kimmy

Unexpressed joy? I take no joy in this. I have no gold myself, and no plans to buy gold. I have nothing against you, or the Leprechauns, or Rumpelstiltskin, or Thrain or Thror or Smaug The Terrible or any of the other gold hoarders. I do find some amusement in how easily you discard information that doesn't fit your world view, though. -k

It's hard to even comprehend that many people being evacuated. Lots of people will have relatives they can stay with, but I wonder what happens to others who don't have family nearby. You guys can debate the climate change issue, but have you considered that maybe this flooding was actually caused by the government's weather control satellites? At Alex Jones Prison Planet, they think this is a NWO plot! Meanwhile, back here on earth, I hope that everyone is ok and that everything possible is being done to help. -k

If you bought gold 2 years ago, the value of your asset has dropped by 33% since then. What does this mean? Wasn't gold supposed to be a smart investment that was going to hold its values while overinflated fiat currencies lose value? hmm. Was the gold price bid up to unsustainable levels by speculators who greatly overestimated its future value... ie, a "bubble"? -k

But are there any characters left alive who might know that secret? The old Targaryen maester who serves at Castle Black, maybe? (blush!) thank you so much! And thank you too! I am sending GRRM McDonald's gift cards as quickly as I can. -k

From what I am reading, "quantitative easing" is a very new concept, it hadn't been done in America before 2008, and hadn't been done anywhere before Japan's central bank in 2001. So while "quantitative easing" was a part of this particular bailout, it doesn't factor in to any previous bailouts (which is no small number of bailouts) which were all financed the old-fashioned way, by government borrowing. And from what I'm reading, the quantitative easing in the US has been specific to mortgage-backed securities. Assistance to GM and Chrysler, and probably AIG and other financial bailouts as well, was not performed by buying MBSs. So while you're correct in claiming that quantitative easing by the Fed was part of the 2008 bailout, the point remains that the government could have (and did) provide bailouts by borrowing. It could be, would be, and has been. Quantitative easing isn't necessary to bailouts, and it wasn't part of any bailouts until the past decade. All that's required for a bailout is for the government to have money. You ought to ask yourself some fundamental questions too, like "is there any possible chance that we would ever return to the gold standard?" and "if we could return to the gold standard, would it cure corporations of acting irresponsibly?" and "if we could return to the gold standard, would it stop the government from bailing out corporations that screwed up?" (the answer all 3 of those questions is "No", by the way.) -k

An opinion based on incomplete information about a handful of sensationalistic events isn't "observation". Just a few posts ago you said this: "Violence without motive is odd. Drugs are almost always behind these Incidents that lack a motive and are just bizarre." And this: "Of course those that try to think in terms of a motive, after all everyone has to have a reason to act, find the oddest things to assign blame to, like a parental divorce. As if that would explain it. The fact is there is no motive, The person has no idea he is doing what he is doing. He is in a drug induced trance it seems." And of course the opening post declared this shooting "Another Big Pharma Success Story" and declared: "Is there really any reason to debate the actual cause of these events? Shouldn't it be obvious?" It's not a distortion at all. That's exactly what you're saying. In regard to Argus' cousin, you declared: "It is unfortunate that we, mankind that is, has not progressed in the field of the humanities any further than we have in light of the fact that we have technologically surpassed ourselves. "I suppose he has been told he has a chemical imbalance. It doesn't add up to me that there is no test for that and that means it is the expert's "best guess" and not a scientific fact. "I want people like him to understand himself, his experiences and be in full self-determined control of himself. He has absolutely no chance of that while under the influence of these drugs. You might think the drugs give him control of himself. At best they blank-out his thoughts." What is this if not a diagnosis and plan of treatment? You're here claiming that the doctors treating this person's illness are wrong and that you know better. On the basis, apparently, of having read a 1970 book by an anti-pharmaceutical activist of some kind. Here's what you said about people who are mentally ill: "Generally, those with mental problems are not violent. It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent." It isn't until they are prescribed psychotropic drugs that they become violent. It's abundantly clear what you're saying. I am not interested in getting "up to speed" with your outdated book. The central thesis of Mr Szasz' career has been rejected by the entire profession. Homeopathic quacks, anti-pharmaceutical kooks, and conspiracy theorists might believe the theory that there's no such thing as mental illness, but almost nobody in the medical profession does. A mob deciding to ban psychopharmaceuticals because they've been conned into thinking it'll stop gun violence is exactly what I'm fighting against. For many people, psychopharmaceuticals make an immense improvement to their quality of life. For some people, like Argus' cousin, they are what makes a normal life possible. Banning these drugs would be like banning insulin. Lobbying against these drugs due to some ideological axe you have to grind, or some conspiracy paranoia, or as a means of trying to deflect attention away from firearms, I view these efforts as fundamentally evil. If people like you and Alex Jones and the NRA activists that are taking this tactic have their way, it will do immeasurable harm to a huge number of people. It is evil. I can't think of any other word to describe it. Not that it makes a bit of difference to the argument, and not that it's anybody's business, but I have been on psychoactive medication in the past. -k

