Iran’s decision to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars

Posted by jerry as finance, politics

Iran announced that it is now trading oil Euros instead of dollars.  The weakness in the dollar is cited as a primary reason, though it is understood that the growing tension between the US and Iran is probably a key factor as well.

The general reaction I have seen is: “Holy Crap!”.  But, I have to wonder: what is the real impact of doing such a thing, from any side?  Oil is a fungible commodity.  Currencies are traded on the market.  Oil sold in Euros is still convertable to the current exchange rate to dollars.  So, someone who wants to buy a million barrels of oil from Iran has to convert $120M to 75M Euro before conducting the transaction?  That does sound grave.  I suppose the net effect is that Iran will be holding $80B less US dollars per year.  Since NO US institution can transact business with the Iran anyhow, Iran is most likely having to exchange them for Euros, Yen or some other currency before doing anything meaningful with it anyhow. 

I suspect the risk is that the whole oil market will eventually follow suit.  With the recent behavior of the US, that seems likely, but I still have to wonder: will we care?

Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act

Posted by jerry as Ron Paul, politics, technology

The US House of Representatives passed the SAFE act by a 409 to 2 margin.  It also appears likely to pass the senate.  It is interesting to note that one of the 2 “nay” votes on the bill was none other than Ron Paul.  While I agree with his decision to vote against the bill, it will certainly come back to bite him.  “How can you be in favor of exploiting children, Mr. Paul?” 

On the surface, the bill appears to be a draconian measure placed on ISPs, web hosts, public wifi provders, etc, requiring them to report all instances where child pornography is transmitted over their network to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  The penalty for non-compliance is $150,000US for a first offense, and $300,000 for subsequent offenses.  Complying with the law provides civil and criminal immunity from any resulting legal issues of the disclosure.  That’s about the extent of what is being reported in most of the alarmist media.

If you ACTUALLY READ THE BILL, you will notice this interesting section:

`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to–

•   `(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;

•   `(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or

•   `(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).

Very interesting.  So, the law doesn’t require the providers to proactively monitor traffic.  So, what does it do then? 

Providers that use technology to determine if someone is viewing an inappropriate site - from a known list of sites or from some form of intelligent analysis of the image content - they are compelled to report such traffic to the NCMEC.  If a web hosting company discovers that a customer is hosting child porn, the hoster must report it.

The other important aspect of the law is what must be reported.  Essentially all identifiable info that is know must be submitted, presumably in an attempt to track back to the owner.

In some respects, this bill just makes something that’s illegal even more illegal.  The bill does add some additional mechanisms to find the child pornographers, distributers and those that view it, and does not appear to place a major burden on providers. 

The downside, as usual, is in the interpretation of child porn.  It’s interesting that a definition of “child pornography” is not included in the bill, yet many other things like “web site”, are.  It is conceivable, as some reports of the bill contend, that clothed children in lascivious poses could constitute child porn.  I wonder how the average Abercrombie & Fitches catalog would fare?

Kucinich and Paul make a good team?

Posted by jerry as Ron Paul, politics

This interview with Dennis Kucinich’s lovely & intelligent wife:

Has moderates on both sides quite excited. Unfortunately, it can’t be. There are a few major obstacles:

1. Neither appears to be on a trajectory to win their respective party primary race.
2. Someone has to be VP. It’s unlikely that, though they are close on many issues, certain ideologies like abortion, will prevent each from playing second seat to the other.
3. Either Paul or Kucinich would likely lose the support of their party should they win the primary and choose a running mate from the opposing party, rather than from the “talent pool” from their own party.

I agree, that it would be a great presidency. There would be balance and sanity in the White House, but we are teeing up for another 4 years of craziness.

Conservatives Honing Gaydar?

Posted by jerry as politics

Given all of the wacky antics our conservative leadership has been, well, participating in, this, taken from Conservapedia is pretty funny:

Make no mistake, it’s clearly been “stuffed” by someone out to “bone” the repubs, but funny none-the-less.

