Is Generex (Nadaq: GNBT) a "Sweet Buy"?
NOTE: I'll be editting this, so check back for updates every day as I collect more links and arrange my thoughts.
JUNE 18th NOTE: At the moment I'm waiting for some direction in the price of GNBT before re-entering the shares. There seems to be a "battle" going on between big block trades at the current price of 1.80-1.86. It's hard to discern if the recent short-term support is merely some MMkr propping up the stock in order to permit shorts to enter positions, or whether it represents institutional buying holding the stock up. But it's definitely overbought on the daily chart and could trend sideways to lower for the next couple of days unless we see a catalyst for a move back up. But I don't believe any pullback will be long-term, so "dipping your feet in the water" and buying a few shares wouldn't necessarily be foolish here, so long as you are aware that the price might plunge short-term (and give you a chance to back up the truck).
Been trading GNBT for the past couple of days and banked some decent coin (approx 15% over 2 days). This stock just had a TREMENDOUS spike upward, motivating by a influential 42 page analyst report asserting that he has a $6/share price target within 18 months.
GNBT Analyst recommendation
R&R Analyst Report for your reading pleasure
So what does Generex do? Well, this little Canadian Bio-Tech has a couple of things on the plate. First off, they offer a "buccal" administered insulin drug (think asthma spray-style applicator, except you don't breath it in), which has been approved in Ecuador, and is now pending serious FDA approval. Secondly, via their subsidiary, they are working on some immuno-therapies for breast cancer. Thirdly, they have been working on "Bird Flu" vaccines (which was all the rage several years ago).
Generex Website
Now.. let's start off with the daily chart for GNBT so you all can see how historically volatile this stock has been (note that for a longer time frame, you will need to enter in 2 or 5 year numbers):
1 year Daily Chart
As you can see.. this stock is given to SERIOUS volatility!!!
So.. is it a buy? Well, that depends upon your time horizon. Being a short-term day and swing trader, I like to buy low, bank my coin on a surge, and then look for a re-entry point at support (usually on the 60 minute chart):
GNBT 60 Minute Chart
That 60 minute chart, per the day of this posting, 15th June, really looks interesting if it can hold it. There is a "pinch" forming on the hourly Bollinger Bands. Now for those not versed in BBs, they are a trader's WET DREAM!! They signify that longs and shorts are facing off like two hockey teams. And when the puck (representing the price of the stock) gets thrown in amidst them, they will battle with each other to try and send it one direction or the other. And whichever way that puck goes, both sides go as well. So, if the price goes up, both sides go long.. If it goes down, both sides go short. This will continue until the next level of support/resistance is reached. And the longer the time horizon (daily, weekly) the stronger, and longer lasting, the move.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Well, my trade in Dendreon (Nasdaq: DNDN) from Thursday did not go well on Friday. I bought it after it retraced from it's $13/share high, under the belief that $10 would provide psychological support as the shorts covered. Recall that some 40-50% of the stock's 83 million share float has been shorted and that's significant considering the stock was once $25/share just a few months ago. But as a result of the controversial FDA ruling, the shares plummeted.
Here's a link to the CNBC interview with Dr. Gold, DNDN CEO back in March when the FDA panel recommended approval for Provenge:
March, 2007 interview on CNBC with DNDN CEO
DNDN short interest as of May 15
The company has completed Phase III testing on its Immunotherapeutic drug for Prostrate Cancer, Provenge and has received "fast track" authority for final approval. And what is more interesting is that it's the first cancer drug that is designed to assist the bodies own immune response to target the cancer cells, rather than typical chemo-therapy that uses chemicals to destroy the cancer (and generally winds up killing other healthy cells and weakening the immune system as a result). So we're talking about some innovative bio-technology here that could have a huge impact on fighting not only prostrate cancer, but other forms as well.
But what is the company's stock worth, should their drug be approved by the FDA?:
DNDN value analysis
This gentleman from the "Seeking Alpha" website suggests that there are signs of major "corruption" within the FDA advisory panel that has been delaying approval of Provenge and this makes sense to me:
Seeking Alpha's comments on DNDN and FDA
So we're engaged in some serious market valuation "Hardball" and both the shorts and longs are lining up for a market "brawl" in coming weeks. This is going to be an interesting week to observe in the stock.
I posted this commentary on the DNDN Yahoo discussion thread yesterday and I still stand by my comments:
My Yahoo comments
But what are the charts telling us about investor psychology in the shares?:
Daily Bigchart for DNDN
But even more telling is the weekly chart:
DNDN Weekly Bigchart
Now if you'll note on that weekly chart, everytime the weekly Stochastic has turned upward, it has led to major gains in the share price. Hence, my decision to speculate on having a chance to participate in a second run-up (having missed the first one .. sigh). There's just that much money at stake that it's hard to discern what the true valuation of this stock should be based upon the potential of the drug.
But what is the status of Provenge? Is it safe? Is it effective? Well, the FDA has ALREADY ruled that Provenge is safe by a UNANIMOUS vote of 17-0, so what's the problem with approving it?
FDA minutes from March meeting of advisory council:
FDA Advisory Council minutes discussing Provenge..
Pg. 370 is where they discuss effectiveness and the controversial NO votes were cast by 3 out of 4 panel members who have a conflict of interest and had to be granted waivers
And did Dr. Scher, one of the "Nays" on the FDA advisory committee, lie about his conflict of interest, for which he had to receive a waiver to be on that FDA advisory committee? The member who went to the extraordinary measures of actually writing a letter warning against approving Provenge, here is a list of his UNDISCLOSED conflicts of interest that should have been sufficient to deny his eligibility for being on that that committee to begin with? Decide for yourself:
Dr. Scher is on the Science Advisory Board of an investment fund with over $900 million under management. Why wasn't this disclosed on his COI waiver? And why wasn't it disclosed that Novecea is one of those portfolio companies? Fine, if he had disclosed this, then it could have been adjudicated. But it NEVER came up in the COI waiver letter.
Dr. Scher on Science Advisory board of investment fund
Summation of Dr. Scher's undisclosed Conflict of Interest
FDA confirms safety of Provenge
And read this logically based letter from another DNDN shareholder, to the FDA:
Open Letter from DNDN shareholder to FDA
I can't find any fault with the logic the author displays. Clearly the drug is efficacious because 34% of the patients who took Provenge are still alive, as compared to only 11% who took the placebo. And the FDA advisory committed UNANIMOUSLY agreed that Provenge is safe, so what's the problem with temporary approval of the drug, pending final results of the IMPACT study? If it's safe, let THE PATIENT make the choice of taking it or not.. If anything, it provides HOPE...
And what's even more interesting, and something that will likely receive some news coverage on Monday, is that a Cancer patients have spontaneously banded together to lobby congress to have the FDA approve the drug NOW, and not wait. That's unheard of, from my past experience. The group, ProvengeNow will be assembling on Capital Hill at 10 AM on Monday, and since I'm near-by, I think I'll try and be in attendance as well (with Laptop in hand because the Scrutinizer is addicted to his Level 2 market data). But it will be interesting to see if any Senators step out to speak with the demonstrators, and how the FDA will respond to future calls from Senators asking:
"If this drug has been unanimously deemed safe, and 75% of you deemed it effective, why are you holding up approving it? Get off your butts and approve the drug NOW!!! I have constituents WHO VOTE and I don't want them to die before the next election!!.."
That's how politics work.
This could get interesting...
ProvengeNow assembly on the Upper Senate Park on Capital Hill
ProvengeNow's mission statement
Now one more point. DNDN has been "flying solo" throughout this development process, apparently not being willing to partner with a big pharmaceutical. There has been some rumours flying through the CBOE in Chicago (where coincidentally the ASCO convention is occuring this weekend) that DNDN will arrive at a partnering agreement in order to ensure they have the political clout to get their drug onto the market first. Some shareholders have mentioned that DNDN fired their marketing staff recently as a cost-saving measure, presumably because they would not rely upon their partner firm to market and distribute the drug. If this is the case, presumably it could prove to be a tremendous driver for the stock price and the shorts will find themselves facing a problem.
In sum, owning DNDN is a high risk venture that could provide massive returns, or (at these current valuations) some time spent in Cramer's "House of Pain". But again, looking at the charts, I'm wagering I'll be hearing that sultry voice telling me I'm in the "House of Pleasure" sometime in coming weeks.
The Scrutinizer
Here's a link to the CNBC interview with Dr. Gold, DNDN CEO back in March when the FDA panel recommended approval for Provenge:
March, 2007 interview on CNBC with DNDN CEO
DNDN short interest as of May 15
The company has completed Phase III testing on its Immunotherapeutic drug for Prostrate Cancer, Provenge and has received "fast track" authority for final approval. And what is more interesting is that it's the first cancer drug that is designed to assist the bodies own immune response to target the cancer cells, rather than typical chemo-therapy that uses chemicals to destroy the cancer (and generally winds up killing other healthy cells and weakening the immune system as a result). So we're talking about some innovative bio-technology here that could have a huge impact on fighting not only prostrate cancer, but other forms as well.
But what is the company's stock worth, should their drug be approved by the FDA?:
DNDN value analysis
This gentleman from the "Seeking Alpha" website suggests that there are signs of major "corruption" within the FDA advisory panel that has been delaying approval of Provenge and this makes sense to me:
Seeking Alpha's comments on DNDN and FDA
So we're engaged in some serious market valuation "Hardball" and both the shorts and longs are lining up for a market "brawl" in coming weeks. This is going to be an interesting week to observe in the stock.
I posted this commentary on the DNDN Yahoo discussion thread yesterday and I still stand by my comments:
My Yahoo comments
But what are the charts telling us about investor psychology in the shares?:
Daily Bigchart for DNDN
But even more telling is the weekly chart:
DNDN Weekly Bigchart
Now if you'll note on that weekly chart, everytime the weekly Stochastic has turned upward, it has led to major gains in the share price. Hence, my decision to speculate on having a chance to participate in a second run-up (having missed the first one .. sigh). There's just that much money at stake that it's hard to discern what the true valuation of this stock should be based upon the potential of the drug.
But what is the status of Provenge? Is it safe? Is it effective? Well, the FDA has ALREADY ruled that Provenge is safe by a UNANIMOUS vote of 17-0, so what's the problem with approving it?
FDA minutes from March meeting of advisory council:
FDA Advisory Council minutes discussing Provenge..
Pg. 370 is where they discuss effectiveness and the controversial NO votes were cast by 3 out of 4 panel members who have a conflict of interest and had to be granted waivers
And did Dr. Scher, one of the "Nays" on the FDA advisory committee, lie about his conflict of interest, for which he had to receive a waiver to be on that FDA advisory committee? The member who went to the extraordinary measures of actually writing a letter warning against approving Provenge, here is a list of his UNDISCLOSED conflicts of interest that should have been sufficient to deny his eligibility for being on that that committee to begin with? Decide for yourself:
Dr. Scher is on the Science Advisory Board of an investment fund with over $900 million under management. Why wasn't this disclosed on his COI waiver? And why wasn't it disclosed that Novecea is one of those portfolio companies? Fine, if he had disclosed this, then it could have been adjudicated. But it NEVER came up in the COI waiver letter.
Dr. Scher on Science Advisory board of investment fund
Summation of Dr. Scher's undisclosed Conflict of Interest
FDA confirms safety of Provenge
And read this logically based letter from another DNDN shareholder, to the FDA:
Open Letter from DNDN shareholder to FDA
I can't find any fault with the logic the author displays. Clearly the drug is efficacious because 34% of the patients who took Provenge are still alive, as compared to only 11% who took the placebo. And the FDA advisory committed UNANIMOUSLY agreed that Provenge is safe, so what's the problem with temporary approval of the drug, pending final results of the IMPACT study? If it's safe, let THE PATIENT make the choice of taking it or not.. If anything, it provides HOPE...
And what's even more interesting, and something that will likely receive some news coverage on Monday, is that a Cancer patients have spontaneously banded together to lobby congress to have the FDA approve the drug NOW, and not wait. That's unheard of, from my past experience. The group, ProvengeNow will be assembling on Capital Hill at 10 AM on Monday, and since I'm near-by, I think I'll try and be in attendance as well (with Laptop in hand because the Scrutinizer is addicted to his Level 2 market data). But it will be interesting to see if any Senators step out to speak with the demonstrators, and how the FDA will respond to future calls from Senators asking:
"If this drug has been unanimously deemed safe, and 75% of you deemed it effective, why are you holding up approving it? Get off your butts and approve the drug NOW!!! I have constituents WHO VOTE and I don't want them to die before the next election!!.."
That's how politics work.
This could get interesting...
ProvengeNow assembly on the Upper Senate Park on Capital Hill
ProvengeNow's mission statement
Now one more point. DNDN has been "flying solo" throughout this development process, apparently not being willing to partner with a big pharmaceutical. There has been some rumours flying through the CBOE in Chicago (where coincidentally the ASCO convention is occuring this weekend) that DNDN will arrive at a partnering agreement in order to ensure they have the political clout to get their drug onto the market first. Some shareholders have mentioned that DNDN fired their marketing staff recently as a cost-saving measure, presumably because they would not rely upon their partner firm to market and distribute the drug. If this is the case, presumably it could prove to be a tremendous driver for the stock price and the shorts will find themselves facing a problem.
In sum, owning DNDN is a high risk venture that could provide massive returns, or (at these current valuations) some time spent in Cramer's "House of Pain". But again, looking at the charts, I'm wagering I'll be hearing that sultry voice telling me I'm in the "House of Pleasure" sometime in coming weeks.
The Scrutinizer
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The little company that might "own" the CDN and Music Streaming market.
There's this little company that's been struggling to get some respect in the VOD and Real Time Operating System markets. It's called Concurrent Computers (Nasdaq: CCUR). A few years back they purchased this company by the name of Everstream which specializes is audience tracking analytics for the cable industry (think automated Nielsen's Rating for on-demand content) that could assist advertisers to better target their audience for specific ad content.
Now, everyone has thought about CCUR as a VOD play.. they claim to have set the standard for VOD servers that the major cable companies will require for meeting the growing demand for VOD content. But for whatever reason, they haven't yet received much respect from the market place (probably due to the fact that they've had difficulty achieving profitability while they been restructuring and improving their product line).
Well, the old Scrutinizer must admit that he's been a "bag-holder" in this stock for almost a year now, with most of my shares under $2/share in price. I've just been laying in wait for the moment when the hidden value of this company would be recognized. I'm a firm believer that VOD, and all the advertising opportunities involved, will be the next major driver for advancing the internet (anyone remember the internet bubble back in 2000? I don't think you've seen anything yet).
Well, back to the story... It would seem that Everstream holds a series of extensive patents that pertain to both CDN and Music Streaming market places that date back to 1996, before any of these current CDN and music streaming players were even around. And furthermore, it would seem that CCUR and Everstream's lawyers believe that the BIG BOYS in the CDN field might just be violating most of them. But instead of calling in the "legal eagles" to form a IP posse (remember these guys are still a small fish in a big sea), they've opted to hold a strategic auction for these patents, with the provision that CCUR receives a license back to use them.