I hope some massive class action settlement payouts put a dent in your BoA shares, Mr Cheney. -k

There's people who were against massive surveillance under Bush but will support it now because it's Obama. There's also people who supported massive surveillance under Bush but now oppose it because it's Obama. Weed out the partisan hackery going on, and you get down to a clash of two sometimes contradictory priorities: liberty, and security. Not really a new conundrum (refer to Pierre Trudeau "just watch me" during the FLQ crisis or Benjamin Franklin "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither".) It does seem that many current members of Congress have been consistently on the "security" side of that debate, as the PATRIOT Act received strong support from Congress back then just as NSA surveillance has received strong support from Congress right now. But why? It seems like people are pretty angry about this. Why are members of Congress supporting a policy that's so unpopular with their constituents? -k

Here is how I picture a Yara Greyjoy storyline playing out: Season 4 episode 1: Yara stands at the wheel of her ship The Black Squid, as her crew of cut-throats scurry about tying ropes and doing other sailory-looking stuff. The wind tousles Yara's flowing locks. Yara: "Arrr, I be a saucy pirate wench, out to avenge me poor brother! Ye best be wary, Lord Bolton, because I am coming for your booty, and I be fixin' to drop anchor on your face!" Crewmen: "Arrr! Arrr! Arrr!" S4 e2: No Yara. S4 e3: No Yara. S4 e4, after opening credits: The captain's quarters. Yara studies a map. A crewman bursts in. Crewman: "M'lady Captain! There be a galley ahead, flying the flag of the Flayed Man!" Yara, charging out of her quarters: "Avast! All hands! If it's a fight ye be craving, it's a fight ye shall have!" Crewmen: "Huzzah!" (cut to Tyrion guzzling wine in King's Landing.) S4 e4, before closing credits: On the deck of the Bolton galley. Yara stands with a bloody cutlass and her crew run about ransacking the conquered ship. She sinks the cutlass into a still-twitching body at her feet. The body stops twitching. Yara: "Arr, this be but a wee taste of what is coming for ye, Lord Bolton." She grabs an oil lamp. Yara: "Ye have won the day, me hearties! But we have more work ahead." She flings the oil lamp to the deck, igniting a blaze. Crewmen: "Huzzah!" S4 e5: No Yara. S4 e6: Lord Bolton sits at a table, studying a map. An advisor arrives. The advisor has horrible facial scars and is missing a limb, so he has probably served the Boltons for many years. Advisor: "Lord Bolton, more bad news from RoosePort. Three more of our ships have been lost." Lord Bolton: "Lost?" He fixes the advisor with a chilling glare. Advisor, startled: "One failed to return from patrol. Two ships failed to arrive at their destination. We believe the Ironmen..." Lord Bolton: "That will be all, Frackne." Advisor: "M'lord... we can not match the Ironmen at sea!" Lord Bolton: "The Dreadfort is not 'at sea', Frackne." Later... On the forecastle of The Black Squid: A crewman looks toward the coast through a telescope at a plume of smoke on the horizon. Yara stands beside him. Yara: "RoosePort? Be ye certain?" Crewman: "Aye, that be her, I'm sure of it." Yara takes the telescope and looks through, a smirk dawning on her lips. Yara: "RoosePort will be ashes before nightfall." S4 e7: The Black Squid is anchored in the harbor. Other ships in the harbor are ablaze, as are many buildings. Terrified citizens scream, and try to flee. Many are cut down in their tracks. Yara watches the sacking and razing of RoosePort with a grim satisfaction. S4 e8: Yara supervises as her crew organize the goods they've pillaged from RoosePort. A crewman arrives at a spring, clearly in a panic. Crewman: "Banners, my Lady Captain!" Yara: "What?" Crewman: "A legion approaches! With banners! The banner of the Flayed Man!" Yara: "Avast, me hearties! Take what ye can carry and get back to the Black Squid! Now! Move!" Yara and her men run toward the harbor, but entering the harbor is a whole squadron of tall ships flying Flayed Man flags. S4 e9: Yara's crewmen desperately pull the anchor on board and fly the sails. Crewman: "It's no use. Those Bolton ships will be on us before we can get underway." Yara: "We're Ironmen, Yurgi. Ironmen from the Iron Isles. We'll live free or we'll die at sea with our swords in our hands." later... The deck of the Black Squid is a chaos of swashbuckling swordplay. One of the Bolton ships has tied up the Squid with grappling hooks and soldiers are swarming over the sides. Archers from another Bolton ship are unleashing a firestorm of flaming arrows, and the Squid's sails are ablaze. Yara, while stabbing an enemy in the stomach: "Arrr, this be the end. And yet, I am not sorry to die like a daughter of the Iron Isles. I only regret that I could not save me poor brother. Theon, me brother, I've failed ye." A flaming arrow slams into her chest. She falls to one knee, then to her back. Her eyes roll back in her head. S4 e10: Theon is awakened by a rude blast from a bugle. Ramsey enters. Ramsey: "Hey, old chap. You know, I want to bring you a visitor. A special family reunion planned for you." Theon: "huh, wha, nuh, nuh no no nononono." Ramsey: "You guessed, right? Your sister! Wouldn't it be nice if your sister could join you here?" Theon: "noooooo" Ramsey: "I know, it would have been great. I know you'd have liked to have seen her. Too bad. We didn't capture her." Theon looks visibly relieved. Ramsey: "But, we did bring some of her!" A couple of thugs arrive, carrying a platter with Yara's head. Theon: "NOOOOOOOOO!" Well, that's how I'm picturing it, anyway. -k

