jcd11235

I think that's part of it. There needs to be a government that is viewed as legitimate by the Afghanis, not just by the US and UN. Karzai's government has thus far demonstrated to be corrupt, while the Taliban's shadow government has been making efforts to be seen as more legitimate by the population. It might be a wise move to wait to see what happens in the runoff election. If fraud is as rampant as it was in the original election, then it will be much more difficult to make a case for the new government with the people. Without the support of the people, successfully implementing COIN strategy is going to be, at very best, extremely difficult. Further, it seems prudent to see how Pakistan's offensive plays out, since the results could (and probably will) have significant effects on the insurgents' in Afghanistan. The offensive seems like it will be a game changer, but it remains to be seen which parties will benefit most. Agreed that Karzai is a big obstacle. Another big (perhaps bigger) obstacle is the lack of popular support among the Afghan people for increased US troop levels. Some estimate that as many as 600,000 troops will be required to successfully implement a counter insurgency strategy. If increased troop levels further decrease Afghani support for US troop presence, that will work against the COIN effort, even if McChrystal has all the troops he needs. McChrystal doesn't seem (to me) to be convinced that the war can be won, only that if it is possible, COIN strategy offers the best chance, even if it's still a long shot. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Driving style and type of driving (i.e. highway or stop & go) play a greater role than mileage w/r/t clutch life. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or with bigotry. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Since homosexuality is prevalent among other species in nature, either that's not what his arguments are based on or his arguments are based on a lack of understanding of sexuality and nature. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nor does anecdote mean data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's funny how some folks aren't smart enough to recognize the difference between being against the death penalty and favoring a pardon of the convicted. Sadly, such folks are allowed to sit on juries. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I would want to see them get a fair trial (i.e. minimal chance of winning an appeal) and receive life in prison. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That statement does more to support his statement the "racism" accusation are commonly used as a club to beat people with whom you don't agree. Way to truncate a sentence in order to make a point that wouldn't apply if the whole sentence were quoted (and doesn't really even apply to the truncated version). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's not even close to a "highly scientific study." If you are using it to justify your "bad attitude about black people," then I would say that your views are based on racism and/or ignorance, not objective evidence. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think his life should be spared because I believe capital punishment is wrong, even for the guilty. Too bad such a common view isn't an option in the poll. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Their interest would be for the destruction of John Doe's House, not the protection of it. Correct. John Doe can insure his own house, because he has an insurable interest in the house. If it burns down, he (in theory) doesn't profit from the insurance benefit; he breaks even. Allowing someone who does not have an insurable interest in John Doe's house to buy an insurance policy for it gives that person an economic incentive to enable the destruction of the house. It also allows the possibility of the house being insured by several policies totaling much more than the house is worth. They wouldn't have the capital to cover all losses. Insurance is essentially gambling and gambling on credit is always a bad idea. From the insurer's perspective, insurance is gambling, but with a large pool of positive expected value bets. From the beneficiary's perspective, it is quite the opposite. It is the hedging of bets made elsewhere, the reduction/elimination of risk. That risk is only eliminated when the insurer can make good on their contractual obligations if the conditions for payment are met. The risk of the insurer not being able to pay under such conditions is a kind of counterparty risk. There are a few reasons why the gov didn't intervene on Lehman. It could be the line drawn as to enough is enough bailout and to assert that not everyone is, “too big to fail.” So to summarize I would say the gov was sending a message to the bigs that the nipple shuts down eventually. We only need to notice that AIG received bailout funds after Lehman Brothers announced they were filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to recognize that the "sending a message" explanation is inaccurate. But, I'm getting ahead of myself … Credit default swaps are similar to insurance policies for financial securities and investments. Unlike insurance policies, however, there is little to no regulation w/r/t the sale and purchase of CDS's. There is no regulation providing for an insurable interest requirement or reserve requirement. Initially, CDS's were used to hedge investment risk. They were often used to hedge the risk associated with mortgage backed securities. Their availability actually made MBS's a more attractive investment, which to increased demand for mortgages and more (seemingly) attractive mortgage offers for borrowers. Unfortunately, the lack of regulation allowed investors to speculate on investment performance without actually being invested in the security that was covered by a particular CDS. On the other side of the deal, sellers of CDS's didn't have a reserve requirement by regulation, and sometimes no collateral requirement by the purchaser, so they could sell more than they could feasibly pay out on should the credit event occur. Furthermore, many investors who had purchased credit default swaps turned around and sold credit default swaps for the same securities at a higher premium. (Since there was no exchange or clearinghouse, sellers could charge whatever premiums they could negotiate; details of sales weren't publicly available to other investors.) This practice, called netting, allowed them to receive larger premium payments than they were paying out. If the security covered by the CDS failed, they would be able to collect on the CDS they owned to pay out for their obligations on the CDS they sold. Netting created a web of interconnected financial institutions. Everything would be fine, as long as everyone was able to pay when obligated to. That is, as long as the counterparty risk was essentially zero, everything would be fine. Of course, if a CDS seller could not fulfill their obligations, then the broken link in the chain of interconnectedness would be catastrophic until it reached a party that could absorb their losses and still make good on their own obligations. The problem was that the counterparty risk wasn't zero. Some institutions, such as AIG, had sold more CDS's than they could pay benefits on, since there wasn't any regulations for reserve requirements. And, since their credit rating had been very good, they had not been expected to put up collateral for the CDS's they sold. AIG, and other companies like them, posed tremendous counterparty risk, not only to speculators, but to investors who had used sound investment hedging strategies. Their inability to make good on their financial obligations posed a serious risk of systemic failure in the industry. Lehman Brothers, however, had not sold CDS's to the extent that AIG had. They didn't pose a great counterparty risk in the financial industry. Their failure was due to being too heavily invested in mortgage backed securities without sufficient hedging. If they were to fail, they didn't pose a great threat of taking other institutions down with them. Thus, it was reasonably safe to simply let them fail. Insufficient regulation offered the potential of tremendous counterparty risk to permeate the financial industry. It allowed the industry to become a bomb waiting to blow. The low interest rates served as a spark that lit the fuse. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Answer: yes. Why is it a bad idea? Answer: yes. Why is it a bad idea? - Answer: yes. Why did they allow Bear Stearns to fail while bailing out other large financial institutions? @Lucky... I'll assume from your silence that you're unable to answer the questions. I suspected as much. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm on a laptop, which doesn't have an [end] key, so I can't test it, but … As a general rule, keyboard shortcuts from Windows work on Macs by replacing the [ctrl] key with the [command] key. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The demand among current smokers is inelastic, but the demand among new and potential smokers is not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not when he needs to essentially reevaluate the entire war, its effectiveness, and how it has been handled up to this point. Troop levels are something of a catch-22, anyway. To implement a COIN strategy, there needs to be more troops. If a COIN strategy is to be successful, it will require support of the local population. The Afghani civilians are not in favor of increased troops. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