Read all about it here:
Concurrent Computers looks to auction off critical CDN and Music streaming patents
AND A MUST READ!!! Light Reading article related to CCUR's patents.
And view the company's recent presentation for FBR Capital Markets today:
CCUR presentation
Now what are these patents? Well.. take a look for yourself and decide if companies like AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, AKAM, INAP, and many others, might just be violating them. And while you're reviewing them, think about how much they might be worth to one of those 800 pound gorillas in the targeted ad market who is trying to lock in their "turf". I mean.. not only secure their turf, but force their competitors to license the patents from THEM!!
How humbling would that be?
So here are the patents.. You decide for yourself:
Programmed music on demand from the internet
Programmed music on demand from the internet #2
Method and system for using a communication network to supply targeted streaming advertising in interactive media
As a final note, some folks might recall that MSFT recently issued a statement that Linux providers might be violating over 230 patents held by Bill Gate's "Evil Empire". That's sent shivers (and outrage) through the Linux markets)...
Now just think what Billy "The Borg" Gates might be willing to pay for the ability to lock up music streaming and CDN delivering?
Hmmmm....
And if you still can't understand the significance of IP protections (read $$$$$$$!!!) for these markets, think about this.. MSFT recently paid $6 Billion for AdQuantive just so they could set themselves up to compete against GOOG pending acquisition of Double-Click. They both just bought themselves some "money trees", and both are looking to start plucking those $$$ bills and stuffing them into their pockets..
Were they smart buys?
Analysis of CND potential market
But one problem.. Those "money trees" happen to be growing on (Patented) land that Everstream holds the "deed" to. They staked a claim to that territory back in 1996, long before GOOG, or AdQuantive existed.
Now, if you're going to pay that kind of "bling" for CDN "Money Trees", how much are you going to be willing to pay for the deed and title to the land they are growing on? How much would you pay for patents on Music streaming?
And how much would you pay just to keep your most ferocious competitors from getting the deed to that land and taking a percentage from every dollar you pluck from your tree? Even if you think you can contest the deed, wouldn't it make sense to fork out some cash to improve your case in IP court?
Something to REALLY think about.. and given how the shares are responding over the past couple of days, I think some other folks are thinking about it too..
The Scrutinizer
There's this little company that's been struggling to get some respect in the VOD and Real Time Operating System markets. It's called Concurrent Computers (Nasdaq: CCUR). A few years back they purchased this company by the name of Everstream which specializes is audience tracking analytics for the cable industry (think automated Nielsen's Rating for on-demand content) that could assist advertisers to better target their audience for specific ad content.
Now, everyone has thought about CCUR as a VOD play.. they claim to have set the standard for VOD servers that the major cable companies will require for meeting the growing demand for VOD content. But for whatever reason, they haven't yet received much respect from the market place (probably due to the fact that they've had difficulty achieving profitability while they been restructuring and improving their product line).
Well, the old Scrutinizer must admit that he's been a "bag-holder" in this stock for almost a year now, with most of my shares under $2/share in price. I've just been laying in wait for the moment when the hidden value of this company would be recognized. I'm a firm believer that VOD, and all the advertising opportunities involved, will be the next major driver for advancing the internet (anyone remember the internet bubble back in 2000? I don't think you've seen anything yet).
Well, back to the story... It would seem that Everstream holds a series of extensive patents that pertain to both CDN and Music Streaming market places that date back to 1996, before any of these current CDN and music streaming players were even around. And furthermore, it would seem that CCUR and Everstream's lawyers believe that the BIG BOYS in the CDN field might just be violating most of them. But instead of calling in the "legal eagles" to form a IP posse (remember these guys are still a small fish in a big sea), they've opted to hold a strategic auction for these patents, with the provision that CCUR receives a license back to use them.
Read all about it here:
Concurrent Computers looks to auction off critical CDN and Music streaming patents
AND A MUST READ!!! Light Reading article related to CCUR's patents.
And view the company's recent presentation for FBR Capital Markets today:
CCUR presentation
Now what are these patents? Well.. take a look for yourself and decide if companies like AAPL, GOOG, MSFT, AKAM, INAP, and many others, might just be violating them. And while you're reviewing them, think about how much they might be worth to one of those 800 pound gorillas in the targeted ad market who is trying to lock in their "turf". I mean.. not only secure their turf, but force their competitors to license the patents from THEM!!
How humbling would that be?
So here are the patents.. You decide for yourself:
Programmed music on demand from the internet
Programmed music on demand from the internet #2
Method and system for using a communication network to supply targeted streaming advertising in interactive media
As a final note, some folks might recall that MSFT recently issued a statement that Linux providers might be violating over 230 patents held by Bill Gate's "Evil Empire". That's sent shivers (and outrage) through the Linux markets)...
Now just think what Billy "The Borg" Gates might be willing to pay for the ability to lock up music streaming and CDN delivering?
Hmmmm....
And if you still can't understand the significance of IP protections (read $$$$$$$!!!) for these markets, think about this.. MSFT recently paid $6 Billion for AdQuantive just so they could set themselves up to compete against GOOG pending acquisition of Double-Click. They both just bought themselves some "money trees", and both are looking to start plucking those $$$ bills and stuffing them into their pockets..
Were they smart buys?
Analysis of CND potential market
But one problem.. Those "money trees" happen to be growing on (Patented) land that Everstream holds the "deed" to. They staked a claim to that territory back in 1996, long before GOOG, or AdQuantive existed.
Now, if you're going to pay that kind of "bling" for CDN "Money Trees", how much are you going to be willing to pay for the deed and title to the land they are growing on? How much would you pay for patents on Music streaming?
And how much would you pay just to keep your most ferocious competitors from getting the deed to that land and taking a percentage from every dollar you pluck from your tree? Even if you think you can contest the deed, wouldn't it make sense to fork out some cash to improve your case in IP court?
Something to REALLY think about.. and given how the shares are responding over the past couple of days, I think some other folks are thinking about it too..
The Scrutinizer
Ray Robinson has an article on American Thinker that I think is of importance:
Al Qai'da fracturing?
And if one reflects upon the recent article where we're seeing some of the most prominent leaders of Egyptian Jihadist groups speaking out against Al Qai'da, it seems to indicate that the strategy of putting Al Qai'da in the position of having to deliberately target fellow muslims with terrorist attacks has ellicited the desired result.
It's one thing for the "Arab street" to applaud, condone, or simply remain indifferent to attacks against infidel "Ferengi" (Persian word "Faranji" for foreigner), but when those attacks are conducted against other Muslims, then they are directly challenging the Fatwas of the existing Islamic scholarly hierarchy. And Egypt is the leading center for Sunni Islamic thought and the Grand Imam and the Grand Mufti of Egypt have taken public stances against violent Jihad, and especially Jihad that targets other muslims.
Egytian militant leaders denouncing violent Jihad
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that this trend will continue. Because, ultimately, it is up to the practioners of Islam to determine how it will interface with the rest of the world.
The Scrutinizer
Al Qai'da fracturing?
And if one reflects upon the recent article where we're seeing some of the most prominent leaders of Egyptian Jihadist groups speaking out against Al Qai'da, it seems to indicate that the strategy of putting Al Qai'da in the position of having to deliberately target fellow muslims with terrorist attacks has ellicited the desired result.
It's one thing for the "Arab street" to applaud, condone, or simply remain indifferent to attacks against infidel "Ferengi" (Persian word "Faranji" for foreigner), but when those attacks are conducted against other Muslims, then they are directly challenging the Fatwas of the existing Islamic scholarly hierarchy. And Egypt is the leading center for Sunni Islamic thought and the Grand Imam and the Grand Mufti of Egypt have taken public stances against violent Jihad, and especially Jihad that targets other muslims.
Egytian militant leaders denouncing violent Jihad
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that this trend will continue. Because, ultimately, it is up to the practioners of Islam to determine how it will interface with the rest of the world.
The Scrutinizer
Bought some DNDN today around $10 on news the FDA will not require 3 years of additional testing, but merely "further information"
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070531/aqth093.html?.v=6
The great financial website "Seeking Alpha" has been strongly questioning the practices of the FDA panel that sought to exclude Provenge from being considered..
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070529/36622_id.html?.v=1
DNDN's recent high was $25 and had plummeted to mid-single digits. On release of the news this morning, the stock had rocketed up 60% to 13 (resistance level). Missed that first move up there (that was something to behold on Level 2), but decided to buy back in at $10/share. I believe it will attempt to hold here and maybe attempt to retest $11-12/share short term.
And btw, the short position against DNDN equates to 41% of the trading float. That's a HUGE short position that someone has to cover.
Also, I bought QTWW on news that Force Protection, INC (FRPT: Nasdaq) has contracted with QTWW to build a replacement for the HUMMV (HUMMER to you civies.. ;0) FPRT has been one of the hot performers over the past year on their series of mine-resistant vehicles and given the fact that DOD will likely be replacing, and not refurbishing, existing equipment, both companies stand to do well.
The weekly chart just looks REALLY EXCITING on QTWW and combined with the fact that 7% of the stock is short, the shares could see significant upside in coming days:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070531/lath009.html?.v=101
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/frames/frames.asp?symb=QTWW&freq=2&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&comp=&ma=4&maval=13%2C%2B22%2C%2B50&uf=8&lf=268435456&type=4&time=9&style=320&startdate=&enddate=&size=4&lf2=32&lf3=4
(Note: See that Bollinger Band "pinch" forming on the weekly chart?
The Scrutinizer
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070531/aqth093.html?.v=6
The great financial website "Seeking Alpha" has been strongly questioning the practices of the FDA panel that sought to exclude Provenge from being considered..
http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070529/36622_id.html?.v=1
DNDN's recent high was $25 and had plummeted to mid-single digits. On release of the news this morning, the stock had rocketed up 60% to 13 (resistance level). Missed that first move up there (that was something to behold on Level 2), but decided to buy back in at $10/share. I believe it will attempt to hold here and maybe attempt to retest $11-12/share short term.
And btw, the short position against DNDN equates to 41% of the trading float. That's a HUGE short position that someone has to cover.
Also, I bought QTWW on news that Force Protection, INC (FRPT: Nasdaq) has contracted with QTWW to build a replacement for the HUMMV (HUMMER to you civies.. ;0) FPRT has been one of the hot performers over the past year on their series of mine-resistant vehicles and given the fact that DOD will likely be replacing, and not refurbishing, existing equipment, both companies stand to do well.
The weekly chart just looks REALLY EXCITING on QTWW and combined with the fact that 7% of the stock is short, the shares could see significant upside in coming days:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070531/lath009.html?.v=101
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/frames/frames.asp?symb=QTWW&freq=2&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&comp=&ma=4&maval=13%2C%2B22%2C%2B50&uf=8&lf=268435456&type=4&time=9&style=320&startdate=&enddate=&size=4&lf2=32&lf3=4
(Note: See that Bollinger Band "pinch" forming on the weekly chart?
The Scrutinizer
Thursday, May 17, 2007
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
A thought provoking article related to how the recent craze for developing ethanol alternatives to gasoline places undo pressure on global foodstocks.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305-p0/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html
Commentary:
Although there is no doubt that ethanol is a viable alternative to gasoline, it is not the panacea that some folks would have you believe. For one thing, you can not co-mingle ethanol and petroleum within the existing petroleum distribution network. Ethanol is corrosive, and leads to pipeline degradation. Thus, it will require a massive secondary distribution network to provide supply to service stations. That's expensive.
As of now, ethanol is distributed by tanker truck and the "Bulk Transporter" website states that demand for tankers to carry ethanol has been robust:
http://bulktransporter.com/management/trends/economy_flattens_tank_fleets_rolling/
Additionally, ethanol contains fewer BTU/gal than gasoline, meaning you require more of it to perform the same amount of work (that's lower MPG for the laymen commuters out there)
So, why are we so intent on pushing the ethanol alternative? Votes, my friend.. Votes. Someone has to grow the sugar-rich crops used for making ethanol. And ethanol stands to make the nation's farmers very happy, and prosperous, indeed.
But is there an alternative to ethanol? An alternative that possesses comparable BTU/gal energy, can be transported in the existing petroleum supply network, and can be co-mingled easily with petroleum derived fuels?
Yes.. It's called bio-diesel. Some people also call it vegetable oil, peanut oil.. ;0)
But wait Scrutinizer!! Won't that just cause the price of my favorite jar of Skippy (I'm a JIF man myself) to go through the roof? Will my local pub stop giving away peanuts for free while I'm enjoying my brewskie? God forbid!!
But if you click on the link to the left, Oilgae, you'll find your answer. A potentially unlimited source of bio-diesel that does NOT impact the current food chain. A source of fuel that not only can operate diesel motor vehicles (with almost no modification required), but can also be used as winter fuel oil (I'll get to the importance of this in a second).
Here's a useful link I've often referenced in the past:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now, I know we all love our gasoline power vehicles.. And boy.. those diesels are dirty and noisy.. But is this really the case? Has the technology advanced sufficiently to give diesels the kind of responsiveness we expect from gas powered engines?
Furthermore, as I mentioned it before, another plus factor is that diesel engine's disadvantages in terms of output and noise have been largely overcome, with the latest diesels offering a performance not markedly different from that of gasoline engines in this respect.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/randd/project2/03.html
The whole argument for bio-fuels lies in the belief that they are "carbon neutral". In other words, they maintain the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been sequestered for eons in the form of petroleum far underground. Since plants take in CO2 for transpiration (making food), and releasing, any CO2 that would be released by converting them to bio-fuels would maintain the CO2 balance.
Now, the Scrutinizer is not convinced of the "inconvenient truth" of global climate change due to CO2 increases. There are far more powerful greenhouse gases lurking out there, including Methane (up to 23x more potent than CO2) and common water vapor (think sauna). But who am I to argue with the these folks if it serves the purpose of making this country more energy independent and less dependent upon whacko suppliers in Venezuela and the Mid-East?
Furthermore, CO2 increases are a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. And it's quite possible that there exist other factors that are responsible for higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, including natural emissions (volcanic), deforestation, and changes within the oceans that decrease it's ability to sequester CO2 (lack of phytoplankton) which I might discuss in a future posting.
But there is one compelling argument for bio-diesels that directly impact each of our pocketbooks. We're all suffering under the recent soaring prices for gasoline in recent months. The primaries reasons for this are limited refining capacity within the US, as well as increasing global demand for refined petroleum products in China and other countries. All petroleum is a fungible international market and the price for fuels and crude oil is set on an international level (modified by currency exchange ratios as with the recent weakness in the US Dollar).
But the most severe impact on the price of gasoline is the limited refining capacity. Refineries have two primary markets they serve throughout the year. During the summer driving season, refineries emphasize the production of gasoline, while during the winter, they focus upon refining heating oil (diesel). In between these seasons, refineries are required to shut down operations in order to facilitate the processing changes required for switching between these two fuel. This normally occurs during the late winter, and early spring, depending upon the amount of reserve fuel in above ground storage as well as demand (harsh winters draw down available diesel stocks). And since there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in 30 years, we're seeing a choke point in the production of refined fuels.
