crwtom

There's a nice toy on the Gallup web-page. You can make the states on a US map blue, red or grey with mouse clicks - creating the scenario where that state goes democratic, republican or leave it unecided. The result in electoral votes is then displayed in a side bar. When I put in a scenario that I thought that was plausible given recent state polls etc - there it was, what I hadn't really thought to be possible: ... a 269:269 stalemate - see attached map. Recall, that the rule for this would be that the newly elected house appoints the president and the newly elected senate the vice-president. Not few people expect the house to stay republican and give the senate reasonable chances to go democratic. The bottom line would be a Bush-Kerry presidency. What a teaser to imagine that. A four year long juxtaposition of personalities as in the debates - someone will think his second term is not a reward but a punishment for his first. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

that is not entirely true - the accumulation of chicken-hawks and war-theoreticians who would choose to go to wars on ideological reasons and who would trumpet with war herosim they had absolutely no personal understanding of this administration is certainly standing out in recent US history. That the military record of a counter-candidate would be central was thus an inevitable reaction that anyone could have predicted. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

The US position is roughly that you can still be a foreign citizen as long as you are declare yourself (under oath) disloyal to your original nationality. That means of course you'd bear arms for the US if necessary against your own country of origin (also in the oath) and never use your original citizenship in any official dealing with US authorities. In more practical terms, the US has no issue with you owning a foreign passport but you'd be in big trouble ever using it when entering the US or officially idenitfying yourself with it after becomeing US-citizen. That's probably an artifact from the times when "citizenship" wasn't terribly well defined so that they just tested for "loyalty". Don't know about the French but German law requires a special permission to retain citizenship after taking on another one. If you didn't get that before applying for and receiving (e.g.) US-citizenship you'd lose German citizenship automatically. Until a few years ago that permission was nearly impossible to get, basically because of the oath. That has changed and there's a fair chance one can get that permission now. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

shouldn't that be "BUSH LIED ... while good men got cavities" heard that from the radical NGDFT group. (National Guard Dentists for Truth) and heck ... maybe they missed a good opportunity at the DNC by not doing something with bandages of amalgam stars, purple tampons or such. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Cheney has questionable health (bad heart). Will he even be around in 4 years? yeah - with this duo Hastert has a good shot at the WH. GWB has that tendency to knock himself out with pretzels and scooters and Cheney may have a "malfunction" with one of those metal detectors. Good grief! ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

ever wonder why non-US nationals are targeted so much more (certainly at least in proportion) than US nationals. Spanish, Polish, S Korean, Italian, Nepalease, Phillipinies, Bulgarians, (and even now the French) etc. are just a tiny fraction of who's in Iraq but get kidnapped and their heads cut severed off a heck lot more often. It really shouldn't be hard to grasp that this is a tactic to isolate the US as the only invasion and occupying power, thereby strip off all interational legitimacy and make them look more and more like colonialists. That's wondeful for tapping into the main stream muslim world for recruitment. And there you have one thing the terrorists and the Bush Admin have in common - the just love US-unilateralism. Surely some AlQuaeda have sent Cheney a thank-you note already for giving them such a good head-start. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