They have adopted a mixed economic system, and that is the most likely reason behind their success. Mixed economies can outperform socialist economies and capitalist economies by offering the best attributes of each. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Actually, only 92%, since 4% of those polled had no opinion. Even that number is misleading, given the other data from the poll to which you linked. With expectations for security and economic development unmet, the number of Afghans who say their country is headed in the right direction has dived from 77 percent in 2005 to 40 percent now – fewer than half for the first time in these polls. … The number who say the United States has performed well in Afghanistan has been more than halved, from 68 percent in 2005 to 32 percent now. … And 25 percent now say attacks on U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces can be justified, double the level, 13 percent, in 2006. … While Afghans likely will welcome a new strategy, they’re far cooler on new troops: Contrary to Washington’s plans, just 18 percent say the number of U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan should be increased. Far more, 44 percent, want the opposite – a decrease in the level of these forces. … Civilian casualties in U.S. or NATO/ISAF air strikes are a key complaint. Seventy-seven percent of Afghans call such strikes unacceptable, saying the risk to civilians outweighs the value of these raids in fighting insurgents. And Western forces take more of the blame for such casualties, a public relations advantage for anti-government forces: Forty-one percent of Afghans chiefly blame U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces for poor targeting, vs. 28 percent who mainly blame the insurgents for concealing themselves among civilians. Given that view, more Afghans now blame the country’s strife on the United States and its allies than on the Taliban. Thirty-six percent mostly blame U.S., Afghan or NATO forces or the U.S. or Afghan governments for the violence that’s occurring, up by 10 points from 2007. Fewer, 27 percent, now mainly blame the Taliban, down by 9 points. … In 2005, still celebrating the Taliban’s ouster in November 2001, 83 percent of Afghans approved of the work of President Karzai and 80 percent approved of the national government overall. Today those have slid to 52 and 49 percent respectively. … Among people who report bombing or shelling by U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces in their area, support for the presence of U.S. forces drops to 46 percent, vs. 70 percent among those who report no such activity. There’s a similar pattern in support for retribution against U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces. While 25 percent of all Afghans now say violence against such forces can be justified, that jumps to 44 percent among those who report air strikes or shelling in their area. It’s a similar 45 percent in the South and East, where the fighting has been most intense. … And 43 percent say the Taliban have grown stronger in the past year, well more than the 24 percent who think the movement has weakened. Notably more in the South – 55 percent – say the Taliban have grown stronger. And in Helmand province, the heart of the opium trade that’s said to finance the group, 63 percent say the Taliban have gained strength. In the more peaceful North, the opposite: Slightly more there say the Taliban have weakened. The Taliban are far from achieving popular support – across a range of measures the group still is shunned by large majorities of Afghans. But 22 percent say it has at least some support in their area, and this soars to 57 percent in the Southwest overall, including 64 percent in its home base, Kandahar. That’s up sharply from 44 percent in the Southwest last year, and up from 41 percent in Kandahar. There’s also evidence the Taliban have made some progress rebranding themselves. Twenty-four percent of Afghans say it’s their impression the Taliban “have changed and become more moderate” – far from a majority, but one in four. And that view spikes in some provinces – most notably, to 58 percent in Wardak and 53 percent in Nangarhar, bordering Kabul to the west and east, respectively. In any case there’s been a significant drop in the number of Afghans who call the U.S.- led invasion and overthrow of the Taliban a good thing for their country – 69 percent, still a substantial majority but well below the 88 percent who said so in 2006. And while 63 percent still support the presence of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, that’s down from 78 percent in 2006, with “strong” support for the U.S. presence down from 30 percent then to just 12 percent now. Some trends: As of January, 2009, … Fewer Afghanis polled described things to be good than in 2005 in the following areas: Living conditions, Security from crime and violence, Availability of jobs/Economic opportunities, Availability of food, Local schools, Rights of women (since '06), Freedom of movement (since '07), Present government, Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan, Provincial government here, and The United States in Afghanistan. More Afghanis polled described things to be good than in 2005 in the following areas: Roads, bridges and other infrastructure, Availability of clean water, Supply of electricity, and Availability of medical care. In January of 2009, four times as many Afghanis would rather have the Taliban ruling in Afghanistan than in 2005. Corruption in government is perceived as being increasing. Support for Taliban fighters is up from 2005. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That would be Muphry's law. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The original version, AS SPONSORED BY 3 REPUBLICANS, didn't have bipartisan support, then teh R's threw in some consumer beneift and more Desm climbed on board following the fish. It's so preceious to watch little ole you canstantly throw out the word, "ignorant" yet Ipost data and other relevant support, you're relegated to neo-con tactics of, "you're ignorant;" don't ever change little guy. Again, I'll post what I cited: The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[ If you quoted an article about the GLB Act, to which I referred in my reply (as you quoted above), you might find more relevant voting statistics. What agenda does NPR have? Wikipedia is user edited. Its reliability can vary widely from article to article. Nope, I'm saying it had wide bipartisan support. Final bill: Senate 90-8 House 362-57 Yeah, I'm a neo-con. Answer: yes. Why is it a bad idea? Answer: yes. Why is it a bad idea? - Answer: yes. Why did they allow Bear Stearns to fail while bailing out other large financial institutions? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