Government debt isn't financed by expanding the money supply, it's financed by borrowing from the existing money supply. Almost the entirety of government debt is held by private entities. So blaming fiat money for bailouts just doesn't work. The government's ability to borrow is what enables bailouts. One can certainly dispute the wisdom of the bailouts and ask whether it is fair that some companies received bailouts while others did not. But that's an issue of government policy, not a criticism of the monetary system. -k

It's a big country full of people of all different tastes, ranging from refined to roadkill. -k

Please! Don't keep us in suspense! Tell us how the law is enforced, the roads get paved, and the poor and sick are cared for in a libertarian utopia! -k

You have entered this thread and made astounding claims with no factual support. You claim that violence, unless motivated by personal gain, is almost always caused by drugs. That's outrageous. You've offered a medical diagnosis and treatment advice for Argus's cousin. That's outrageous. You've claimed that people with mental illness aren't violent unless they receive psychopharmaceuticals. That's outrageous. You can't possibly think you can say stuff like this without somebody challenging you to prove it. Sorry, Pliny, but as someone once said: astounding claims require astounding evidence. You've offered none at all. I am doing a public service by pointing this out. You've fabricated this theory based on a handful of sensationalist news incidents, while ignoring the fact that bizarre senseless violence against innocent people, mothers killing their children, and all manner of other horrible things have been going on for much longer than there's even been such thing as psychopharmaceuticals. -k

In this thread you are claiming things as fact which are in fact just your very non-expert opinion with no support whatsoever. That's a valid criticism, whether you believe it to be so or not. -k

This is hardly the Salvation Army's first brush with controversy relating to homosexuality. I decided quite a while ago to support other organizations instead. I am sure that the bell-ringers around at Christmas are well-meaning people, and I feel a little bad passing them by, but it's not about them. -k