right exactly - that's where the resources are NOT mainly going into now. countries involved mainly in terrorist are Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi-Arabia (as well as to some extend Egypt, Philliphines etc). In Afghanistan at best a fifth of the troop strengh of Iraq is present, barely anything beyond the outskirts of Kabul are secured, and the mountain area toward Pakistan is still the good old no-mans land. Osama is still at large and the operatives they foudn have long been easily replaced with the free propaganda coming out of DC. The much bemoaned lack of human intelligence and lack of coopreration in crack-downs in the other govts has gotten worse and extremely sticky b/c of an international climate that's basically down a shit-hole after Iraq. The invasion did exactly nothing to curb terrorism - and did a lot to propel it. (especially within the shooting gallery of Iraq of course) GWB was told by many about that before hand and decided it didn't matter. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Oh really - the boy got into office preaching the forgein policy of the "humble nation", international disinvolvement and dispised any kind of nation building. Now he's started a war and is up to his eye-balls in a (horridly disorgaized) nation building adventure - of choice, with no urgency in comparision other issues and a deliberateness unprecendented in US history -, that (at least following the PNAC dudes in his Admin) is supposed to create a new oder in the arab world. If this is not a monumental FLIP-FLOP then what is? (and don't give me the "9/11 changed everything" blah blah - Iraq had no connection and if anyhting 9/11 should have changed the priorities of allocation of resources away from Iraq) ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Bounces from conventions in other elections are mostly a consequence of low numbers of Americans following elections. A convention makes people pay attention and being receptive/undecided yields a favorable return. This year is quite different. A LOT of people are paying attention, heard all of the arguments and many have already made up their minds. A convention doesn't add very much - though with a race that close even a little may be important. There wasn't much of a bounce at the DNC and I'll bet there won't be any at the RNC either. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

what about sheep? - not so unusual in some countries (and states) ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

I only skimmed through this one but with all the comparing couldn't find a single comparison of absolute crime numbers. It mostly talks about whether they are rising or falling which may be quite meaning less - slight falls in an initially humongous crime rate may not be much of a consolation and rises in an otherwise negligble crime rate not much of a concern. There are also some really silly comparisons in there - such as the one between Switzerland and other bigger countries as Germany. The far and away biggest social indicator of crime is poverty followed by things like education, general culture/mentality, ethnic problems, etc.. Poverty is virtually inexistent in Switzerland (you'd have to look hard to find anything you could call a significant "working class"), education level is among the highest in the world, the population is very dense (aside from the alp regions) and society is very tightly organized with regulations everywhere, and the general mentality very mellow to the point of being inhibited. Also every Swiss man between 18 and 45 (I think) has his own army assault weapon at home (which makes the Swiss army some of the largest standing ones in the world). To compare that to countries that know of real poverty and social tensions, unemployment rates that in some parts exceed 20%, that provide a are much less controlled environment in the way of regulations and social organisation, and have groups with some times pityful education levels is quite absurd. If you ingnore those factors you may as well throw the Vatican and Lichtenstein into the mix of comparisons. Cheers, T Why is it based on a fallacy? can you prove it? The statistic we have are either way too biased or don´t include all of the variables that may affect the outcome, so they are pretty useless. My point is at least as valid as yours. Of course. However, you too advocate restricting something because of a gut feeling. Would you allow anyone to have hand granades at home? what about a lion for a pet? or weapon grade plutonioum. The only diference is were you draw the line, i think that overall it would be safer for everybody a more restrictive gun control. Then add this.... Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries` crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates? A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.") Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.) U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime: England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions. "A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html. Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml. Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml. From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91). Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.) Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal Justice Systems While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of (England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.) Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun activists often compare to the U.S.: Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.) Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.) "The British government frequently bans books on national security grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991, pp. 99-102.) Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.) ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

This is priceless - right up there with those road side bill boards in the deep shouth that warn you to repent because hell is near and only Jesus can save you. Maybe we should issue a "purple doomsday alert" or something like that. Thanks for the splendid entertainment. As to polls' margins of error - if you look at it (a little naively) as a binomial distribution with N samplings and an overall probability p (think of it as true total percetages) between two outcomes then the variance of the sampled percetage is sqare root of p(1-p)/N. In the give example we have roughly p=0.5 and I guess the standard margin of error is twice the variance. That makes it appoximatiely the inverse square root of N - with N usually around 1000 in these polls you get indeed the 3% or so that you find in most of the polls. That also means that if you look at averages of, say, four polls (sized around 1000) you may think of that as one poll with N=4000. But four times the N means half times the error putting it at somwhere around 1.5%. It'd be cool to have some dynamic averaging algorithm feeded constantly by all of the current standard polls. It wouldn't require much to do that since the data is already there - just someone with a little time on their hands and/or a little bit of computer skills. You'd have a sort-of smoothened out polling product with a margin of error of possibly less than 1%. Only drawn back is that it'd just "run behind" the other polls by a couple of weeks since those are not conducted simultaneously. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

