] In research that Phil and I did for our book, "Yes, You
] Can Time the Market," we found that returns were even
] better for those who bought when the indexes were below
] their 15-year moving average of price to earnings than if
] they just bought randomly. This is such a time.

Ben Stein says: It's a Good Time to Buy

] Overlooked in yesterday's Oil-a-palooza was March's data
] on Durable Goods. To say the least, the number stunk the
] joint up. I expect there is a ways to go before we are in
] danger of a recession --like 12 to 18 months, this number
] merely confirms our prior expectations of fading stimulus
] in the post-bubble environment.

The Big Picture: Durable Goods: Bleech

This paragraph is from the Washington Times:

] The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out
] the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
] were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003
] invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that
] WMDs may have been moved there.

Sounds like WMD probably went to Syria from Iraq...

This text is from the Washington Post:

] Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions
] by shipping military and other products across its borders,
] the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or
] intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of
] such movement of WMD." Because of the insular nature of
] Saddam Hussein's government, however, the investigators were
] "unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited
] WMD-related materials."

Liberal Bias?

The Times doesn't respond to this quote:

] Iraq's ability to produce nuclear arms, which the
] administration asserted was a grave and gathering
] threat that required an immediate military response,
] had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Investigators
] found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the
] program."

But

] Hussein "retained the intent and capability and he
] intended to resume full-scale WMD efforts once the
] U.N. sanctions were lifted," Pentagon spokesman Bryan
] Whitman said yesterday. "Duelfer provides plenty of
] rationale for why this country went to war in Iraq."

Thats the key question isn't it?

The times says:

] Clearly, the media needs an object lesson in an old
] truth: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yeah, but is it ok to actually launch a war based on a total absence of evidence? Is a sentence like "Years later, there is still absolutely no evidence that the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war was accurate." a reasonable enough headline for you? You really have no idea whether or not you were right. You've grabbed onto the tinyest thread left to uphold your position. This is the kind of crap I expect from silly online debates. This is not something that I want to hear coming out of the US Government.

There is absolutely no proof that bunny rabbits don't have tea on pluto. However, its extremely unlikely, and most people would tend to beleive that it isn't true. At what point to you admit that the idea that there was an imminent threat that Saddam would give WMD to a terrorist organization is extremely unlikely, and start asking objective questions about whether or not it actually made sense to re-elect a political team that sent thousands to their graves based on what was most likely a bad call? Oh no. We couldn't do that... That might involve voting for a (blech) liberal. Fuck Liberals. They suck. Conservatives rule!

Links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-110457-2216r.htm

Liberal Bias or Crazy Moonies

] Some scientists now believe they may have finally
] discovered its root. We're all essentially mind readers,
] they say.

I hate it when scientists use termonology like "mind reader" which is very misleading, but sounds sexier then a more accurate description of what is happening. However, this article is still interesting...

Scientists Say Everyone Can Read Minds

] File-swappers who distribute a single copy of a
] prerelease movie on the Internet can be imprisoned for up
] to three years, according to a bill that President Bush
] signed into law on Wednesday.

Now the law of the land.

Bush signs law targeting P2P pirates | CNET News.com

] Microsoft Corp. is paying social conservative Ralph Reed
] $20,000 a month as a consultant...

Thats interesting...

Microsoft defends ties to Ralph Reed

] Podcasting will soon break out of the "pod" and onto the
] public airwaves.
]
] The world's first all-podcast radio station will be
] launched on May 16 by Infinity Broadcasting, the radio
] division of Viacom.

Read as: They are going to play Podcasts.

] In addition to the newfound reach promised by radio
] broadcast, podcasters may be free to include in their
] podcasts some music from major record labels, Infinity said.
]
] The company said it plans to cover the cost of music-licensing
] fees, which are prohibitively high for most individuals.
]
] In part because of licensing requirements, which usually cover
] only broadcast and streaming, the company has no plans to
] provide downloadable program archives.

Got programming? Infinity has transmitters..

] Hollander said Infinity does not plan to assert ownership
] claims on content submitted by podcasters, who will remain
] free to publish their podcasts on the internet -- or anywhere
] else they choose.
]
] "They can give it to us and give it to somebody else, because
] we're not taking anything away from them," Hollander said.
] "We're just helping them reach a broader audience with
] our bandwidth."

There is where the Podcasting space starts to get interesting.

Wired News: Podcasting Killed the Radio Star

] "You can be spiritual. You can meditate as long as you
] don't have a book that says something about right and
] wrong," she said. "There seems to have been no time since
] the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided.
] It's not a shooting war, but it is a war . . . "

This post is making rounds on the blogosphere because this is one of Bush's judicial nominees (Brown) essentially declaring war on secular humanists. However, I'll underline this for a different, and perhaps more challenging reason.

] U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, attended the
] event but declined to discuss the filibuster debate.
]
] After Brown's address, Shays said in an e-mail, "Justice
] Brown made a very thoughtful presentation speaking to the
] fact that morality and spiritual values are a basic part
] of the decision-making process for all of us, including
] judges. I agree with her."

OK, so those who claim that the recent death penality decision was "based on international law" obviously haven't read the decision in question and they are spinning it pretty hard. The reference to international opinion (the U.S. was the last country to abolish the death penality for minors) was provided after the fact. It wasn't the "basis" for the decision. It was provided to place the analysis in context. I.E., BTW this conclusion we've reached here (by other means) is obviously not completely off base as literally everyone else already reached it.

What is at issue, however, is whether justices are tasked with determining objective truths, or whether they are bound to analyse questions only within the framework of the law. Here-in lies a catch -22. If justices are tied directly to the law, then the reference to everyone else's conclusions is irrelevant, as it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It doesn't matter if everyone says its not ok to exterminate jews so long as the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it. On the other hand, if justices are tasked with finding universal truths then there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to look for them in the Bible. Stoning people to death for adultery? A-OK!

The subtleties of this question are likely to be lost in the political debate, but this appears to cut both ways. One side will ultimately accuse the other side of hypocracy in advocating one form of objective analysis and opposing another.

The reason, in fact, is that this isn't really about how the law ought to work, but how morality ought to work, and the justice system is just a pawn in the game. Neither side can present consistent views with respect to how it ought to work because neither side has an objective interest in the law per say. Get your war on!

The Advocate - Red Mass breakfast visited by filibuster controversy

] To prevent that, the special electronic passport readers
] used by Customs officials in the United States and their
] counterparts around the world would use data printed on
] the new passport to effectively unlock the radio chip
] before it would transmit the personal electronic
] information it holds, Mr. Moss said.

In case you missed this yesterday. Its good that they are listening. Its slightly less good that they are running another "well, if we put this peice of duct tape here..." solution instead of replacing this crap with a technology that is actually suited to their application.

The New York Times - Bowing to Critics, U.S. to Alter Design of Electronic Passports

Craigs list Google map surfer. I'd heard about this, but now that I've played with it it actually seems pretty useful.

Housing