and international trade.

        I must admit that the most interest studies that I was involved in were in the area of Russian literature. I guess I am just an escapist!

        Best,

        Big Al

        • On February 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm,
          Marc says:

          I got my BA in Bus Adm……I learned the most just by hard knocks and living. I would venture to estimate…I might be in my doctoral program in that regards! In my humble opinion.
          Marc

        • On February 25, 2012 at 5:14 am,
          Bobby says:

          I would call you a philosopher, Al

  18. On February 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm,
    web says:

    Sorry Al, I thought you said you went to Church on Sunday. Saturday is Sabbath.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:38 pm,
      Big Al says:

      HI Web,

      I stand corrected.

      I guess in my humble defense I need to say that we, more often than not, go to Mass on Saturday. You know us Catholics, whatever is convenient! Rember that the Mass is over way before the three stars appear on Saturday night.

      Best to you,

      Big Al

    • On February 26, 2012 at 8:33 pm,
      castanheiro says:

      Romans 14:5, says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded(confident and assured) in his own mind.” Chapter 14 of Romans deals with not judging others in matters of personal(non-sinful) practice. Frankly, every day belongs to God, since He made them all, and therefore, every day is holy unto the Lord.
      That’s the point of liberty in Christ.

  19. On February 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm,
    Sandy says:

    Another source for XL Pipeline information:

    http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01614

    I can continue looking for sources, I found so many that confirmed
    my “for export” comment that I think I have proven my point.

    I am still waiting for hard information to the contrary. Opinion and
    speculation and wishful thinking doesn’t count, sorry!

    Sandy

    • On February 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      Sorry Sandy just couldn`t keep up with this chatter that flows out your mouth. But I do have to work at times and make money. I`m not a non-profit foundation, that has time to spare, making nonsense sound reasonable all the day long.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm,
      Karen says:

      Sandy,
      A quote from Bill Day, spokesman from Valero “Exports are an important part of our marketing effort, but it’s a small part,” Bill Day said. “There is nothing about Keystone XL pipeline that’s going to change that. It’s not set up to be an export pipeline.” One think to keep in mind Sandy is that the media protects Obama especially one like Carnegie Council, a proponent of Global Social Justice.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 7:08 pm,
      John W. Robertson says:

      I read the article. There is a good point within it…oil from Canada releases other, separate OPEC oil imports into the Gulf to be later exported, although the article doesn’t mention this way. Rather, it characterizes all oil from Canada as to ultimately be made available for export via the US. I don’t agree with that conclusion. I’d rather see XL Keystone built, oil imported from Canada, and all oil from OPEC shut down. Policy Innovations is considered by some to be a Liberal magazine/thinktank. The sentence “The only way to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on all oil. ” does reinforce that.

      There are certain right-of-center thinktanks, which as Sandy correctly points out in other comments, can be hypocritical or predictable in their biases. That is one of the reasons I’ve gone a little a-political. Some call it libertarian, though I think that’s pretty wide open to interpretation. I like your counterpoints Sandy and I do agree with some of what you say, in regards to how people become good and productive citizens especially. But your sources (so far) do seem to gravitate from pubs deemed liberal. It would be interesting, just for balance, to see what Heritage Foundation says (again, I’d expect a bias, but it’s from another viewpoint).

      I’m originally from Canada’s left coast, and realize now that I never saw a non-liberal public news publication until I was about 30 years old, about the time I left! Certainly not saying anyone should change their views, but it was interesting for me.

  20. On February 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm,
    Superdobbs says:

    Al, I understand the necessity for Freedom of Speech and the importance of differing opinions.

    However, when a person’s opinion equates to unrestrained lunacy, it’s very important for common-sense Americans to step up and call it what it is.

    If Sandy’s craziness is not properly addressed, it’s quite possible a mentally unbalanced person could pick up on her madness, introduce it in the public school system and then try to pass it off as normal……further undermining the very core of what makes America great.

    ….as for 30%…..Hmmmmppppfff! Ten percent or below would be fair…..

  21. On February 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm,
    Webcanto says:

    Listen, think, debate. Best advice ever.

    Also, I’m sick of that word “entitlement”. If it’s paid through our taxes, it’s not entitlement. People paid for it. I have no problem if the government wants to cut back services, just don’t take it out of my pay and return what you’ve taken WITH INTEREST.