But were we to rely upon bio-diesels to provide the bulk of that winter demand, then refineries would not be required to switch to meet the demands of the two different markets. They could focus on producing gasoline, and eventually, be rendered obsolete as the majority of vehicles are converted to bio-diesel.
In sum, switching the American economy to an alternative fuel is a major undertaking and will create economic distortions. In order to decrease any negative impacts that might lead to the inflation of agricultural products, we must think carefully about the direction we wish to go with regard to replacing fossil fuel based energy. Thus, my preference is for bio-diesel (as well as hydrogen and electric). Ethanol is far too valuable for it's medicinal purposes (mixed with my favorite fruit based mixer) to be burned in an engine.
The Scrutinizer
A thought provoking article related to how the recent craze for developing ethanol alternatives to gasoline places undo pressure on global foodstocks.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305-p0/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html
Commentary:
Although there is no doubt that ethanol is a viable alternative to gasoline, it is not the panacea that some folks would have you believe. For one thing, you can not co-mingle ethanol and petroleum within the existing petroleum distribution network. Ethanol is corrosive, and leads to pipeline degradation. Thus, it will require a massive secondary distribution network to provide supply to service stations. That's expensive.
As of now, ethanol is distributed by tanker truck and the "Bulk Transporter" website states that demand for tankers to carry ethanol has been robust:
http://bulktransporter.com/management/trends/economy_flattens_tank_fleets_rolling/
Additionally, ethanol contains fewer BTU/gal than gasoline, meaning you require more of it to perform the same amount of work (that's lower MPG for the laymen commuters out there)
So, why are we so intent on pushing the ethanol alternative? Votes, my friend.. Votes. Someone has to grow the sugar-rich crops used for making ethanol. And ethanol stands to make the nation's farmers very happy, and prosperous, indeed.
But is there an alternative to ethanol? An alternative that possesses comparable BTU/gal energy, can be transported in the existing petroleum supply network, and can be co-mingled easily with petroleum derived fuels?
Yes.. It's called bio-diesel. Some people also call it vegetable oil, peanut oil.. ;0)
But wait Scrutinizer!! Won't that just cause the price of my favorite jar of Skippy (I'm a JIF man myself) to go through the roof? Will my local pub stop giving away peanuts for free while I'm enjoying my brewskie? God forbid!!
But if you click on the link to the left, Oilgae, you'll find your answer. A potentially unlimited source of bio-diesel that does NOT impact the current food chain. A source of fuel that not only can operate diesel motor vehicles (with almost no modification required), but can also be used as winter fuel oil (I'll get to the importance of this in a second).
Here's a useful link I've often referenced in the past:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Now, I know we all love our gasoline power vehicles.. And boy.. those diesels are dirty and noisy.. But is this really the case? Has the technology advanced sufficiently to give diesels the kind of responsiveness we expect from gas powered engines?
Furthermore, as I mentioned it before, another plus factor is that diesel engine's disadvantages in terms of output and noise have been largely overcome, with the latest diesels offering a performance not markedly different from that of gasoline engines in this respect.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/randd/project2/03.html
The whole argument for bio-fuels lies in the belief that they are "carbon neutral". In other words, they maintain the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been sequestered for eons in the form of petroleum far underground. Since plants take in CO2 for transpiration (making food), and releasing, any CO2 that would be released by converting them to bio-fuels would maintain the CO2 balance.
Now, the Scrutinizer is not convinced of the "inconvenient truth" of global climate change due to CO2 increases. There are far more powerful greenhouse gases lurking out there, including Methane (up to 23x more potent than CO2) and common water vapor (think sauna). But who am I to argue with the these folks if it serves the purpose of making this country more energy independent and less dependent upon whacko suppliers in Venezuela and the Mid-East?
Furthermore, CO2 increases are a trailing indicator of global warming, not a leading indicator. And it's quite possible that there exist other factors that are responsible for higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, including natural emissions (volcanic), deforestation, and changes within the oceans that decrease it's ability to sequester CO2 (lack of phytoplankton) which I might discuss in a future posting.
But there is one compelling argument for bio-diesels that directly impact each of our pocketbooks. We're all suffering under the recent soaring prices for gasoline in recent months. The primaries reasons for this are limited refining capacity within the US, as well as increasing global demand for refined petroleum products in China and other countries. All petroleum is a fungible international market and the price for fuels and crude oil is set on an international level (modified by currency exchange ratios as with the recent weakness in the US Dollar).
But the most severe impact on the price of gasoline is the limited refining capacity. Refineries have two primary markets they serve throughout the year. During the summer driving season, refineries emphasize the production of gasoline, while during the winter, they focus upon refining heating oil (diesel). In between these seasons, refineries are required to shut down operations in order to facilitate the processing changes required for switching between these two fuel. This normally occurs during the late winter, and early spring, depending upon the amount of reserve fuel in above ground storage as well as demand (harsh winters draw down available diesel stocks). And since there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in 30 years, we're seeing a choke point in the production of refined fuels.
But were we to rely upon bio-diesels to provide the bulk of that winter demand, then refineries would not be required to switch to meet the demands of the two different markets. They could focus on producing gasoline, and eventually, be rendered obsolete as the majority of vehicles are converted to bio-diesel.
In sum, switching the American economy to an alternative fuel is a major undertaking and will create economic distortions. In order to decrease any negative impacts that might lead to the inflation of agricultural products, we must think carefully about the direction we wish to go with regard to replacing fossil fuel based energy. Thus, my preference is for bio-diesel (as well as hydrogen and electric). Ethanol is far too valuable for it's medicinal purposes (mixed with my favorite fruit based mixer) to be burned in an engine.
The Scrutinizer
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Did Saddam declare war on the US in 1993?
We've all heard the anti-war pundits tell us that there was no evidence that Saddam was supporting Al Qai'da, or the Jihadist movement, in general. They assert that Saddam was a secular ruler, and thus, the sword enemy of militant Islam. But if this is the case, then why was it that we discovered hundreds of suicide vests at Salman Pak, the camp that US intelligence asserted was a training ground for various terrorist groups?:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDJkNDdkMjhjZjI1MWNjYTgyMDc0MmRjMmYzYjQyZGQ=
Exactly which secular Arab terrorist groups commit ritual suicide bombings? Please name a few examples for me (and don't say the LTTE in Sri Lanka.. they aren't muslim).
Were they to be used against the Israelis? Quite possibly. But then again, I have to ask what is the ideological nature of those suicide bombers who have blown themselves up in Israel? I don't personally recall many bombers blowing themselves up in the name of Ba'thism.
And here's one of my favorite little tidbits of information which has been generally ignored by the MSM. It consists of a number of documents recovered by coalition forces after Saddam's overthrow. They date from 1993, prior to the actual creation of Al Qai'da (which was a merger between Bin Ladin's group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman Al-Zawahiri) in 1995.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
Each of the documents is a copy of the original, with the english translation provided in the small .pdf button above it.
Here's a link to Page 1, a memo from Saddam's desk, dated January 13th, 1993, directing that actions be taken against Americans, especially those operating in Somalia (remember "Blackhawk Down"?). The order precedes the Battle of Mogadishu that led to the deaths of 19 US Army Rangers in Oct, 1993.
You can ask yourself if Saddam's Intelligence operatives played a role in this, or not:
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/exclusive1.asp
English translation for Saddam's order:
http://www.cnsnews.com/PDF/2004/enPage1.pdf
(note: bear in mind that many of the translators we hired for document exploitation (DOCEX) were not the best english speakers, thus the poor grammar and spelling. But in other cases the translations are verbatim.. the Ba'thist leadership was notoriously illiterate).
Now maybe the old Scrutinizer may be a "hawk", but it sure sounds like Saddam was declaring war upon the US by issuing the order to "hunt Americans". And if this isn't tantamount to a declaration of war against the US, then please tell me how you would define it? At the very least, was a direct violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire (UNSC 687) ending Operation: Desert Storm. In that cease fire agreement, Saddam agreed to CEASE all cooperation with terrorist groups.
So, the next time someone tells you that Saddam was not a clear and present danger to Americans, print out these documents and show them to them. Here was a guy who was authorizing his intelligence service to interact with the likes of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, one of the primary groups that later formed Al Qai'da and attempted to kill 50,000+ Americans on 9/11 (the number of people who normally worked in the WTC on a daily basis). And although there is little publicly available information as to the extent of the ties that developed after Saddam's 1993 order, it's pretty clear he had no problem coordinating his agenda with Muslim extremists when it suited his interests.
And while you're at it, ask yourself (or your congressional representative) why this administration has been negligent in its obligation to inform the American people as to the nature of the threat that dragged our country into overthrowing Saddam. There had been an effort to publicly release all of the captured Iraqi documents in order to enlist the assistance of academics and native speakers to assist the DOCEX operation. However, that all came to a halt last year when some VERY SENSITIVE untranslated documents related to nuclear triggers found their way into the public realm. Documents that, under the terms of the cease-fire, Saddam's regime should have turned over to UNSCOM back in 1991.
Hmmm....
Btw, there are literally MILLIONS of these types of documents we managed to recover in Iraq. The Iraqi's, like most totalitarian states (remember the Stasi files from E. Germany?), were pretty good record keepers. It made sure that everyone in his corrupt regime was accountable to Saddam and had no excuse for not following his orders. Of course, not all related to the operations of Iraqi intelligence, but suffice it say that we've still only scratched the surface in translating a fraction of them. Simply put, when the Iraq Survey Group, funded by executive order, closed down in April, 2005, no other agency wanted to allocate more than a token budget to keep the Document Exploitation efforts open. Had it not been for the thousands of boxes of Iraqi documents sitting in warehouses waiting for translation, I'm sure the entire operation would have been defunded.
As far as I know, there is only a token "DOCEX" operation still in place, and it could prove to be 5-10 years before we ever know the full truth regarding what else Saddam and his cronies were up to.
The Scrutinizer
We've all heard the anti-war pundits tell us that there was no evidence that Saddam was supporting Al Qai'da, or the Jihadist movement, in general. They assert that Saddam was a secular ruler, and thus, the sword enemy of militant Islam. But if this is the case, then why was it that we discovered hundreds of suicide vests at Salman Pak, the camp that US intelligence asserted was a training ground for various terrorist groups?:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDJkNDdkMjhjZjI1MWNjYTgyMDc0MmRjMmYzYjQyZGQ=
Exactly which secular Arab terrorist groups commit ritual suicide bombings? Please name a few examples for me (and don't say the LTTE in Sri Lanka.. they aren't muslim).
Were they to be used against the Israelis? Quite possibly. But then again, I have to ask what is the ideological nature of those suicide bombers who have blown themselves up in Israel? I don't personally recall many bombers blowing themselves up in the name of Ba'thism.
And here's one of my favorite little tidbits of information which has been generally ignored by the MSM. It consists of a number of documents recovered by coalition forces after Saddam's overthrow. They date from 1993, prior to the actual creation of Al Qai'da (which was a merger between Bin Ladin's group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman Al-Zawahiri) in 1995.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
Each of the documents is a copy of the original, with the english translation provided in the small .pdf button above it.
Here's a link to Page 1, a memo from Saddam's desk, dated January 13th, 1993, directing that actions be taken against Americans, especially those operating in Somalia (remember "Blackhawk Down"?). The order precedes the Battle of Mogadishu that led to the deaths of 19 US Army Rangers in Oct, 1993.
You can ask yourself if Saddam's Intelligence operatives played a role in this, or not:
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/exclusive1.asp
English translation for Saddam's order:
http://www.cnsnews.com/PDF/2004/enPage1.pdf
(note: bear in mind that many of the translators we hired for document exploitation (DOCEX) were not the best english speakers, thus the poor grammar and spelling. But in other cases the translations are verbatim.. the Ba'thist leadership was notoriously illiterate).
Now maybe the old Scrutinizer may be a "hawk", but it sure sounds like Saddam was declaring war upon the US by issuing the order to "hunt Americans". And if this isn't tantamount to a declaration of war against the US, then please tell me how you would define it? At the very least, was a direct violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire (UNSC 687) ending Operation: Desert Storm. In that cease fire agreement, Saddam agreed to CEASE all cooperation with terrorist groups.
So, the next time someone tells you that Saddam was not a clear and present danger to Americans, print out these documents and show them to them. Here was a guy who was authorizing his intelligence service to interact with the likes of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, one of the primary groups that later formed Al Qai'da and attempted to kill 50,000+ Americans on 9/11 (the number of people who normally worked in the WTC on a daily basis). And although there is little publicly available information as to the extent of the ties that developed after Saddam's 1993 order, it's pretty clear he had no problem coordinating his agenda with Muslim extremists when it suited his interests.
And while you're at it, ask yourself (or your congressional representative) why this administration has been negligent in its obligation to inform the American people as to the nature of the threat that dragged our country into overthrowing Saddam. There had been an effort to publicly release all of the captured Iraqi documents in order to enlist the assistance of academics and native speakers to assist the DOCEX operation. However, that all came to a halt last year when some VERY SENSITIVE untranslated documents related to nuclear triggers found their way into the public realm. Documents that, under the terms of the cease-fire, Saddam's regime should have turned over to UNSCOM back in 1991.
Hmmm....
Btw, there are literally MILLIONS of these types of documents we managed to recover in Iraq. The Iraqi's, like most totalitarian states (remember the Stasi files from E. Germany?), were pretty good record keepers. It made sure that everyone in his corrupt regime was accountable to Saddam and had no excuse for not following his orders. Of course, not all related to the operations of Iraqi intelligence, but suffice it say that we've still only scratched the surface in translating a fraction of them. Simply put, when the Iraq Survey Group, funded by executive order, closed down in April, 2005, no other agency wanted to allocate more than a token budget to keep the Document Exploitation efforts open. Had it not been for the thousands of boxes of Iraqi documents sitting in warehouses waiting for translation, I'm sure the entire operation would have been defunded.
As far as I know, there is only a token "DOCEX" operation still in place, and it could prove to be 5-10 years before we ever know the full truth regarding what else Saddam and his cronies were up to.
The Scrutinizer
Will the internet slay Islam?
Thought provoking article on the Global Politician website.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2817&cid=2&sid=2
Commentary:
While I hopefully don't have the apparent bias against Islam as the author, I do find it interesting to contemplate if the advent of information on the internet regarding contradictions and "uncomfortable truths" lurking within Islam might not cause more muslims to become militant in the defense of their faith. The human psyche has an enormous capacity for cognitive dissonance and justification of contradictions within their faith.