shouldn't that be Bush/Osama (see att) No, it shouldn't be Bush/Osama. The attachment is a cute excursion into fantasyland. I really wish there was anything cute about it ... ... but if you say so it must be cute ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

shouldn't that be Bush/Osama (see att) ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

you forgot Willie Nelson and since you appear to like german quotes here's another one: Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen. Heinrich Heine 1820 ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

if this is really the exact quote then it is indeed funny. It means something like "I agree that GWB may elect the United States (to be his home country) again". Actually I have no problem with that - he can even have any job in this country other than the current one for all I care. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

for the record - the reporter put the words "un-American activities" in her mouth (with an obvious insinuation of the McCarthy era language) which Heinz Kerry in fact did not use. Yeah - aren't they? - those women with a healthy temperament - (at least for the guys who can take them). Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

come again (don't think much oft those 5sec Google searches but I'm really short of time now) ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

So now you're saying Mrs Heinz is disingenious because she didn't say Fuck-off ... which, if she had, then would have been OK with you. That's really funny. One notable difference between the two was that the first happened on the floor of the Senate of the United States towards a Senator representaing one of the States. The only thing that saved Cheney from disciplinary action was that the Senate just happened not to be in session at that very moment. Obviously Mrs Heinz is also not running for presidency - her husband is. Other than that this is a pretty silly discussion. Cheers, Thomas ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

true ... in a monarchy Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Rest assured that Gore knew how the electoral process works. Still even on the level of electoral votes this was an extremely close election ( hanging on a few FL votes and a few court decisions). With a weak mandate for the current president such as that it would have been more reflective of the will of the people (and more honorable at that) to pursue a more bipartisan, consensus building policy. Instead the Bush admin took an unrelenting winner-takes-it-all attitude and pushed some of the most extreme agendas. Bush's selfproclamation as "the great uniter" has become no more than a cynical joke. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

hadn't seen the movie yet - life's just been just too busy. It's quite notable though that there are much more intense reactions from the right towards artists on the left doing their thing rather than the other way around. Makes me wonder - if a republican ever became King of America, would he/she shoot their own jester on the first day "in office"?

I usually looks at SP500 (DJIA has a smaller and large-cap-biased selection and thus seems to be a lot more volatile to me). But also SP500 dropped out throughout this month. Big factor IMO are interest rates. The recent restoration of the SP500 to the mid 2002 level was in large part due to incredibly low interest rates. That, however, builds up inflation - you can see that now in higher steel and gasoline prices and more and more accounts that wages (although maybe numerically rising) are losing their effective purchase power. This is likely to get worse if left alone. As a result the Fed has to increase interest rates - which they just did in June fairly moderately. They idea is that with the economy out of the worst you can begin putting a little bit of pressure on it in order to get interest rates back to "normal" levels. The upswing seemed to be more fragile though than they first thought - reflective in staggering in the stock markets, much weaker job reports in June and plans to delay further hikes in interest rates. The recent bump back is on borrowed time - meaning record low interest rates. The way back to normality without inducing another crash will continue to be a very delicate juggling act by the Feds. My guess, thus, is that things will wiggle around where they are right now for a while. In terms of SP500 we're now where we were a couple of months after 9-11 (in the 1100's) but still considerably lower than in 2000 (in the 1400's). Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Bush thinks ? ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

costs such as schooling are investments. They (are supposed to) pay-off by them becoming productive tax-paying citizens a few years later - and thus supporting older generation's retirements as well as a national economy as a whole. I know that if the generation after me would suddenly evaporate I'd be in very serious economical trouble - even if I'm well-to-do at the moment with plenty of savings. Kids, marriages, and all that are contracts for sort-of "joint enterprises" that a society offers to its individuals. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true