I have a problem with phrasing like "at will" and "out of thin air" because it suggests that it's done on a whim and without consequence, neither of which are true. They can expand or contract the money supply using the tools provided by the rules of the fractional reserve system. The government can borrow money, but not in a way that changes the money supply. As for what ground you've covered, it's actually not much. You've ranted about the evils of fiat currency, but doesn't address the real issues. You've claimed it addressed cronyism and corruption, but it doesn't. You've wrote longingly of a golden age of "real capitalism" that never actually existed. Cronyism and graft and corruption have been in the mix since day one. You were unable to address the short-term gain mentality that has given executives the opportunity to make outrageous bonuses in the short term by engaging in practices that put their companies' long-term future in grave danger. You've offered the claim that fiat money is behind all of these evils, but were unable to justify that claim. -k

Cite? Cite? Taking samples of the brain tissue of living subjects is a tricky thing to do. I suppose this opinion is the result of your vast experience with the subject. Cite? You just made that up, right? This book was published in 1970. A psychiatry book from 1970 is probably about as authoritative as a computer science book from 1970. As with your ideas about relativity, you've rejected the views of the vast majority of experts in the field in favor of some black sheep who wrote something that appeals to your particular prejudices. (If I'm Nurse Ratched, are you Big Chief? I am picturing you smothering Gosthacked with a pillow, throwing a water cooler through the window, and sprinting for freedom.) I gather you got your psychiatry degree from the same prestigious institute where you got your physics degree. (The Pliny College of Pliny?) Googling Alberta pig farmers returns hundreds of thousands of articles; if you have something you'd like me to read you'll have to be more specific. -k

Clearly he's got a history of mental illness. That's a long way from what you're claiming, which is that "big pharma" caused this to happen. Yes, there is a slight statistical correlation between psychopharmaceuticals and violence and/or suicide. There's a much stronger statistical correlation between untreated mental illness and violence and/or suicide. Nutbars like Alex Jones and the Scientologists and kooks and conspiracy theorists and homepathic quacks and perhaps yourself would focus on an incident like this and say "look! look at all the harm these drugs do!" without stopping to wonder how much harm might be done if people who are presently being treated for mental illness were not using medicines of one kind or another. It's dark days indeed if every kook with a radio show or every quack with a self-help book to hock is going to have a say in crafting mental health policy. Your article said he had been committed and released two years ago. It doesn't say he was on psychopharmaceuticals right now, or even at the time, and makes no claims at all as to whether he was currently under medical care. You know what the half life of psychopharmaceuticals in the human brain is? It's far less than 2 years. Depending on the drug, it ranges from a few hours to a few days. It's apparent that you're as expert in the field of psychiatric medicine as you are in relativity and high finance. -k

No, if the government could create money at will, there wouldn't be a national debt. If the government could create money at will, why bother collecting taxes? I've known how fractional reserve banking works for a long time. Since high school. But yes, I googled it before I posted to ensure that what I wrote was accurate. I'm hoping to start a trend. It wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation about the content of your posts. One minute you're on gold standards or fiat currency, then you're on bailouts and cronyism. You keep repeating that, but you keep ignoring the fact the derivatives market, which was a key factor in the collapse, was absolutely and totally unregulated. And that other key regulations had been repealed in the decade leading up to the collapse. There's plenty of evidence to show that the bankers and investment houses just care about profits and will flout rules and ethics to make as much money as they can. The banking industry has a list of scandals as long as your arm. And again, just read the details of the eToys vs Goldman Sachs lawsuit if you need a reminder of how Wall Street views everybody else. You've been trying to make excuses for the bankers since day 1, and this is just another attempt. Calculations that take inflation into account are readily available and demonstrate that there's far more to the issue than inflation. Inflation-adjusted figures demonstrate that the rich are, indeed richer, and everybody else is just treading water. Why is it important how rich the rich are? You're the guy who dredged up the "you didn't build that" meme to try and make your badly-conceived point, so perhaps you should reflect on what the whole thing was about: it was an attempt by rich-guys to explain why they should get lower taxes. -k

And as I've so often responded, the concerns of one side of the coin are far more justified than the concerns of the other. -k

I saw the post before it was deleted, and it was a link to a couple of Youtube videos, with little attempt to encourage discussion. It was probably deleted for the same reason that links to newspaper articles with little attempt to encourage discussion get deleted. -k