I can look at almost ANY religion and find contradictions and misinterpretations, to include christianity (whether catholic or protestant). Islam is no different. For what is a religion except mankind attempting to manifest its various perceptions of the spiritual "will of god"into their daily lives? And interpretations are almost always subjective, with more emphasis placed upon certain beliefs than upon others. In protestantism, for example, some faiths emphasize the "gifts of the holy spirit" (such as the speaking of tongues), over others (like the gift of healing). Some interpretations accept that alcohol, drunken in moderation, is acceptable (take a little wine for thy stomach's sake), which others strictly forbid it's consumption to the point that they use grape juice for their sacrament ceremonies.
Through the ages the teachings of Christ have been warped and defiled by the corrupt desires of the men and women who claim to believe in them. Anyone know the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out". It was first uttered by Arnaud-Amaury at Berziers, where crusaders exterminated the "heretical" sect of Cathars. He was asked by a subordinate how to differetiate a Cathar from other residents in the area, to which he responded, "kill them all, God will know his own". Does that sound any different from the militant rhetoric we're hearing from Al Qai'da and other Jihadist factions? Were some Christian leader to utter such an edict today, he would be immediately denounced and humiliated. Thus, it's evident that Christianity has definitely evolved over the centuries via the process of intellectual "domestication".
And as a whole, today's religious faiths are representative of this evolution. In fact, the whole nature of religion is a history of man's attempts to define his place within the universe. Some have theorized that Judaism has its roots within the teachings of Akhenaten's cult of the sun god in Ancient Egypt, widely recognized as the first monotheistic religion. Christianity, obviously, has its roots within Judaism. And Islam has it's roots within both Judaism and Christianity, with both the old and new testaments accepted (supposedly) as holy writings worthy of being read and studied. However, find a modern muslim Imam, mufti, or ayatollah, who would be willing to publicly proclaim that it's alright to read the bible. And, of course, later religious faiths, such as Mormonism, has its basis in Christianity. And it is worthy to note that both of the latter religions make use of contemporary prophets in order to unveil new "revelations" of god in order to supercede, if not replace, the Bible, proclaiming their new religious texts as the "fulness of the gospel". But I digress.
What we represent as religion today would be almost unrecognizable to the beliefs originally taught because they have had to evolve to incorporate modern intellectual and technological change. Where once Christians wouldn't have thought twice about waging wars, and forcible conversion, in the name of god against heretics and non-christians, today the majority of Christians find the thought of waging "crusade" an antiquated belief, unworthy of the teachings of Christ. They prefer to wage spiritual "battles" for souls, using evangelism and foreign ministries to convert people to their religions.
But Islam is different. Muslim society as yet to fully cast off the belief in their right to wage violent Jihad to forcibly convert the infidel. That's not bias, it's just plain fact that is portrayed to the world in the Muslim proclamations and their media. Islam has stagnated since it Muhammad proclaimed that he held a new revelation from god. It's adherents have failed to submit it's original teachings to serious re-examination as to exactly what God demands from them. And the interpreters of the Q'uran have failed to reconcile why their society has been unable to recognize the fruits of its religious fervor. Islam's defeat at the hands of Charles the Hammer at Poitiers, followed by the crushing defeat at the hands of the Mongol horde, followed by the humiliating eviction of the Moors from the European continent by Ferdinand and Isabella, and ultimately it's defeat under the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna has left its adherents with a serious inferiority complex. And the fall of the Ottoman empire at the hands of the West, and break up of its territorial holdings into a polyglot of arbitrarily defined geographical boundaries is only the latest in that string of humiliations.
And now Islam is facing it's ultimate challenge, an information war where every one of its tenets is being analysed and debated on an international level, via the internet. Thus, maybe, just maybe, the advent of Qutbism (See Sayyid Qutb) which is the basis for moderan Islamic extremism may be argued as a reactionary response to having their beliefs exposed and challenged on a global scale. It only seems logical that as Muslim beliefs, and especially those that justify violence, are revealed, that it's adherents would assume a defensive, if not militant reactionary stance. But the question in my mind is whether there lies the ability for progressive and peaceful change within the soul of Islam that will bring it "up to date"? Can moderate muslims who hold to the perception that Islam is a religion of peace prevail over those who defend their "right" forcibly convert humanity to their religion? Can moderates manage to evolve their religious beliefs to dovetail with modern philosophical thought, namely that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is repugnant and antithetical to the nature of god's will for humanity? That, in my opinion, is a question that we'll have to wait decades before we receive an answer.
What right has any man/woman to believe that they are empowered by God to physically force another human being to adher to their particular religious interpretation? Can anyone logically accept the contention that any Supreme Being would need (or desire) to force people to believe in "him"? I can't. It's the ultimate contradiction that any almighty, all knowing creator of all we know would need to force we puny humans to believe in him. Maybe I'm a fool, but I prefer to believe that God is attempting to throw me a lifeline to save me from the ocean of sins I'm wallowing in, not threatening to make me walk the plank. And what militant religious fanatics are attempting to perpetrate upon humanity is exactly the latter; convert to their faith or walk the plank in order to expedite our trip to hell,... do not pass go, do not collect eternity.
So the challenge for modern muslims is whether they can muster the necessary intestinal fortitude to confront the militants in their midst, and instead, wage a spiritual, but peaceful, war aimed at changing the hearts of humanity to more closely adher to that definition of "paradise" they all seem to claim is awaiting us. And for that matter, the very same thing can be said to apply to those militant Christians who believe they have the god-given right to blow up abortion clinics.
The Scrutinizer
Thought provoking article on the Global Politician website.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2817&cid=2&sid=2
Commentary:
While I hopefully don't have the apparent bias against Islam as the author, I do find it interesting to contemplate if the advent of information on the internet regarding contradictions and "uncomfortable truths" lurking within Islam might not cause more muslims to become militant in the defense of their faith. The human psyche has an enormous capacity for cognitive dissonance and justification of contradictions within their faith.
I can look at almost ANY religion and find contradictions and misinterpretations, to include christianity (whether catholic or protestant). Islam is no different. For what is a religion except mankind attempting to manifest its various perceptions of the spiritual "will of god"into their daily lives? And interpretations are almost always subjective, with more emphasis placed upon certain beliefs than upon others. In protestantism, for example, some faiths emphasize the "gifts of the holy spirit" (such as the speaking of tongues), over others (like the gift of healing). Some interpretations accept that alcohol, drunken in moderation, is acceptable (take a little wine for thy stomach's sake), which others strictly forbid it's consumption to the point that they use grape juice for their sacrament ceremonies.
Through the ages the teachings of Christ have been warped and defiled by the corrupt desires of the men and women who claim to believe in them. Anyone know the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out". It was first uttered by Arnaud-Amaury at Berziers, where crusaders exterminated the "heretical" sect of Cathars. He was asked by a subordinate how to differetiate a Cathar from other residents in the area, to which he responded, "kill them all, God will know his own". Does that sound any different from the militant rhetoric we're hearing from Al Qai'da and other Jihadist factions? Were some Christian leader to utter such an edict today, he would be immediately denounced and humiliated. Thus, it's evident that Christianity has definitely evolved over the centuries via the process of intellectual "domestication".
And as a whole, today's religious faiths are representative of this evolution. In fact, the whole nature of religion is a history of man's attempts to define his place within the universe. Some have theorized that Judaism has its roots within the teachings of Akhenaten's cult of the sun god in Ancient Egypt, widely recognized as the first monotheistic religion. Christianity, obviously, has its roots within Judaism. And Islam has it's roots within both Judaism and Christianity, with both the old and new testaments accepted (supposedly) as holy writings worthy of being read and studied. However, find a modern muslim Imam, mufti, or ayatollah, who would be willing to publicly proclaim that it's alright to read the bible. And, of course, later religious faiths, such as Mormonism, has its basis in Christianity. And it is worthy to note that both of the latter religions make use of contemporary prophets in order to unveil new "revelations" of god in order to supercede, if not replace, the Bible, proclaiming their new religious texts as the "fulness of the gospel". But I digress.
What we represent as religion today would be almost unrecognizable to the beliefs originally taught because they have had to evolve to incorporate modern intellectual and technological change. Where once Christians wouldn't have thought twice about waging wars, and forcible conversion, in the name of god against heretics and non-christians, today the majority of Christians find the thought of waging "crusade" an antiquated belief, unworthy of the teachings of Christ. They prefer to wage spiritual "battles" for souls, using evangelism and foreign ministries to convert people to their religions.
But Islam is different. Muslim society as yet to fully cast off the belief in their right to wage violent Jihad to forcibly convert the infidel. That's not bias, it's just plain fact that is portrayed to the world in the Muslim proclamations and their media. Islam has stagnated since it Muhammad proclaimed that he held a new revelation from god. It's adherents have failed to submit it's original teachings to serious re-examination as to exactly what God demands from them. And the interpreters of the Q'uran have failed to reconcile why their society has been unable to recognize the fruits of its religious fervor. Islam's defeat at the hands of Charles the Hammer at Poitiers, followed by the crushing defeat at the hands of the Mongol horde, followed by the humiliating eviction of the Moors from the European continent by Ferdinand and Isabella, and ultimately it's defeat under the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna has left its adherents with a serious inferiority complex. And the fall of the Ottoman empire at the hands of the West, and break up of its territorial holdings into a polyglot of arbitrarily defined geographical boundaries is only the latest in that string of humiliations.
And now Islam is facing it's ultimate challenge, an information war where every one of its tenets is being analysed and debated on an international level, via the internet. Thus, maybe, just maybe, the advent of Qutbism (See Sayyid Qutb) which is the basis for moderan Islamic extremism may be argued as a reactionary response to having their beliefs exposed and challenged on a global scale. It only seems logical that as Muslim beliefs, and especially those that justify violence, are revealed, that it's adherents would assume a defensive, if not militant reactionary stance. But the question in my mind is whether there lies the ability for progressive and peaceful change within the soul of Islam that will bring it "up to date"? Can moderate muslims who hold to the perception that Islam is a religion of peace prevail over those who defend their "right" forcibly convert humanity to their religion? Can moderates manage to evolve their religious beliefs to dovetail with modern philosophical thought, namely that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is repugnant and antithetical to the nature of god's will for humanity? That, in my opinion, is a question that we'll have to wait decades before we receive an answer.
What right has any man/woman to believe that they are empowered by God to physically force another human being to adher to their particular religious interpretation? Can anyone logically accept the contention that any Supreme Being would need (or desire) to force people to believe in "him"? I can't. It's the ultimate contradiction that any almighty, all knowing creator of all we know would need to force we puny humans to believe in him. Maybe I'm a fool, but I prefer to believe that God is attempting to throw me a lifeline to save me from the ocean of sins I'm wallowing in, not threatening to make me walk the plank. And what militant religious fanatics are attempting to perpetrate upon humanity is exactly the latter; convert to their faith or walk the plank in order to expedite our trip to hell,... do not pass go, do not collect eternity.
So the challenge for modern muslims is whether they can muster the necessary intestinal fortitude to confront the militants in their midst, and instead, wage a spiritual, but peaceful, war aimed at changing the hearts of humanity to more closely adher to that definition of "paradise" they all seem to claim is awaiting us. And for that matter, the very same thing can be said to apply to those militant Christians who believe they have the god-given right to blow up abortion clinics.
The Scrutinizer
Sunday, May 13, 2007
China and the Greater Fool Theory
For those unacquainted with the "Greater Fool Theory", simply stated it means there always a greater fool out there willing to pay more than you did for something. And it's the entire basis of the equity markets, where people pay extraordinary price for little slips of paper (generally electronic) that represent a percentage shareholdership in a company. And when you run out of people willing to pay more for your shares, you quickly find out who the "greater fool" really is (believe me, I've been there myself).
Now.. I've nothing against the stock markets. They are valuable sources of financing for companies requiring capital to grow, or just to bring new products to market. And when you are one of those lucky investors who buy pre-IPO stock in some company like Google (Nas:GOOG), you can really make a fortune as that company executes its business plan and increases both revenues and profits, thus increasing the public perception of value for the shares you hold. Heck, it the basis for my owning shares in Microvision (Nas: MVIS), because I see their miniature laser projection displays for eyeware and cellphones as a very disruptive technology that will, if they execute their business plan properly, reap them hundreds of millions in revenues and profits.
But let's face some facts folks.. There's a reason we have something called a "Price to Earnings" ratio (P/E for short). It assists we investors in determining if we're overpaying for a company's stock, or if there is hidden value. Analysts get worried when the S&P500 (SPX) has a P/E of 15-20 times earnings. If you listen to the news, everyone is worried about the US markets because the SPX currently has a P/E of 18.31.
But the Chinese markets? My goodness.. as some may have heard, the sum total value of public shares listed on the Shanghai stock exchange exceed that of all Asian markets combined. This includes Japan, the second largest economy on the planet, right behind the US. But the average P/E of China's markets is currently at 40 times earnings. Now granted, this is being matched by growth in many of these companies, but what is fueling this growth? Is it internally driven, or export driven? And if the latter, which is the likely the case with China, what happens when your customers come upon hard economic times? Who will buy China's products then?
Currently the Chinese markets, including the Hang Seng in Hong Kong, are on a tear as the Chinese government has authorized certain Chinese banks the ability to invest greater amounts in non-Chinese stocks. They are doing this as a pitiful attempt to drain money from the Chinese market bubble. Chinese investors are generally not permitted to purchase foreign equities, nor transfer large amounts of money out of China. This is all because Bejing strictly controls the value of the Yuan (currency) and they don't want people circumventing those currency controls by purchasing foreign stocks and then selling them (Chinese investors would have sell Yuan in order to buy foreign denominated equities, thus placing downward pressure on the Yuan).
Also, I've seen the first public mention regarding my previous comment regarding my belief that Bejing will do whatever is possible to avoid an economic disruption prior to the 2008 Olympics. Get a load of this:
For those unacquainted with the "Greater Fool Theory", simply stated it means there always a greater fool out there willing to pay more than you did for something. And it's the entire basis of the equity markets, where people pay extraordinary price for little slips of paper (generally electronic) that represent a percentage shareholdership in a company. And when you run out of people willing to pay more for your shares, you quickly find out who the "greater fool" really is (believe me, I've been there myself).
Now.. I've nothing against the stock markets. They are valuable sources of financing for companies requiring capital to grow, or just to bring new products to market. And when you are one of those lucky investors who buy pre-IPO stock in some company like Google (Nas:GOOG), you can really make a fortune as that company executes its business plan and increases both revenues and profits, thus increasing the public perception of value for the shares you hold. Heck, it the basis for my owning shares in Microvision (Nas: MVIS), because I see their miniature laser projection displays for eyeware and cellphones as a very disruptive technology that will, if they execute their business plan properly, reap them hundreds of millions in revenues and profits.
But let's face some facts folks.. There's a reason we have something called a "Price to Earnings" ratio (P/E for short). It assists we investors in determining if we're overpaying for a company's stock, or if there is hidden value. Analysts get worried when the S&P500 (SPX) has a P/E of 15-20 times earnings. If you listen to the news, everyone is worried about the US markets because the SPX currently has a P/E of 18.31.