Electotainment

Posted by jerry as news, politics

I just finished reading this article and have to respond.  The author doesn’t directly come out and say it, but is basically accusing the new media of dumbing down the political process, and we, the electorate are the victims.  We are NOT the victims… We are the cause.  Have you seen what’s on TV lately?  What are the most popular shows?  American Idol, Dancin with the Stars, reality show dejure.  The media is pavlov’s dog, and the public has been in control of the bell for a long time.  They are the monster the WE made. 

It isn’t that CNN doesn’t want to let loose Hillary’s view on Yucca Mountain!  CNN doesn’t want a million people saying “oh my god, this is boring shit.  Lets see what’s on Fox News.  Maybe there’s a police chase or a good apartment fire we can watch.”  And they’re right.  I may be interested in Hillary’s view on Yucca Mountain, the credit collapse, the slowing economy, what to do with Iran, but I represent a small minority that probably doesn’t fit into their demographic anyway. 

Up till recently, I hadn’t watched CNN or Fox News in about 2 years.  I was really bothered by what I saw when I did have a chance to watch it recently.  Every news show on CNN Headline News is presented by a “commentator”, not a reporter.  I could not believe that was Headline News.  It used to actually be 24 hours of an anchor person giving the news.  But, they’ve adapted to what the viewers want. 

 For pete’s sake, PLEASE STOP BLAMING THE MEDIA.  They’re doing what they do best - sell advertising.  They can’t sell advertising if no one watches their programming because “hard hitting journalism” can’t compete with Dancin with the Stars. 

Can Ron Paul be elected?

Posted by jerry as Ron Paul, politics

The answer is: I don’t think so.  I’ve grown to equate the presidential selection process with the top 3 videos on each week’s edition of “America’s Funniest Home Videos”.  You sit and watch the show, and at the end, the producers pick three videos which will be voted on to determine the winner of $10,000, but the videos that are picked are typically lame and definitely not the funniest of the show, but the audience is forced to vote among that set.

The presidential race is not entirely different.  We sit and watch a lot of really interesting candidates, but in the end, we’ll end up having to choose from a select few that the “producers” have hand picked for us - Guiliani &  Romney on one side, Clinton and Obama on the other side.  The media is really the group that determines who gets to play and who doesn’t.  I don’t believe that they have a hidden agenda, are working as part of some covert society, or the like, just that they all want to focus on who they think are going to be the top contenders. In the process, they impact the outcome of the races.

 I was looking at the Ron Paul Money Bomb, and they have a great list of Ron Paul “commandments”:

01. End the Patriot Act Immediately.
02. End the IRS.
03. End the Homeland Security Department.
04. End the Iraq Police Action.
05. End the private ownership of the Federal Reserve.
06. End the national ID Card program.
07. End the sending of jobs overseas.
08. End the flood of illegal immigrants.
09. End preemptive military strikes.
10. End the “future” police state.(a)(b)
11. End nation building & defend OUR nation, not others.
12. End executive war powers. Congress alone can declare War.
13. End the North American Union. Preserve US sovereignty.
14. End the War on terror. Terror is not tangible. Therefore it cannot be won [EVER].
15. End the onslaught of our freedoms and liberties by the Federal Government.

 I definitely want to see most of these put into place.  They are all noble and sensible, but there is so much inertia behind almost all of them, that even if Paul were to be elected, I have no confidence that any of them could be accomplished.  However, there is value in slowing down the course that we’re on, so it might not be all bad. 

In the end, I believe the contortion of Paul’s views by opponents and media, such as abortion and affirmative action, will be his undoing.  I share them, but they will inevitably come across as “minority hating”, “women hating”, etc, even if that’s not the case.