It reminded me a bit of the ending of the first season. "Gee, sorry we killed your favorite characters last episode. Here's a feel-good moment with Dany. Are we cool now?" Crowd-surfing on a sea of freed slaves seemed a bit over the top. The point seems to be that Dany has an awesome ability to inspire loyalty. She's also accumulated a vast army, and having just conquered two major cities, she must have some fair amount of resources behind her as well. I suspect that we will see her army embarking on an armada of ships in the closing moments of the final episode of season 12. It seems like kind of an odd choice for a new storyline. Is Yara Greyjoy going to be a character that we spend much time with next season? Are we going to follow her on this reckless mission of hers, or is she going to show up in episode 7 nailed to the crucifix next to Theon's? She seems like kind of an odd choice for a face-time character... we hadn't seen her since sometime in season 2, and she was kind of a bitch last time we saw her. Her cruel mockery of Theon was a big factor in his decision to betray the Starks. I guess we could get behind her because we hate Roose Bolton and we only mildly dislike Yara? I dunno. Find out that Theon's torturer was with the Bolton/Frey faction and is intended to blackmail the Iron Islanders to leaving the North was a bit of a surprise, because it was completely logical. After all the face-time given to Theon and Ramsey in the past several episodes, I was suspecting some astounding plot turn, not something that made perfect sense. Extremely idiotic move by Ramsey in having Theon "dismembered", however. Theon was Balon's only son, and rendering Theon unable to provide Balon with heirs vastly reduced his value as a hostage. Y'know, I know hindsight is 20-20, but making Roose Bolton his lieutenant wasn't Robb Stark's smartest move. He was Robb's most capable commander, but the dude lives in a castle called "the Dreadfort" and his logo is a guy who has been crucified and skinned alive. I mean, there were signs that Roose isn't exactly a nice guy. It was nice to see Sansa and Tyrion interacting like friends... though, the news about Robb probably put an end to that. Agreed about the scene with Tyrion and Tywin, they are both terrific actors. I also liked the scene with Tyrion and Cersei. It was one of those occasional scenes that remind you that she's not just a heartless bitch, she's also a person, and a rather unhappy one. Tywin telling Joffrey to GTFO was fun. I wonder if there's a point where Joffrey will get the idea that he could turn against Tywin? The odd couple, version 3. (version 1: Tyrion and Bronn. version 2: Jaime and Brienne.) Why is Sandor still looking after Arya? Is it because he's secretly a big softie? Or is he still hoping that somebody would pay money for her? Arya is turning into quite the little ball of hate. (understandably so...) Her list of people that she needs to kill is now so long that this show will have to run longer than Gunsmoke for her to finish it. Didn't the Faceless Man from last season offer to make her one of them and teacher her their ways? Considering that there's nothing left for her in Westeros and revenge is basically all she has left, she should reconsider that offer. I feel bad for people who've already read the books... watching the Ned's beheading or The Red Wedding completely unprepared was an awesome experience. I'll get the book and catch up, but I won't read ahead. -k

I'm not really mad about the paint job itself. Planes need maintenance and $50,000 is a miniscule amount in the cosmic scheme of things. I'm mad because it plays like something Jean Chretien would have done, and I thought Harper was smarter than that. Taken on its own, the paint job is a non-issue. But with other things going on-- the Mike Duffy shenanigans and the excessive advertising of the Economic Action Plan are the two that stick in my craw-- the paint job just seems emblematic of a problem. I don't *want* to see Mulcair or Trudeau be Prime Minister. I don't believe in those guys. I would much prefer to see Stephen Harper get his shit together, but right now he needs a reality check because he is screwing up big-time. -k

Where do you get off blaming this on "big pharma" or tagging it as a "prescription drugs" story? Neither of your articles gives one shred of evidence that he was using any pharmaceutical product. Did you obtain this information from a news source that you haven't disclosed to us yet, or did you tune in to the Alex Jones show and hear him saying "MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AARRHHH CONSPIRACY" a bunch of times? Perhaps rather than blaming Big Pharma for this, we should question the merits of a gun licensing system that lets a guy who had been hospitalized for mental health issues and threatening to harm people buy guns. A firearms licensing system that would let this guy buy guns and ammo is broken and needs to be fixed. Trying to blame it on MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AAHHH is a dodge that misses the real issue. -k {Guns don't kill people, pills kill people MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS BLAAARRH BIG PHARMA AAHHHHH}