But the Chinese markets? My goodness.. as some may have heard, the sum total value of public shares listed on the Shanghai stock exchange exceed that of all Asian markets combined. This includes Japan, the second largest economy on the planet, right behind the US. But the average P/E of China's markets is currently at 40 times earnings. Now granted, this is being matched by growth in many of these companies, but what is fueling this growth? Is it internally driven, or export driven? And if the latter, which is the likely the case with China, what happens when your customers come upon hard economic times? Who will buy China's products then?
Currently the Chinese markets, including the Hang Seng in Hong Kong, are on a tear as the Chinese government has authorized certain Chinese banks the ability to invest greater amounts in non-Chinese stocks. They are doing this as a pitiful attempt to drain money from the Chinese market bubble. Chinese investors are generally not permitted to purchase foreign equities, nor transfer large amounts of money out of China. This is all because Bejing strictly controls the value of the Yuan (currency) and they don't want people circumventing those currency controls by purchasing foreign stocks and then selling them (Chinese investors would have sell Yuan in order to buy foreign denominated equities, thus placing downward pressure on the Yuan).
Also, I've seen the first public mention regarding my previous comment regarding my belief that Bejing will do whatever is possible to avoid an economic disruption prior to the 2008 Olympics. Get a load of this:
And many investors believe Chinese leaders will prop up prices to avoid turmoil ahead of a key Communist Party meeting in late 2007 and the Beijing Olympics next year.
"We hear that before 2008, the government won't let prices fall," said Ding's sister, Ding Jingxian. "We're not afraid."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_bi_ge/china_stock_market_fever
Now the Shanghai market is currently trading around 4,000, which represents tremendous gains over the course of the past year. If you don't believe me.. look at this chart:
The Shanghai market has more than doubled over the past year. DOUBLED!!!
I suspect when that market hits the major psychological barrier represented at 5,000, millions of Chinese are going to look in the mirror and discover they have become the "greater fool". It may happen before it reaches 5,000, but if those comments are correct, the Chinese government will do everything to prevent a market correction from becoming a market collapse, including governmental repurchasing of stocks to place a "bid" under any market collapse.
On the other hand, the ability for savvy Chinese investors to invest in the markets of those countries who actually purchase the predominant amount of Chinese products (the US, Japan, and Europe) should bode well for our markets.
But god forbid we have a recession in the US within the next year. We're already seeing slower growth, despite our fantastic levels of low unemployment (which directly translates to consumer spending for all those cheap Chinese goods.)
I will be looking for ways to short the Chinese markets in a relatively conservative way when it approachese 5,000. I believe there is a Exchange Traded Fund that covers Chinese markets and those can be shorted like any other stock. But preferably my short position will be options based. Less money at risk, and if the market goes up, my potential for loss is limited to the cost of my options position.
The Scrutinizer
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Interesting article related to the recent gains we've seen in the stock market.
Bubble tipped to burst in 2011
Andy Mukherjee COMMENTARY
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Harvard University economist Jeffrey Frankel has an interesting theory about the timing of the next emerging- market meltdown.
He says capital flows into developing economies follow a 15-year pattern: "seven fat years followed by seven lean years." The year between the two phases is when the flow of money suddenly stops. Why 15 years?
"After 15 years have gone by, there is somebody new on the trading desk who did not personally live through the last crash," Frankel said at a globalization forum, organized by the International Monetary Fund in Washington. "They sort of know about it, but it is easier for them to say the world has changed than if they lost money in it."
There have been two such cycles in the recent past, according to Frankel. The first wave began around 1975, following a sharp increase in oil prices in 1973-74. After seven years of frenzied recycling of petrodollars into emerging-market securities, Mexico blew up in 1982.
Then there were seven slow years, before investors came back to these markets with renewed vigor in the early 1990s. That boom, which again went on for seven years, ended with the Asian crisis in 1997. By this logic, the next blow to emerging-market economies will come in 2011 or 2012. So all those who envision that the current subprime mortgage crisis in the United States will lead to investors bailing out of risky, emerging-market securities may be disappointed.
The time is not ripe, yet, for a disaster. "It is too soon, memories are still fresh," Frankel said. "Argentina and Turkey, they were not that long ago, so I think it is too soon."
Could the next meltdown start in Asia? The region has a seemingly inexhaustible war chest of US$2.5 trillion (HK$19.5 trillion) in foreign- exchange reserves. Besides, most Asian current accounts are now in surplus. East Asia is no longer funding its expansion with capital borrowed from overseas. Now it is exporting capital to the rest of the world.
All of this makes a currency crisis unlikely. But other risks remain.
Nouriel Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics in New York, is predicting "a new and different type of financial crisis in Asia," one that is triggered by excessive liquidity and asset bubbles. The risks stem from Asia's currency policies. China remains reluctant to allow the yuan to trade more freely.
That means other Asian nations will not be able to tolerate significant currency appreciation without their exports losing market share to cheap Chinese-made goods in Western markets.
One country that did try to live with faster currency gains - Thailand - had to resort to capital controls to prevent its exports from sinking under the weight of a stronger baht.
Cheap Asian currencies are not a free lunch. The bloated and growing Asian forex reserves are being increasingly financed by an expansion in the monetary base. Base-money growth in China was 21 percent in 2006, double the annual average of 2004 and 2005. It was about 20 percent in Korea in 2006, six times the average in the preceding two years, according to a World Bank report last month.
Unmistakably, Asia is contributing - along with petrodollars and Japanese carry trades - to a surfeit of global liquidity and a mispricing of risk. For now, excesses may continue to build up. The spread, or the extra yield demanded by investors to hold dollar-denominated emerging-market bonds instead of risk-free US securities, has shrunk to about a 10th of its post-Asian crisis level, according to a JPMorgan Chase index.
Those who want to sell you developing-country debt will tell you what a fine job these nations have done in containing public debt and inflation.
Besides, countries such as Brazil are buying back dollar bonds, reducing supply; so the high valuations are warranted, they will say.
Standard & Poor's, which raised the credit rating on eight out of 34 emerging-market sovereigns and lowered its assessment on just one in the 12 months through August 2006, is talking about the need to redefine the "emerging market" label, and in certain cases, even eliminate it.
This excessive show of optimism has "bubble" written on it in bright neon. Yet, investors will wait to see emerging-market risk turn to zero before being stung by losses.
The same is true for equity.
Morgan Stanley Capital International's MSCI index of emerging- market shares reached 1000 this week. It has doubled in 2 years. Do not be surprised if it doubles again. The bubble is alive and well. It just might keep growing for the next five years, if Frankel's prophecy is right.
BLOOMBERG
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=22&art_id=44077&sid=13528100&con_type=1
Commentary
Bear in mind that the Dow Theory triple high back in February in the Dow Transports, Industrials, and Utilities gave a new market buy signal that is extremely rare, and combined with the all-time record short interest on the NYSE, it puts a tremendous "bid" under the market as shorts get scared and cover their positions. The higher the markets go, the more the shorts are losing and the higher their financial "pain". It's also worth noting, for those unfamiliar with short-selling that the potential risk of loss for a short is infinite. If a "long" buys a stock, the most they can lose is the total purchase price of their stock (ie: it goes to zero value). When a short seller initiates a position, they borrow the stock certificate (generally this is electronically executed) and sell it with the promise to replace that stock certificate at a later date. If they stock they shorted is valued less when they buy it back to return to the brokerage (covering their short is what it's called) than the price they sold it at when they initiated their position, they pocket the difference as profit.
However, if the stock increases in value ABOVE what they shorted it at, then they lose money with each dollar that stock increases in value. And since there is no limit to how high a stock can go in price, their potential for loss is infinite.
Something to thing about in coming weeks/months as we assess the long term potential for the indices, and stock overall. Let's not forget that, even though the Dow and S&P have reach new highs, the Nasdaq has yet to achieve the same. It's unlikely we'll see 5000 on the Nasdaq anytime soon, given how high it assailed in 2000. But it's quite possible we could print 3400 by this time next year.
It all depends on Asia, in my opinion. China's markets are definitely due for a correction, but with the Olympics coming up next year, we can all anticipate that the government in Bejing will do anything they can to delay the pain of such a correction until after the medals are all passed out.
So, I might be wrong, but I suggest we all try and enjoy the next couple of years. Because when the financial hangover comes, it's going to be a doozy!!
The Scrutinizer
Bubble tipped to burst in 2011
Andy Mukherjee COMMENTARY
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Harvard University economist Jeffrey Frankel has an interesting theory about the timing of the next emerging- market meltdown.
He says capital flows into developing economies follow a 15-year pattern: "seven fat years followed by seven lean years." The year between the two phases is when the flow of money suddenly stops. Why 15 years?
"After 15 years have gone by, there is somebody new on the trading desk who did not personally live through the last crash," Frankel said at a globalization forum, organized by the International Monetary Fund in Washington. "They sort of know about it, but it is easier for them to say the world has changed than if they lost money in it."
There have been two such cycles in the recent past, according to Frankel. The first wave began around 1975, following a sharp increase in oil prices in 1973-74. After seven years of frenzied recycling of petrodollars into emerging-market securities, Mexico blew up in 1982.
Then there were seven slow years, before investors came back to these markets with renewed vigor in the early 1990s. That boom, which again went on for seven years, ended with the Asian crisis in 1997. By this logic, the next blow to emerging-market economies will come in 2011 or 2012. So all those who envision that the current subprime mortgage crisis in the United States will lead to investors bailing out of risky, emerging-market securities may be disappointed.
The time is not ripe, yet, for a disaster. "It is too soon, memories are still fresh," Frankel said. "Argentina and Turkey, they were not that long ago, so I think it is too soon."
Could the next meltdown start in Asia? The region has a seemingly inexhaustible war chest of US$2.5 trillion (HK$19.5 trillion) in foreign- exchange reserves. Besides, most Asian current accounts are now in surplus. East Asia is no longer funding its expansion with capital borrowed from overseas. Now it is exporting capital to the rest of the world.
All of this makes a currency crisis unlikely. But other risks remain.
Nouriel Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics in New York, is predicting "a new and different type of financial crisis in Asia," one that is triggered by excessive liquidity and asset bubbles. The risks stem from Asia's currency policies. China remains reluctant to allow the yuan to trade more freely.
That means other Asian nations will not be able to tolerate significant currency appreciation without their exports losing market share to cheap Chinese-made goods in Western markets.
One country that did try to live with faster currency gains - Thailand - had to resort to capital controls to prevent its exports from sinking under the weight of a stronger baht.
Cheap Asian currencies are not a free lunch. The bloated and growing Asian forex reserves are being increasingly financed by an expansion in the monetary base. Base-money growth in China was 21 percent in 2006, double the annual average of 2004 and 2005. It was about 20 percent in Korea in 2006, six times the average in the preceding two years, according to a World Bank report last month.
Unmistakably, Asia is contributing - along with petrodollars and Japanese carry trades - to a surfeit of global liquidity and a mispricing of risk. For now, excesses may continue to build up. The spread, or the extra yield demanded by investors to hold dollar-denominated emerging-market bonds instead of risk-free US securities, has shrunk to about a 10th of its post-Asian crisis level, according to a JPMorgan Chase index.
Those who want to sell you developing-country debt will tell you what a fine job these nations have done in containing public debt and inflation.
Besides, countries such as Brazil are buying back dollar bonds, reducing supply; so the high valuations are warranted, they will say.
Standard & Poor's, which raised the credit rating on eight out of 34 emerging-market sovereigns and lowered its assessment on just one in the 12 months through August 2006, is talking about the need to redefine the "emerging market" label, and in certain cases, even eliminate it.
This excessive show of optimism has "bubble" written on it in bright neon. Yet, investors will wait to see emerging-market risk turn to zero before being stung by losses.
The same is true for equity.
Morgan Stanley Capital International's MSCI index of emerging- market shares reached 1000 this week. It has doubled in 2 years. Do not be surprised if it doubles again. The bubble is alive and well. It just might keep growing for the next five years, if Frankel's prophecy is right.
BLOOMBERG
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=22&art_id=44077&sid=13528100&con_type=1
Commentary
Bear in mind that the Dow Theory triple high back in February in the Dow Transports, Industrials, and Utilities gave a new market buy signal that is extremely rare, and combined with the all-time record short interest on the NYSE, it puts a tremendous "bid" under the market as shorts get scared and cover their positions. The higher the markets go, the more the shorts are losing and the higher their financial "pain". It's also worth noting, for those unfamiliar with short-selling that the potential risk of loss for a short is infinite. If a "long" buys a stock, the most they can lose is the total purchase price of their stock (ie: it goes to zero value). When a short seller initiates a position, they borrow the stock certificate (generally this is electronically executed) and sell it with the promise to replace that stock certificate at a later date. If they stock they shorted is valued less when they buy it back to return to the brokerage (covering their short is what it's called) than the price they sold it at when they initiated their position, they pocket the difference as profit.
However, if the stock increases in value ABOVE what they shorted it at, then they lose money with each dollar that stock increases in value. And since there is no limit to how high a stock can go in price, their potential for loss is infinite.
Something to thing about in coming weeks/months as we assess the long term potential for the indices, and stock overall. Let's not forget that, even though the Dow and S&P have reach new highs, the Nasdaq has yet to achieve the same. It's unlikely we'll see 5000 on the Nasdaq anytime soon, given how high it assailed in 2000. But it's quite possible we could print 3400 by this time next year.
It all depends on Asia, in my opinion. China's markets are definitely due for a correction, but with the Olympics coming up next year, we can all anticipate that the government in Bejing will do anything they can to delay the pain of such a correction until after the medals are all passed out.
So, I might be wrong, but I suggest we all try and enjoy the next couple of years. Because when the financial hangover comes, it's going to be a doozy!!
The Scrutinizer
Thursday, May 10, 2007
We Support the Stupid Mercenaries
May 2, 2007:
Yet another example of a media celebrity letting their true feeling about the troops slip out. In this case, it is "The View" guest co-host Ricki Lake (best known for a trashy talk show), who used the word "ineducation" to describe why young Americans join the military. This was in response to a question from co-host Rosie O'Donnell as to why they enlist. An attempt to challenge that by co-host Elizabeth Hasselback was slapped down by O'Donnell, who went on to claim that felons were being allowed to enlist. This is not the first time that such insults have been fired off, but it does show the contempt that is held for the troops in at least some quarters of the anti-war movement.
This is not the first time such comments have been made by opponents of the Iraqi component campaign of the war on terror. In February, NBC commentator William Arkin, criticized American soldiers who defended their efforts in the war on terror. Arkin also had expressed his hope the troops who made the comments had been counseled. Arkin also raised the specter of a military coup, and then referred to them as mercenaries.