  22. On February 24, 2012 at 7:16 pm,
    BJ says:

    This is the basic demographics of the National Republican Party:
    Libertarian/Constitutionalists: ~ 10 – 20%
    Religious Right: ~ 25 – 35%
    Big Government Republicans (BGR, aka RINOs): ~ 45 – 65%.

    So with all the RINOs running hither and yonder, you have to wonder what the Republican Party truly stands for; what is it’s purpose, who do they represent?

    So we find ourselves in the latest (virtual) reality TV show staged in state primaries and called the debates. How far the members of the three basic camps within the Party determines the outcomes of the primaries.

    Basically, Ron Paul consistently gets his 10 -20 %; Santorum gets the biggest cut of the Religious Right, plus some RINOs, 20-30%; Romney rakes in the RINOs but can’t break the glass ceiling of 30-40% because that’s all you get of that crowd; and Gingrich picks up what falls off from the other three–about 5 – 15% (the strays).

    But if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t waste any money running negative adds on any of the four. Instead, I’d sponsor as many prime time debates as possible in what’s left of the Republican primaries, because the more you get to really , really get to know these crusaders and how they think, all you can do is shake your head and wonder why it is that one elephant will wrap his trunk around the tail of another, hang on for dear life no matter how bad it smells. You’d think they were smarter that. But alas, once you lower the bar you less likely to be disappointed.

  23. On February 24, 2012 at 7:19 pm,
    Sandy says:

    Karen,

    I watched your quoted youtube video of Lord Monckton, then I searched more
    and found this article which discredits him

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/03/monckton-climate-change

    So it seems we don’t know who to believe. For every source you cite, I can cite a counter source.

    I guess I don’t know who to believe now!

    So, I will stay with my position and I suppose you will stay with yours.
    I’d rather be safe than sorry.

    Sandy

    • On February 24, 2012 at 7:44 pm,
      Karen says:

      Sandy,
      Of course, you can always find articles that go against the truth if it is going to hurt a particular agenda. Monckton does not have any hidden agenda and no reason to lie. The other side of it has a lot to loose. Just follow the money. You are right. I am staying with my position. I would rather be free than mandated by all the rules, regulations and taxes, the whole purpose of the creation of global warming.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm,
      Superdobbs says:

      LOL, I’d rather keep my wages than see them stolen by a half-baked Left Wing politician pumping Global Warming….

      …..fact of the matter is “Global Warming” is nothing more than a scam to invent new taxes and steal people’s income….

      • On February 24, 2012 at 8:08 pm,
        Karen says:

        EXACTLY!!

    • On February 24, 2012 at 9:25 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      (that`s deep)Well Sandy, I found sites full on the subject `that the Global Warming is a hoax`, Dr. Roy W. Spencer received his PhD at meteorology at University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. …he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA`s Marshall Space Flight Center, and on and on… http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ . He`s got reel`s of evidence that Global Warming is a Hoax/Climate Change isn`t man, but is normal, etc., etc… The atmosphere of Mars is over 95% CO2! Yet Mars has no greenhouse. . http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=195296.0

  24. On February 24, 2012 at 7:30 pm,
    Sandy says:

    Karen,

    I did some further research on Lord Monckton. It appears that he is not even a scientist, but a politician!

    Sorry, this guy sounds like a phony to me. I’m not buying it at all. I want to hear it from someone with a real science background. Anyone can stand up there with a posh upper class British accent and say things that sound very convincing. If you ask me it’s all bluster as was the conclusion in the guardian article I quoted above.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 10:56 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      Sorry Sandy,. Political correctness and global warming 31,000 Scientists( 9000 of them PhD`s) reject man made global warming theory. read for yourself I`m tried of typing the truth that you deny exists even your friend Al Gore is looking to be sued by British High Court that the film is pure propoganda, not science. http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/globalwarming.htm

  25. On February 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm,
    Sandy says:

    Last comment on those who say global warming is a hoax:

    Fine, I’d say go with that theory for your investment planning.

    I strive to get accurate information on this topic in particular because
    the correct answer will have a huge impact down the road on how one
    decides to invest. The re-insurance industry is sure taking it seriously
    (Swiss-Re, etc…). I think this topic is very relevant to how one decides
    to invest for the long term. Coming to the wrong conclusion could lead
    to bad investments.

    Just a comment, ignore it please if you really don’t care and
    don’t bother replying if all you are going to say is that I’m stupid
    or a moron or similar. You must have a lot of time on your hands
    if you have time to type answers to a moron on this site.