Growing dissent of Ron Paul

Posted by jerry as Ron Paul, politics

It’s been interesting watching the groundswell of support for Paul over the past year.  His republican affiliation and anti-war, pro-liberty beliefs are very appealing to many who feel the current administration has been assaulting all that is American.  But now, people are starting to realize that he is a conservative libertarian.  As a libertarian, he has views that the federal government should not be in the education business, it should not be mandating racial quotas or bailing out municipalities after disasters.

I find it really funny that the author of the article in question is clearly anti-Iraq war, yet wants the US to go in and kick some butt in Darfur. Ron Paul’s position is that we don’t go to war unless the threat is against us.  See, it’s a consistent view.

It should also not be suprising that he attempts to pass legislation to stop abortions.  He is, after all, a conservative.  Protecting the lives of a countries citizens is one of the core tenants of a libertarian, so that would appear to be in the perview of the federal government.  You can debate the issue of whether or not a fetus is a life, but in his eyes, at least, it’s clear and he is fighting for what he believes is right.  I’m personally pro-women’s choice, but he isn’t.  His philosophy aligns with mine in many other key areas, though. 

Paul’s desire to do away with the Department of Education is being taken as a anti-education stance.  I can’t believe that for a minute.  I do believe that his stance is that education is a State and local affair, and that the Federal government only screws things up.  History, since the creation of the DoEd, seems to back up his view.

Likewise, hiw view that affirmative action should be abolished is taken as an anti-minority stance.  Again, I can’t believe that is his intent.  Like me, I believe his intent is that discrimination should not be tolerated, and when found, should be prosecuted, but federally mandated minority quotas are not appropriate.

Paul’s view that the Federal government should not have provided aid for Katrina victims is also a hot button. Again, his view is likely not that the people should be assisted at all, just that the federal government is not the right group to do so.  The states  themselves should be doing this sort of thing.

So, in short, it seems that many people are awakening to Paul’s conservative views, and “jumping off the Ron Paul bandwagon”, which will ensure that we continue to have many more years of the same kind of crap that we’ve been experiencing up to now - continued erosion of liberty, increasing our military activities abroad, bigger deficits, more taxes, lower currency value, and on and on.  Good luck with that.  Glad you’re love of the federal programs is worth the complete destruction of the US.

Nukes…

Posted by jerry as World, politics

Just read this article on reddit, and my head is about to explode.  The author clearly writes with an authoritative air about military operations, and seems to have his shit straight with a believable story.  Trouble is, it’s got holes.

The author makes a reference to “central command” several times.  Anyone at all intimate with US military strategy understands that central command is located in Doha, Quatar, not in the Pentagon, and would not be governing the movement of nuclear weapons in the US.  That job would either fall to United States Transportation Command or to United States Strategic Command.  I really am not sure which in this particular case.

What concerns me is that this is a really good story written with a seemingly good handle on military protocol.  Yet, a basic fact like that is wrong, so what does that say about the rest of the article?  Probably not much if you really really hate Dick Cheney.  Speaking of which, I have yet to understand how good ole Dick has obtained so much control over the military as to be able to single handedly oder the shipment of nuclear weapons to a war front.  Maybe he does, but call me skeptical.

When I heard the story originally, my first thought was that of propoganda - not a mistake or any kind of internal struggle.  This administration is extrodinarily effective at managing the media, if you can say nothing else for them.  I have to believe that whatever the “real” plan is, it involved letting Iran/Syria/whoever else know that we had nuclear weapons en-route to their back door at one point, and that was just on accident.  “Just wait and see what happens when we get mad!”.  I still think that’s a pretty likely scenario. 

Thinking about carbon footprints…

Posted by jerry as Environment, World, politics

While in the gym yesterday, I got to thinking about all of the talk recently about reducing one’s carbon footprint.  At first, I pondered about how my decision to work out would impact my carbon footprint - it clearly doesn’t help.  I eat a LOT more, I create more waste, I convert more O2 to CO2, I waste water in showers, etc, etc.  In a way, my decision to be healthy has negative environmental consequences.