In November, 2006, Senator John Kerry made comments concerning an alleged lack of intelligence among the troops and the notion that many of the recruits are poor. Like Kerry's comments, which killed his 2008 presidential bid, Rosie O'Donnell's comments also have little, if any, basis in truth. Every year since 1983, over 90 percent of all recruits have at least a high school diploma. Many officers and enlisted personnel tend to get college degrees (both graduate and undergraduate), often paid for by the armed services. The claim that most of the recruits are poor also did not stand up to facts. Most of the recruits come from middle-class families. These recruits also score high on the AVSAB tests (two-thirds of recruits score over 60 percent on the test), another indication that they are not stupid. Also, felonies are a bar to enlistment.
The comments from Ricki Lake, Rosie O'Donnell, and John Kerry are not the worst things that have been said about the troops. Some scurrilous and very incendiary charges came from Seymour Hersh, a journalist who broke various stories in the Vietnam War. Hersh openly called for American troops to be treated as they were when they returned from Vietnam. Hersh claimed that the American forces in Iraq were carrying out atrocities. In one instance, he claimed a video of a massacre at a soccer game in the wake of an IED attack existed. Yet Hersh made this claim at a lecture at McGill University in Canada. He apparently had not heard of the Army's Criminal Investigative Division and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (the latter of which is the subject of a popular prime-time TV series).
In a very real sense, there is only so much hypocrisy that the anti-war movement will be able to get away with. It certainly is fair to ask the anti-war movement how they reconcile their belief that they support the troops, when they express almost implacable opposition to what the troops are doing. These claims of support become harder to buy when they come right after the person making them has called the troops stupid on national TV. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20070502.aspx
Commentary:
I have to admit, this is one of reasons that I have yet to vote Democrat. It's one thing to play partisan politics with domestic or foreign policy, but quite another to disparage the people tasked with implementing that policy as idiots. And what are the soldiers to do when it comes to defending themselves from such denigrating abuse?
Recently, DOD issued a policy stating that all "mil-bloggers" have to clear their postings with their chain of command before publicizing their comments on their personal blogs due to concerns about Operational Security concerns. Aside from being this potentially becoming an excessive burden upon the chain of command to undertake censorship duties, it also deprives our soldiers the ability to voice their owns opinions as to whether they believe in their mission or not. My view is that if a soldier commits an OPSEC violation, they should be punished. If they insult their chain of command, or engage in partisan political activities online, they should be punished. This preserves the professional quality of our military force and maintains their subservience to civilian control.
There should be nothing wrong with servicemen creating blogs as a means of letting the American people know what they are doing and how they live. For one thing, in this day and age, it's almost technically impossible to stop. If China, with its near complete control over internet access in that country, can't stop their people from posting anti-government comments, what makes us think the US military can do so in our open societies? What's to stop a soldier from typing up comments on his laptop, storing it on a thumb drive, and mailing it to some accomplice who will post it anonymously?
Collective punishment perpetrated against all soldiers trying to educate the American homefront is not the answer. It's difficult for most Americans to understand their frustrations, as well as their triumphs, when the main stream media doesn't consider it important enough to report.
No wonder the people in this country don't understand what's at stake in Iraq (let alone the entire Middle East).
The Scrutinizer
May 2, 2007:
Yet another example of a media celebrity letting their true feeling about the troops slip out. In this case, it is "The View" guest co-host Ricki Lake (best known for a trashy talk show), who used the word "ineducation" to describe why young Americans join the military. This was in response to a question from co-host Rosie O'Donnell as to why they enlist. An attempt to challenge that by co-host Elizabeth Hasselback was slapped down by O'Donnell, who went on to claim that felons were being allowed to enlist. This is not the first time that such insults have been fired off, but it does show the contempt that is held for the troops in at least some quarters of the anti-war movement.
This is not the first time such comments have been made by opponents of the Iraqi component campaign of the war on terror. In February, NBC commentator William Arkin, criticized American soldiers who defended their efforts in the war on terror. Arkin also had expressed his hope the troops who made the comments had been counseled. Arkin also raised the specter of a military coup, and then referred to them as mercenaries.
In November, 2006, Senator John Kerry made comments concerning an alleged lack of intelligence among the troops and the notion that many of the recruits are poor. Like Kerry's comments, which killed his 2008 presidential bid, Rosie O'Donnell's comments also have little, if any, basis in truth. Every year since 1983, over 90 percent of all recruits have at least a high school diploma. Many officers and enlisted personnel tend to get college degrees (both graduate and undergraduate), often paid for by the armed services. The claim that most of the recruits are poor also did not stand up to facts. Most of the recruits come from middle-class families. These recruits also score high on the AVSAB tests (two-thirds of recruits score over 60 percent on the test), another indication that they are not stupid. Also, felonies are a bar to enlistment.
The comments from Ricki Lake, Rosie O'Donnell, and John Kerry are not the worst things that have been said about the troops. Some scurrilous and very incendiary charges came from Seymour Hersh, a journalist who broke various stories in the Vietnam War. Hersh openly called for American troops to be treated as they were when they returned from Vietnam. Hersh claimed that the American forces in Iraq were carrying out atrocities. In one instance, he claimed a video of a massacre at a soccer game in the wake of an IED attack existed. Yet Hersh made this claim at a lecture at McGill University in Canada. He apparently had not heard of the Army's Criminal Investigative Division and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (the latter of which is the subject of a popular prime-time TV series).
In a very real sense, there is only so much hypocrisy that the anti-war movement will be able to get away with. It certainly is fair to ask the anti-war movement how they reconcile their belief that they support the troops, when they express almost implacable opposition to what the troops are doing. These claims of support become harder to buy when they come right after the person making them has called the troops stupid on national TV. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20070502.aspx
Commentary:
I have to admit, this is one of reasons that I have yet to vote Democrat. It's one thing to play partisan politics with domestic or foreign policy, but quite another to disparage the people tasked with implementing that policy as idiots. And what are the soldiers to do when it comes to defending themselves from such denigrating abuse?
Recently, DOD issued a policy stating that all "mil-bloggers" have to clear their postings with their chain of command before publicizing their comments on their personal blogs due to concerns about Operational Security concerns. Aside from being this potentially becoming an excessive burden upon the chain of command to undertake censorship duties, it also deprives our soldiers the ability to voice their owns opinions as to whether they believe in their mission or not. My view is that if a soldier commits an OPSEC violation, they should be punished. If they insult their chain of command, or engage in partisan political activities online, they should be punished. This preserves the professional quality of our military force and maintains their subservience to civilian control.
There should be nothing wrong with servicemen creating blogs as a means of letting the American people know what they are doing and how they live. For one thing, in this day and age, it's almost technically impossible to stop. If China, with its near complete control over internet access in that country, can't stop their people from posting anti-government comments, what makes us think the US military can do so in our open societies? What's to stop a soldier from typing up comments on his laptop, storing it on a thumb drive, and mailing it to some accomplice who will post it anonymously?
Collective punishment perpetrated against all soldiers trying to educate the American homefront is not the answer. It's difficult for most Americans to understand their frustrations, as well as their triumphs, when the main stream media doesn't consider it important enough to report.
No wonder the people in this country don't understand what's at stake in Iraq (let alone the entire Middle East).
The Scrutinizer
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Reaping What We Have Sown
Why is there an Militant Islamist insurgency in Iraq? Did it just "appear" when Saddam was overthrown, or was the foundation of a Salafist/Takfirist Islamist state already taking root during the '90s when Saddam's regime was weakened by international sanctions, as well as Shi'a and Kurdish rebellion (after years of oppression).
One of the epiphanies I experienced while I was in Iraq was the degree to which former Ba'thists were involved in the leadership of various Jihadist groups which MNF-I all, rightly or wrongly, categorized as Al Qai'da in Iraq (AQIZ, IZ being the country code for Iraq). Ansar Al-Islam, Ansar Al-Sunnah, 1920 Brigades.. Umar Brigades, and let's not forget Al Qai'da. All of these are among the most prevalent of the Sunni based insurgent groups. For the moment, I will refrain from addressing the Shi'a factions, since the focus of this post is to point out that militant Islamism was a rising force that not even Saddam was successful at containing. But here is a general list of current insurgent groups operating in Iraq:
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iraq/Terrorism-in-Iraq.html
One of the fundamental questions that has remained begging to be asked is why has the nature of the insurgency taken on an Islamist tone? Why, in the wake of Saddam's overthrow, did we not see the Sunnis rally around already organized resistance movements such as the Fidayin Saddam (Saddam's men of sacrifice) and thus, preserving a Ba'thist "tone" to the insurgency? The message from many in the main stream media and anti-war pundits is that Saddam, nasty as he might have been, was at least secular dictator and thus, a "ally" in our war against militant Islam. But if Saddam were really as powerful as everyone claims, Al Qai'da should have been squashed by the Sunnis tribal leaders the very minute it attempted to compete with the Ba'thists for control over the insurgency.
Instead, the Fidayin (also anglicized as Fedayeen), although a force of resistance during the early months after Saddam's fall, were quickly dismantled as an organization, and their members drifted to the Islamist groups. Of course, this might have been also due to their proclivity to tatoo themselves with heart or wings, topped by an F (for Fidayin).
Now, another point that seemed to elude understanding is why Syria, despite long standing rivalries between the Syrian Ba'thist party and Saddam, did not provide support to the Iraqi Ba'thist, if only out of sheer self-preservation of their veracity of their own ideology (as as to potentially finally seize control over the Iraqi Ba'thist political apparatus). One would think that the Syrians would have had an interest in promoting a Ba'thist insurgency, rather than assisting in inciting an militant Sunni Islamist resistance movement that might undermine its own authority in Damascus (look up Hama and Assad to fully understand the logic).
IMO, the reality is that the only authority the Ba'thists had in ruling Iraq was their ability to implement a "divide and conquer" strategy amongst the Sunni tribes, pitting them against one another for Saddam's favor (translate as money and political power), while increasing their representation within Saddam's administrative and military/intelligence machine (think patronage system). I believe the same situation exists within Syria, and Bashir Al-Assad has relatively little control over the activities those Ba'thist officials who secretly have a duel allegiance to the Islamist factions.
Over and over again, I would see reports of individuals formerly part of the Ba'thist party apparatus, now apparently involved with Al Qai'da and/or Ansar Al-Sunnah (the 2 dominant Jihadist factions). The Umar (Omar) Brigrade was reportedly recruited from the ranks of former Republican Guards, Special Security, and Intelligence members, to fight against the Shi'a Badr brigades. But no one willing to claim allegiance to Ba'thism.
If one doubts me, then let's look at the capture of Abu Ayman, one of the biggest, baddest, terrorist cell leaders in the Baghdad area for several years. He was someone who was closely linked to Abu Mu'sab Al-Zarqawi, and was reported next in line to become the "Amir" (Prince) of Baghdad representing Al Qai'da in 2005, after Abu Azzam was killed. But who is Abu Ayman?:
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369955
Mohammed Hila Hammad Obeidi(Ubaydi), aka Abu Ayman, "was formerly the chief of staff of intelligence under the regime of Saddam Hussein and was most recently the leader of the Secret Islamic Army, a secret militia operating in the Babil province".
Now ask yourselves how a man, supposedly one of the highest members of Saddam's Intelligence Service, heavily vetted for his Ba'thist loyalties, suddenly opted to become a militant Islamist? Why didn't he just represent himself as a Ba'thist, with aim of restoring Ba'thism to nation of Iraq? How did a man, who would rapidly turn from secular ideology, strongly oppsed to militant Islam, rise to such a rank that he became the COS of Saddam's intelligence service?
And then there is the case of Sa'ad Ali Firas and his associates, most of whom were former members of Saddam's intelligence/security entities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051020-mnfi01.htm
Now, I could go on about discussing the multitude of former members of Saddam's intelligence and security agencies who have risen to leadership within either Al Qai'da or Ansar Al Sunnah, including some who were former bodyguards for Saddam's family. But there's not much "publicly available" documentation to support this, primarily because the members of the press have not posed these questions to MNF-I PAO briefers and much of it remains classifed.
Why is no one asking this question, you might ask?
Well, some people HAVE asked this question. Ray Robinson was a member of the DOCEX operation for the Iraq Survey Group, and he has expressed many of the same questions and perspectives that I did during my period in Iraq:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/fallujah_baathist_and_wahhabis.html
To sum this up.. those who would contend that Saddam's regime was a secular dictatorship ignore the fact that it was increasingly becoming dependent upon, if not infiltrated by, individuals who did not share the secular ideology of Ba'thism. It was merely a convenient means for them to survive, until such a time that they possessed sufficient control over the military and intelligence, to stage a coup.
Anyone remember what happened to Sadat?
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/jihadorgan.php
"In the 1990s, Egyptian members of al-Jihad merged with Osama bin Laden's organization, al-Qaeda ("the Foundation"). One of Jihad's leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, became one of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants.
And what would have been the US response to such a coup by a Jihadist motivated government? What COULD our response have been, except to wring our hands and accept it. After all, Saddam's overthrow was what we were hoping for, right? How could we oppose any faction that managed to accomplish that?
By overthrowing Saddam ourselves, what we did was unleash the pent-up Salafist forces that ALREADY existed in Iraq and were simply binding their time until the proper opportunity arose to take charge. We permitted these Salafists to gain power during the '90s by weakening Saddam's power, rather than just overthrowing him as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait. We threw him into the hands of the Salafists, without who's support, he could not defend the regime against the rebellious Shi'a and Kurds. He put "Allah Ahkbar" on the Ba'thist Iraqi flag in recognition of his growing dependence on the Salafists. He built them HUGE mosques within which to pray and spread their Islamist ideas. Saddam was riding the back of an Islamist "Tiger", hoping that controlling it's agenda, he could prevent himself from being devoured by it.
Thus, by not removing Saddam in 1991, when we had real justification (and the necessary troops) we have reaped what we have sown.
The Scrutinizer
Why is there an Militant Islamist insurgency in Iraq? Did it just "appear" when Saddam was overthrown, or was the foundation of a Salafist/Takfirist Islamist state already taking root during the '90s when Saddam's regime was weakened by international sanctions, as well as Shi'a and Kurdish rebellion (after years of oppression).
One of the epiphanies I experienced while I was in Iraq was the degree to which former Ba'thists were involved in the leadership of various Jihadist groups which MNF-I all, rightly or wrongly, categorized as Al Qai'da in Iraq (AQIZ, IZ being the country code for Iraq). Ansar Al-Islam, Ansar Al-Sunnah, 1920 Brigades.. Umar Brigades, and let's not forget Al Qai'da. All of these are among the most prevalent of the Sunni based insurgent groups. For the moment, I will refrain from addressing the Shi'a factions, since the focus of this post is to point out that militant Islamism was a rising force that not even Saddam was successful at containing. But here is a general list of current insurgent groups operating in Iraq:
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iraq/Terrorism-in-Iraq.html
One of the fundamental questions that has remained begging to be asked is why has the nature of the insurgency taken on an Islamist tone? Why, in the wake of Saddam's overthrow, did we not see the Sunnis rally around already organized resistance movements such as the Fidayin Saddam (Saddam's men of sacrifice) and thus, preserving a Ba'thist "tone" to the insurgency? The message from many in the main stream media and anti-war pundits is that Saddam, nasty as he might have been, was at least secular dictator and thus, a "ally" in our war against militant Islam. But if Saddam were really as powerful as everyone claims, Al Qai'da should have been squashed by the Sunnis tribal leaders the very minute it attempted to compete with the Ba'thists for control over the insurgency.