    • On February 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm,
      Clay says:

      Sandy: Mises Institute a think tank on economic issues gave this report today.

      http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

      Not much help, I know. Basically I think an investment strategy would be better looking at increased human population and the resource demands it creates than Anthropological biospheric warming. Unless of course the exponential increase in human population is about to crash all of sudden, then we have a entirely different set of worries. That’s how I generally handle worries, by placing a bigger one in front of the one I am currently on, and in this day and age there is no shortage of bigger worries. Unfortunately.

      • On February 25, 2012 at 7:35 am,
        Sandy says:

        Very interesting. I will have to look into this further.
        I am suspicious however of anything coming from “The Austrian School”.
        A bunch of economic quacks if you ask me.

        However, the paper you cite seems to have been written by real scientists so I will have to look into this further.

        Sandy

        • On February 25, 2012 at 8:31 am,
          Matthew says:

          For your own sake, you really should get a clue. If you are at all serious about the truth, maybe you should start with Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Then, you could try Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. You’ll probably need to skip the first 200 pages or so to maintain your interest. The Keynesian school of thought, which most of the world has been fed for over seven decades, is not only unsound, but criminal. Keynes himself was quite transparent about the goal of HIS quackery when he said the following:

          “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
          ———

          The current system protects the biggest banks at the expense of the rest of society. Note that Keynesians like Nouriel Roubini are always wrong about gold. In 2009, he said that goldbugs are crazy if they think that gold is going to $1500. It was just over $1200 when declared that gold was in a bubble and had seen it’s high. Meanwhile, adherents of the Austrian view, such as Al Korelin, Jim Puplava, Marc Faber, and many others, easily saw how wrong Roubini’s opinion would later prove to be. From personal experience with friends and family over the last decade, it’s easy to conclude that 99% of the population understands very little about money, the monetary system, or economics. Those who hold “mainstream” views have seen their savings and wages get hammered in real terms in recent years. But because they only understand nominal terms, they remain unaware of the destruction.

        • On February 25, 2012 at 9:06 am,
          Clay says:

          Suspicion is good, but don’t let it prejudice your thinking. Keep opening up your mind, because what people view as quackery is often the truth, where what they thought was true, turns out being quackery. The world was believed flat when it is round. The earth is center of Universe, when it orbits the sun which together orbit a black hole in center of Milky Way.

          Keynesian economics does not seem to be working to well right now, and all this increase in money printing seems to beget the need for more printing world wide. Could it be that the adherents to the Austrian School predicted this, or were they just lucky?

      • On February 25, 2012 at 7:49 am,
        Sandy says:

        I agree, human population is a huge problem (no pun intended). I think the two are linked, however.

        Sandy

    • On February 24, 2012 at 10:13 pm,
      Dennis Brophy says:

      Sorry Sandy, Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland`s Institute`s climate change spin… The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicans, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new evidence that they should examine and comment on publicly. .. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behin

      • On February 25, 2012 at 7:47 am,
        Sandy says:

        It appears that the Heartland Institute is nothing but an industry front organization. I certainly am not going to believe anything that they say.

        Sandy

  26. On February 25, 2012 at 4:51 am,
    Jerry O^OTB says:

    DENNIS, KAREN , CLAY, THANKS FOR THE GREAT INFO

  27. On February 25, 2012 at 7:55 am,
    Sandy says:

    Wow,

    More info on the Heartland Institute. Apparently they are/were a main organization trying to convince people that 2nd hand tobacco smoke was not a health hazard.

    I guess that clinches it for me, that Institution is clearly not to be trusted at all.

    Also they got funding from Exxon/Mobil…. Oh, yea, that’s certainly unbiased!

    Sandy

  28. On February 25, 2012 at 9:59 am,
    Dennis Brophy says:

    Al & Sandy, follow the money . http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innu… on Climategate/Global Warming HOAX – The hypocrisy is flagrant. The Sierra Club got money from `the evil Exxon, not to mention GoldMan Sachs, Barclays, Google, Monsanto, Nestle, Yahoo, Bank of America, and many many more.` So it seems that the environmental lobby is controled by Big Business and also were funded by the government as well, so how does this translate to individuals wanting to attack the KeyStone pipeline by using the experts that are bought and paid for their so-called unbiased opinions against the pipeline.

  29. On April 11, 2012 at 12:54 pm,
    Co-enzyme Q-10 says:

    Excellent points altogether, you simply won a logo new reader. What may you recommend in regards to your publish that you simply made some days in the past? Any certain?