NPR, yea, nice cite From your article: Ten years ago, when the Clinton administration proposed legislation to deregulate much of the financial services sector, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota voted against his own party, Byron is a Dem, only a few Dems voted for it, so NPR shows it's colors and it factual inaccuracy. You're displaying your ignorance of the topic once again. GLB Act had wide bipartisan support, as well as support from President Clinton. Voting against it was voting against the party. Criticizing NPR as a source and then using Wikipedia yourself is laughable. No, I told you that I had edited the post to add the questions. I only pointed out your avoidance of the questions after you had ample time to read them. Feel free to answer the questions, though. The answers will highlight how your claim of low interest rates being the cause of the crisis is wrong, which is why you've been avoiding them, I suspect. No, I clearly showed how they were different. Your inability to acknowledge reality is quite sad. Now, answer the questions (assuming you have the integrity to keep your word): Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? After all, Lehman Brothers played in the market while the interest rates were just as low as when AIG were playing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

While technically possible, there is no way to run OS X on a non-Apple machine without violating the EULA of OS X. Bootcamp emulates legacy BIOS for Windows to run on an EFI equipped machine. Macs do not have BIOS. The last two laptops I have purchased, a MacBook and a MacBook Pro, were both less expensive than machines equipped with comparable hardware from other makers, such as Dell, HP, etc., without even considering software. Very true. Apple offers relatively few system configurations and chooses not to compete in the budget PC market. They also tend to tie larger screen size to higher machine performance in their notebook and iMac lines. If someone is in the market for a low end laptop with a 17 inch screen, they're not going to find it in the Apple store. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not trying to impress you with anything. I offered an explanation in simple terms that even you could understand. Apparently you understood nothing in the post to which you just replied if you believe that. If you want to believe that the interest rates were the cause of the crisis, go right ahead. You won't be the only person who is ignorant of the truth of the matter. Have a nice night. Let me know if you decide to keep your word and answer my questions. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's not who is being dishonest; it is you. You presented an altered definition in a manner intended to deceive readers into believing that the definition appeared in the dictionary as you presented it. It doesn't. Without the changes you made, the definition does not say what you need it to say to support your assertion. Had I pulled that trick in a paper for one of my classes, I would, at a minimum, flunk the assignment, but it would be more likely that I would automatically fail the class or worse. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

This is what normal means to me. Does it have another meaning? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!