Instead, the Fidayin (also anglicized as Fedayeen), although a force of resistance during the early months after Saddam's fall, were quickly dismantled as an organization, and their members drifted to the Islamist groups. Of course, this might have been also due to their proclivity to tatoo themselves with heart or wings, topped by an F (for Fidayin).
Now, another point that seemed to elude understanding is why Syria, despite long standing rivalries between the Syrian Ba'thist party and Saddam, did not provide support to the Iraqi Ba'thist, if only out of sheer self-preservation of their veracity of their own ideology (as as to potentially finally seize control over the Iraqi Ba'thist political apparatus). One would think that the Syrians would have had an interest in promoting a Ba'thist insurgency, rather than assisting in inciting an militant Sunni Islamist resistance movement that might undermine its own authority in Damascus (look up Hama and Assad to fully understand the logic).
IMO, the reality is that the only authority the Ba'thists had in ruling Iraq was their ability to implement a "divide and conquer" strategy amongst the Sunni tribes, pitting them against one another for Saddam's favor (translate as money and political power), while increasing their representation within Saddam's administrative and military/intelligence machine (think patronage system). I believe the same situation exists within Syria, and Bashir Al-Assad has relatively little control over the activities those Ba'thist officials who secretly have a duel allegiance to the Islamist factions.
Over and over again, I would see reports of individuals formerly part of the Ba'thist party apparatus, now apparently involved with Al Qai'da and/or Ansar Al-Sunnah (the 2 dominant Jihadist factions). The Umar (Omar) Brigrade was reportedly recruited from the ranks of former Republican Guards, Special Security, and Intelligence members, to fight against the Shi'a Badr brigades. But no one willing to claim allegiance to Ba'thism.
If one doubts me, then let's look at the capture of Abu Ayman, one of the biggest, baddest, terrorist cell leaders in the Baghdad area for several years. He was someone who was closely linked to Abu Mu'sab Al-Zarqawi, and was reported next in line to become the "Amir" (Prince) of Baghdad representing Al Qai'da in 2005, after Abu Azzam was killed. But who is Abu Ayman?:
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369955
Mohammed Hila Hammad Obeidi(Ubaydi), aka Abu Ayman, "was formerly the chief of staff of intelligence under the regime of Saddam Hussein and was most recently the leader of the Secret Islamic Army, a secret militia operating in the Babil province".
Now ask yourselves how a man, supposedly one of the highest members of Saddam's Intelligence Service, heavily vetted for his Ba'thist loyalties, suddenly opted to become a militant Islamist? Why didn't he just represent himself as a Ba'thist, with aim of restoring Ba'thism to nation of Iraq? How did a man, who would rapidly turn from secular ideology, strongly oppsed to militant Islam, rise to such a rank that he became the COS of Saddam's intelligence service?
And then there is the case of Sa'ad Ali Firas and his associates, most of whom were former members of Saddam's intelligence/security entities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051020-mnfi01.htm
Now, I could go on about discussing the multitude of former members of Saddam's intelligence and security agencies who have risen to leadership within either Al Qai'da or Ansar Al Sunnah, including some who were former bodyguards for Saddam's family. But there's not much "publicly available" documentation to support this, primarily because the members of the press have not posed these questions to MNF-I PAO briefers and much of it remains classifed.
Why is no one asking this question, you might ask?
Well, some people HAVE asked this question. Ray Robinson was a member of the DOCEX operation for the Iraq Survey Group, and he has expressed many of the same questions and perspectives that I did during my period in Iraq:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/fallujah_baathist_and_wahhabis.html
To sum this up.. those who would contend that Saddam's regime was a secular dictatorship ignore the fact that it was increasingly becoming dependent upon, if not infiltrated by, individuals who did not share the secular ideology of Ba'thism. It was merely a convenient means for them to survive, until such a time that they possessed sufficient control over the military and intelligence, to stage a coup.
Anyone remember what happened to Sadat?
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/jihadorgan.php
"In the 1990s, Egyptian members of al-Jihad merged with Osama bin Laden's organization, al-Qaeda ("the Foundation"). One of Jihad's leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, became one of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants.
And what would have been the US response to such a coup by a Jihadist motivated government? What COULD our response have been, except to wring our hands and accept it. After all, Saddam's overthrow was what we were hoping for, right? How could we oppose any faction that managed to accomplish that?
By overthrowing Saddam ourselves, what we did was unleash the pent-up Salafist forces that ALREADY existed in Iraq and were simply binding their time until the proper opportunity arose to take charge. We permitted these Salafists to gain power during the '90s by weakening Saddam's power, rather than just overthrowing him as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait. We threw him into the hands of the Salafists, without who's support, he could not defend the regime against the rebellious Shi'a and Kurds. He put "Allah Ahkbar" on the Ba'thist Iraqi flag in recognition of his growing dependence on the Salafists. He built them HUGE mosques within which to pray and spread their Islamist ideas. Saddam was riding the back of an Islamist "Tiger", hoping that controlling it's agenda, he could prevent himself from being devoured by it.
Thus, by not removing Saddam in 1991, when we had real justification (and the necessary troops) we have reaped what we have sown.
The Scrutinizer
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Since my return from Iraq, I've been dabbling with day and swing trading. Last year (2006) was going gangbusters for the first part of the year, but then I forgot my trading discipline and permitted myself to fall into a false sense of security (which caused some financial pain). This year has been going much better and I think I've learned a few lessons about taking profits when I have them and moving on.
A few of the companies that have captured my interest are Internap: INAP and Microvision: MVIS.
INAP surprised the street with some very impressive pre- one time charge earnings which immediately sent the stock soaring back towards previous highs. It's currently in a consolidation phase after this run up, but this company stands, IMO, to provide some serious competition to such 800 pound guerrillas like AKAM. The one time charge was due to INAP consolidating real-estate holdings with its newly acquired CDN (Content Delivery Network) which finally rounds out their IP routing, and co-location services. This enables them to provide the "full package" to prospective customers, along with their 100% up-time guarantee.
Anyone having any doubts about this company's prospects should listen to the most recent conference call by it's CEO, Jim DeBlasio (available for the next couple of weeks at this link):
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/9/79999.html
And here is a presentation they gave a couple of days ago for the investment community explaining what they do, and what they have to offer:
http://www.internap.com/investor/presentations/files/5-7-07.pdf
As for Microvision: MVIS, I became aware of them in January, 2007 when an acquaintance of mine (friend of a friend) made me aware of the looming "disruptive technology" being presented by Laser Projection Displays. MVIS has developed a laser projector that is the size of your average chocolate mint, small enough to fit in a cell phone:
http://www.microvision.com/
There are a couple of blogs that I pay particularly close attention to for the latest news and insight regarding the prospects for MVIS:
http://microvision.blogspot.com/
And, of course, one cannot overlook the always irreverant (and generally unecessarily profane) "Fly on the Wall", who apparently runs a "bit of money" on the street:
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/
It's worth reading some of the comments posted on his blog back in April relative to the "special situation" that MVIS shares represent at this level.
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
That's all for tonight.. maybe I'll have some time to play more "catch-up" in coming days.
The Scrutinizer
A few of the companies that have captured my interest are Internap: INAP and Microvision: MVIS.
INAP surprised the street with some very impressive pre- one time charge earnings which immediately sent the stock soaring back towards previous highs. It's currently in a consolidation phase after this run up, but this company stands, IMO, to provide some serious competition to such 800 pound guerrillas like AKAM. The one time charge was due to INAP consolidating real-estate holdings with its newly acquired CDN (Content Delivery Network) which finally rounds out their IP routing, and co-location services. This enables them to provide the "full package" to prospective customers, along with their 100% up-time guarantee.
Anyone having any doubts about this company's prospects should listen to the most recent conference call by it's CEO, Jim DeBlasio (available for the next couple of weeks at this link):
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/9/79999.html
And here is a presentation they gave a couple of days ago for the investment community explaining what they do, and what they have to offer:
http://www.internap.com/investor/presentations/files/5-7-07.pdf
As for Microvision: MVIS, I became aware of them in January, 2007 when an acquaintance of mine (friend of a friend) made me aware of the looming "disruptive technology" being presented by Laser Projection Displays. MVIS has developed a laser projector that is the size of your average chocolate mint, small enough to fit in a cell phone:
http://www.microvision.com/
There are a couple of blogs that I pay particularly close attention to for the latest news and insight regarding the prospects for MVIS:
http://microvision.blogspot.com/
And, of course, one cannot overlook the always irreverant (and generally unecessarily profane) "Fly on the Wall", who apparently runs a "bit of money" on the street:
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/
It's worth reading some of the comments posted on his blog back in April relative to the "special situation" that MVIS shares represent at this level.
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
That's all for tonight.. maybe I'll have some time to play more "catch-up" in coming days.
The Scrutinizer
Now what has motivated me to reactivate this Blog, you might ask? (is there anyone out there?)
It was this post:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/a_disaster_wait.html
Pat seems to be trying to assert that armored car bombs being used by the "Muj" (Mujahidin) is something new.
This is nonsense. Can we forget when insurgents drove a concrete truck full of high explosive into the courtyard of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, nearly succeeding in toppling the building?
It's also been a long-know tactic for insurgents to use dump-trucks as mobile mortar platforms.
And finally, I contend, it's not some "Haji" vehicle decked out with "hill-billy" armor we have to worry about. I would suspect that those can be identified from a considerable distance by sharp eyed snipers, long before they manage to receive a traffic control point (TCP). No, what we should worry about are the the equivalent of of our armored suburbans, vehicles specifically armord in such a manner as to preserve their stock, unmodified, appearance. These are the ones we need to worry about because they will look harmless enough to get close to the TCP, whereupon the driver would punch the gas and attempt to bust through immune to withering return fire, or even worse, catching the soldiers off-guard before they could react with anti-armor weaponry. That's what I worry about.
And lest someone believe that's unlikely, ask yourself who's driving the $185K white armored surbuban that formerly carried the Iraq Survey Group director, Charles Duelfer, between the BIAP and the Green Zone. It was stolen in 2005, while enroute on a car carrier to Kuwait for repairs that were not permitted to be conducted in Baghdad. So far as I know, it was never recovered. One can only hope it was sold on the black market to some wealthy Kuwaiti or Saudi.
Alrighty.. enough of the "sour grapes" over my encounter with Pat Lang (Pat.. if you find this blog, you'll always be be welcome to comment.. I promise I won't censor you, even if I disagree with you.).
The Scrutinizer
It was this post:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/a_disaster_wait.html
Pat seems to be trying to assert that armored car bombs being used by the "Muj" (Mujahidin) is something new.
This is nonsense. Can we forget when insurgents drove a concrete truck full of high explosive into the courtyard of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, nearly succeeding in toppling the building?
It's also been a long-know tactic for insurgents to use dump-trucks as mobile mortar platforms.
And finally, I contend, it's not some "Haji" vehicle decked out with "hill-billy" armor we have to worry about. I would suspect that those can be identified from a considerable distance by sharp eyed snipers, long before they manage to receive a traffic control point (TCP). No, what we should worry about are the the equivalent of of our armored suburbans, vehicles specifically armord in such a manner as to preserve their stock, unmodified, appearance. These are the ones we need to worry about because they will look harmless enough to get close to the TCP, whereupon the driver would punch the gas and attempt to bust through immune to withering return fire, or even worse, catching the soldiers off-guard before they could react with anti-armor weaponry. That's what I worry about.
And lest someone believe that's unlikely, ask yourself who's driving the $185K white armored surbuban that formerly carried the Iraq Survey Group director, Charles Duelfer, between the BIAP and the Green Zone. It was stolen in 2005, while enroute on a car carrier to Kuwait for repairs that were not permitted to be conducted in Baghdad. So far as I know, it was never recovered. One can only hope it was sold on the black market to some wealthy Kuwaiti or Saudi.
Alrighty.. enough of the "sour grapes" over my encounter with Pat Lang (Pat.. if you find this blog, you'll always be be welcome to comment.. I promise I won't censor you, even if I disagree with you.).
The Scrutinizer
Been awhile since I've posted. Was overseas for a couple of years working in Iraq and the experience has given me some new perspectives and insights which I hope to put in coming posts.
Currently, I've been engaged in commenting on a couple of other blogs, including Intel Dump under the name Diogenes (the famous Greek cynic who reported travels the streets blindfolded looking for an "honest man").
Interesting experiences of late include the censorship I received at the hands Ret. Col Patrick Lang on his blog:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
I, apparently, have been declared "Persona Non Grata" on his Blog because he didn't like some of my comments, calling them "naive and uninformed". When I attempted to explain my perspective in more depth, in order for him to understand my perspectives (and hopefully to edcucate me why my views were illogical or inaccurate), his response consisted of asking me whether I was engaged in some "IO campaign" on behalf of the "Neo-Cons", or the US government (presumably the Bush administration).
This is sad, because I had originally sought him out as a "sounding board" against which I could test my logic, test it's intellectual "armor" against opposing perspectives, and ultimately, get a bit close to some form of "truth".
Admittedly, I am quite disappointed that Pat chose to respond by attempting to "label and categorize" me, rather than taking the time to correct what he presumed were my logical errors.
As I embark on reactivating this blog, I give commentors the promise that I won't censor comments merely because I disagree with them. This will be a moderated forum, if only to keep down the "noise" factor. But if you have a comment, and are prepared to logically defend it with facts, then I will be happy to "bless it".
We don't always have to agree. But if I see you're making an honest attempt to logically argue your perspective, I certainly don't see any reason to invoke censorship.
Currently, I've been engaged in commenting on a couple of other blogs, including Intel Dump under the name Diogenes (the famous Greek cynic who reported travels the streets blindfolded looking for an "honest man").
Interesting experiences of late include the censorship I received at the hands Ret. Col Patrick Lang on his blog:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
I, apparently, have been declared "Persona Non Grata" on his Blog because he didn't like some of my comments, calling them "naive and uninformed". When I attempted to explain my perspective in more depth, in order for him to understand my perspectives (and hopefully to edcucate me why my views were illogical or inaccurate), his response consisted of asking me whether I was engaged in some "IO campaign" on behalf of the "Neo-Cons", or the US government (presumably the Bush administration).
This is sad, because I had originally sought him out as a "sounding board" against which I could test my logic, test it's intellectual "armor" against opposing perspectives, and ultimately, get a bit close to some form of "truth".
Admittedly, I am quite disappointed that Pat chose to respond by attempting to "label and categorize" me, rather than taking the time to correct what he presumed were my logical errors.