I’ve really not been one to be overly concerned about that, though - I drive gas guzzlers, live in a really big house, that’s a really long way from my office - the American dream if you will.

 I got over my guilt quickly and started to think about people who really do care about the environment and really are trying to reduce their carbon footprint.  I started to wonder - do they really - and I mean really - understand the impacts of their decisions?  For instance - riding your bike to work might save 1 gallon of gas, but causes you to need an extra 500 calories of food.  We know that the impact of burning a gallon of gas releases 20 lbs of CO2 into the air.  But, what did it take to make that 500 calories?  It might not be 20lbs of CO2, but it’s not 0, either.

My point is not to throw eggs at people who have decided to try to live more environmentally responsible, just to make sure it’s being done in a sensible way.  I do believe that our society as it is today is wholly unsustainable.  My issues is that on one side, we have people saying “free market enterprise will solve the problem”, and on the other you have people saying “stop driving, move closer to your work, live in denser communities, etc”.  Both groups are so out of touch with reality that the last 2 people on Earth will be arguing with each other as they succomb to some manmade environmental disaster. 

Free markets will continue doing whatever is most profitable until it is no longer profitable.  If I come up with a way to make electricity that is environmentally nuetral, but it costs 15 times normally sourced energy, I will be out of business in no time.  Even if all the ice at the poles melts and we have lots of lucky new beach front owners, there won’t be a “free market” force that makes something that’s 10x more expensive more attractive.

On the other hand, people want their cars.  They want their houses.  They want a yard, privacy, kids, a dog, the minivan, and so on.  That’s not going to change.  I know we live as in a society of sheeple, giving up our liberties for security - so long as it doesn’t interfere with “Dancing with the Stars”, but I believe there would be hell to pay if we start taking away people’s house in the country and making them live in a small highrise condo so they don’t have to have a car.  And furthermore, the beloved government this group tends to align itself with is so blatently inept at civil engineering projects, that the infrastructure to support the commuter-less utopian city-state is out of reach.

What we need are practical solutions.  One I saw that made lots of sense was the algae oil concept.  It uses algae to remove CO2 from powerplant exhaust, then the algae can be processed into bio deisel.  But, I’m skeptical that even this has the ability to rise to a level of profitibality. 

Election

Posted by jerry as politics

I’m happy that the election is behind us and that people are taking time out from their Internet porn and myspace friends to get out and vote their minds.  I voted for Bush both times, and I still most closely align myself with republicans (if you discount libertarians), but I’ve grown very unhappy with the way things have gone.  The repubs have launched an all out assualt on our http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/“> rights in the name of security and it’s about time that nonsense came to an end.

It’s a sad day when I look forward to the democrats bringing fiscal responsibility to the government.  Unfortunately, they have their own agenda for world domination.  Instead of trying to enslave the population, they’ll make everyone reliant on the government for everything.  Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

Good old Rummy stepped down.  Most unfortunately, they didn’t learn a DAMN THING from the gulf war 1.  All we hear about on the news is how many US troops died today.  That’s depressing.  We want to see shit blowing up.  Show us the video from JDAMS flying through windows, show us the night vision video of people getting blown up.  We had that stuff down to a science in gulf 1, and everyone was for the war.  We looked forward to going home in the evening and catching up on the latest bomb videos.  An the Stormin Normin briefings.  That was a war we could get behind.

A lot of people I talked to in the weeks leading up to the elections kept pointing out how the price of gas was dropping before the elections, as though there was a connection.  Now, we all know that Dick Cheney has a weather machine and controls much of the world from an evil lair somewhere, but with oil being a traded commodity, that really shows ignorance of how markets work.  It reminds of the hilarity that almost ensued in places like Hawaii and California where there was talk about putting a cap on gas prices.  Gas is a globally traded commodity as well.  You want to talk about a gas shortage - try going to the gas station some time and offering to pay half of what the listed price is and see how far you get.

I was under the impression that most people had to take economics in high school - isn’t that kind of thing covered?