As I embark on reactivating this blog, I give commentors the promise that I won't censor comments merely because I disagree with them. This will be a moderated forum, if only to keep down the "noise" factor. But if you have a comment, and are prepared to logically defend it with facts, then I will be happy to "bless it".
We don't always have to agree. But if I see you're making an honest attempt to logically argue your perspective, I certainly don't see any reason to invoke censorship.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Been awhile since I've posted... Lots of things going on with that condition known as "life"..
However, as many of you might have heard, the Pakistanis are claiming to have cornered Al-Zawahiri with several hundred of his loyal fighters.. I truly hope we are able to take him alive, as he is the operational heart and mind of Al-Qaeda, and knowlegable of its designs and membership. He is the "power behind the scenes".
But at the very least, his death would deprive Al-Qaeda of its most valuable operative, as well as several hundred potential suicide attackers.. Best to have Al-Qaeda members commit suicide defending themselves from our own attacks, than for them to seek out martyrdom via their own operations.
But while the initiative is slowing changing to favor the Western democracies, the demographic trend in the Mid-East remains in Al-Qaeda's favor. We still face the challenge of offering an alternative socio-economic model to the growing numbers of young people in the muslim world. And just as our own baby boom brought about societal friction and radicalism during the '60s, it's inevitable that the same will likely occur with muslim youth deprived of properous future.
This, imo, is why the current struggle in Iraq remains crucial. It's the most secular of all countries within the middle east, and thus, poses the greater potential for such a socio-economic transition.
One another point, I have been advocating for the past year than the US (now CPA) administration create the equivalent of an Alaskan Permanent Fund in Iraq. I haven't heard anything recently with regard to such a proposal. However, it's evident to me that for Iraq to heal itself as a society and as a national multi-ethnic/religious entity, the people must all have a common stake in the country's economic success.
Furthermore, it is crucial to make any new government accountable to its people, and to dispel the belief that the US is merely there to take Iraq's oil from the people (not that most Iraqi's questioned France and Russia's attempts to actually do that via Saddam's regime).
The Central Scrutinizer
However, as many of you might have heard, the Pakistanis are claiming to have cornered Al-Zawahiri with several hundred of his loyal fighters.. I truly hope we are able to take him alive, as he is the operational heart and mind of Al-Qaeda, and knowlegable of its designs and membership. He is the "power behind the scenes".
But at the very least, his death would deprive Al-Qaeda of its most valuable operative, as well as several hundred potential suicide attackers.. Best to have Al-Qaeda members commit suicide defending themselves from our own attacks, than for them to seek out martyrdom via their own operations.
But while the initiative is slowing changing to favor the Western democracies, the demographic trend in the Mid-East remains in Al-Qaeda's favor. We still face the challenge of offering an alternative socio-economic model to the growing numbers of young people in the muslim world. And just as our own baby boom brought about societal friction and radicalism during the '60s, it's inevitable that the same will likely occur with muslim youth deprived of properous future.
This, imo, is why the current struggle in Iraq remains crucial. It's the most secular of all countries within the middle east, and thus, poses the greater potential for such a socio-economic transition.
One another point, I have been advocating for the past year than the US (now CPA) administration create the equivalent of an Alaskan Permanent Fund in Iraq. I haven't heard anything recently with regard to such a proposal. However, it's evident to me that for Iraq to heal itself as a society and as a national multi-ethnic/religious entity, the people must all have a common stake in the country's economic success.
Furthermore, it is crucial to make any new government accountable to its people, and to dispel the belief that the US is merely there to take Iraq's oil from the people (not that most Iraqi's questioned France and Russia's attempts to actually do that via Saddam's regime).
The Central Scrutinizer
Friday, January 02, 2004
Discovered an interesting article regarding the problem of a drastic increase of unmarried Saudi women within the Kingdom. This ties in with my overall premise that socio-economic strife can be reasonably predicted as the Saudis face the challenge of 50% of their population being under 18 years of age, growing up in a relatively stagnant economy with little economic hope, or unwillingness to perform the menial jobs filled by the 5 million ex-patriates which reside in the kingdom:
Alarming Rise in the Number of Unmarried Girls
Abdullah Bajubeer
It seems that our dear country is going to become one of the pioneers in producing unmarried women. Indeed we now have one million such women and the number is going to increase to four million in the next five years. This is the statement made by Dr. Abdullah Al-Fawzan, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at King Saud University, and published in local newspapers.
The reason, according to him, is our culture, which sets the ages between 18 and 24 as the desirable time for marriage. Once a young woman is 25, she joins the list of unmarried women, whereas in the rest of the world, a woman is considered marriageable until the end of her life.
Dr. Al-Fawzan focuses on age as the main reason for the number of unmarried women. After a quarter of a century writing on the subject, I must say that there are other reasons equally important for the number of unmarried girls. One is the absence of social gatherings between families — these exist in other cultures and allow boys and girls to meet and get to know each other. At such gatherings, parents are of course present and aware of what their offspring are doing.
In any case, these meetings often pave the way to engagement and marriage. Here too, there are high walls that surround a girl and prevent her from going out, talking to or meeting young men on different occasions. She becomes a hostage to house and wall, waiting for a groom. And I do not know how a prospective groom could overcome all these obstacles just so he could see his bride-to-be and get to know her.
Then of course there is the problem of dowries and the cost of marrying, which a young man is unable to bear at so early a stage in his life. The reasons go on but the result is the same. Obviously, we will continue to have large numbers of unmarried girls as long as there is resistance to change.
* * *
One study of emotional life in the US showed that 50 percent of single women are between the ages of 40 and 69. Of that number, the majority are divorcees. The study also showed that a large number of single American women are not embarrassed about relationships with men much younger than them. This particular phenomenon has spread because of Hollywood stars being involved with young men half their age. The young men are thus encouraged to become involved with women who are more fit to play the role of “mother” rather than “girlfriend” or “lover”.
Studies revealed that young men’s enthusiastic interest in older women is due to the fact that many women have important jobs, plenty of money as well as power and influence. And this has driven many young men to go after richer, older women.
Psychologists explain that older women do not need to worry about possible pregnancy or any responsibility resulting from the relationship. She is in the relationship solely for purposes of pleasure. Some doctors say that most women who have relationships with younger men do so after they have brought up their own children and are seeking emotional enjoyment with the extra attraction of rejuvenating themselves.
What is seen in modern American life is that older women chasing younger men have become usual. And American society has accepted the fact, feeling that each person is free in his or her personal life. Now, will other societies accept this or will it be confined to America?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9§ion=0&article=37399&d=2&m=1&y=2004
Another article I found via a websearch goes into greater depth on the issue and discusses how the average dowery a Saudi male is expected to pay equates to about $53,000. This is quite a sum for your average unemployed (or underemployed) Saudi male:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1019653/posts
COMMENT:
I opine that the demographic within the Muslim world, but in particular the Mid-East, is a major influence upon the recent rise of Islamic militancy. It's little wonder that, when 40% of the muslim world is under 18 years of age, that restless youth with no viable hope of having their economic aspirations and dreams fulfilled, would turn to those who claim to have the answer.
One only has to imagine how the political picture would compare in the US were 50% of our population under 18 and dealing with 30% functional unemployment (and far higher in countries other than Saudi Arabia). These young people would be very impressionable and susceptible to reactionary/radical and militant ideas, whether political or religious.
I believe this is a crucial part of fighting the "War on Terror", and seems to be one of the driving strategies of the Neo-Conservative movement. However, some are theorizing that he Neocons within the Bush administration are falling from grace and the "realists" movement coming back into vogue..
The US will make a major strategic error if we fail to assist in resolving the economic and social problems within the region, something along the lines of a Mid-East Marshall plan. We'll lack any measure of influence (the kind that money can buy), and we'll still eventually bear the brunt of criticism and resentment as the militant clerics continue to assert that their economic plight is due to a US/Zionist conspiracy.
It is sure that democratic reforms would take many years to take root in the Mid-East, but every journey begins with the first step. And ever since the fall of the Ottomans, and subsequent carving up into artificial states, of its empire, there has been little effort to demand such democratic reforms.
This is certainly a situation that must change if we're to avoid 400 million muslims (based upon total 1 Billion population) facing a bleak economic future and looking for someone to blame.
The Central Scrutinizer
Alarming Rise in the Number of Unmarried Girls
Abdullah Bajubeer
It seems that our dear country is going to become one of the pioneers in producing unmarried women. Indeed we now have one million such women and the number is going to increase to four million in the next five years. This is the statement made by Dr. Abdullah Al-Fawzan, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at King Saud University, and published in local newspapers.
The reason, according to him, is our culture, which sets the ages between 18 and 24 as the desirable time for marriage. Once a young woman is 25, she joins the list of unmarried women, whereas in the rest of the world, a woman is considered marriageable until the end of her life.
Dr. Al-Fawzan focuses on age as the main reason for the number of unmarried women. After a quarter of a century writing on the subject, I must say that there are other reasons equally important for the number of unmarried girls. One is the absence of social gatherings between families — these exist in other cultures and allow boys and girls to meet and get to know each other. At such gatherings, parents are of course present and aware of what their offspring are doing.
In any case, these meetings often pave the way to engagement and marriage. Here too, there are high walls that surround a girl and prevent her from going out, talking to or meeting young men on different occasions. She becomes a hostage to house and wall, waiting for a groom. And I do not know how a prospective groom could overcome all these obstacles just so he could see his bride-to-be and get to know her.
Then of course there is the problem of dowries and the cost of marrying, which a young man is unable to bear at so early a stage in his life. The reasons go on but the result is the same. Obviously, we will continue to have large numbers of unmarried girls as long as there is resistance to change.
* * *
One study of emotional life in the US showed that 50 percent of single women are between the ages of 40 and 69. Of that number, the majority are divorcees. The study also showed that a large number of single American women are not embarrassed about relationships with men much younger than them. This particular phenomenon has spread because of Hollywood stars being involved with young men half their age. The young men are thus encouraged to become involved with women who are more fit to play the role of “mother” rather than “girlfriend” or “lover”.
Studies revealed that young men’s enthusiastic interest in older women is due to the fact that many women have important jobs, plenty of money as well as power and influence. And this has driven many young men to go after richer, older women.
Psychologists explain that older women do not need to worry about possible pregnancy or any responsibility resulting from the relationship. She is in the relationship solely for purposes of pleasure. Some doctors say that most women who have relationships with younger men do so after they have brought up their own children and are seeking emotional enjoyment with the extra attraction of rejuvenating themselves.
What is seen in modern American life is that older women chasing younger men have become usual. And American society has accepted the fact, feeling that each person is free in his or her personal life. Now, will other societies accept this or will it be confined to America?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9§ion=0&article=37399&d=2&m=1&y=2004
Another article I found via a websearch goes into greater depth on the issue and discusses how the average dowery a Saudi male is expected to pay equates to about $53,000. This is quite a sum for your average unemployed (or underemployed) Saudi male:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1019653/posts
COMMENT:
I opine that the demographic within the Muslim world, but in particular the Mid-East, is a major influence upon the recent rise of Islamic militancy. It's little wonder that, when 40% of the muslim world is under 18 years of age, that restless youth with no viable hope of having their economic aspirations and dreams fulfilled, would turn to those who claim to have the answer.
One only has to imagine how the political picture would compare in the US were 50% of our population under 18 and dealing with 30% functional unemployment (and far higher in countries other than Saudi Arabia). These young people would be very impressionable and susceptible to reactionary/radical and militant ideas, whether political or religious.
I believe this is a crucial part of fighting the "War on Terror", and seems to be one of the driving strategies of the Neo-Conservative movement. However, some are theorizing that he Neocons within the Bush administration are falling from grace and the "realists" movement coming back into vogue..
The US will make a major strategic error if we fail to assist in resolving the economic and social problems within the region, something along the lines of a Mid-East Marshall plan. We'll lack any measure of influence (the kind that money can buy), and we'll still eventually bear the brunt of criticism and resentment as the militant clerics continue to assert that their economic plight is due to a US/Zionist conspiracy.
It is sure that democratic reforms would take many years to take root in the Mid-East, but every journey begins with the first step. And ever since the fall of the Ottomans, and subsequent carving up into artificial states, of its empire, there has been little effort to demand such democratic reforms.
This is certainly a situation that must change if we're to avoid 400 million muslims (based upon total 1 Billion population) facing a bleak economic future and looking for someone to blame.
The Central Scrutinizer
Thursday, January 01, 2004
Recently the Egyptian Foreign Minister was attacked by a Palestinian mob outside the Al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem.. Apparently they asserted that his talks that day to salvage the "road map to peace" discussions were a betrayal to their cause. Furthermore, they appeared to be predominantly Islamic militants who raised a call for a resumption of the bloody Jihadist war waged in that country..
Strong language to use against nation that has been one of the primary political patrons of Arafat..
However, the Egyptians are a proud people, and they don't particularly like having their politicians roughed up by a bunch of ungrateful Palestinians. And it doesn't hurt when the state information service, and most newspapers, take their lead from the Mubarak regime.
There's some fascinating stuff on this link related to Egyptian resentment over this attack.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD63604
The Central Scrutinizer
Strong language to use against nation that has been one of the primary political patrons of Arafat..
However, the Egyptians are a proud people, and they don't particularly like having their politicians roughed up by a bunch of ungrateful Palestinians. And it doesn't hurt when the state information service, and most newspapers, take their lead from the Mubarak regime.
There's some fascinating stuff on this link related to Egyptian resentment over this attack.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD63604
The Central Scrutinizer
Seizure Helped Speed Libyan Cooperation on Weapons
Secret Shipment Contained Component Parts Used in Nuclear Production
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 4, 2003; Page A18
U.S. and British intelligence services in late September discovered that a freighter bound for Libya was hauling thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component for producing nuclear weapons, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday. Officials said the interception of the cargo, worth tens of millions of dollars, was a factor in squeezing Libya to give up its deadliest weapons programs.
The shipment was headed from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, an interim transshipment point, aboard a German ship. With help from the German government and the German shipping company, the United States was able to get the freighter, BBC China, diverted to a southern Italian port shortly after it passed through the Suez Canal.
Officials boarded the ship in Italy in early October and seized the cargo, which was not listed on the ship's manifest, U.S. officials said. The craft was less than two days from docking in Libya.
The Bush administration believes the intelligence coup accelerated Libya's cooperation with the United States and Britain. Although secret talks on Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs had begun some six months earlier, the government of Moammar Gaddafi had not yet given a date for U.S. and British intelligence to visit Libyan weapons-development sites. After the interdiction, U.S. and British inspectors were in Libya within two weeks, U.S. officials said.
Other U.S. officials, however, said they were concerned at the time that the seizure might undermine the attempt to win Libya's cooperation. "Quite the contrary. It could have derailed the effort," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The operation, details of which were reported today in the Wall Street Journal, was the first interdiction under the new Proliferation Security Initiative, an agreement among 11 countries to stop and search planes and ships suspected of carrying banned weapons or missile technology. Seizure of the cargo proves the initiative's importance as a new tool in tracking and curtailing the spread of weapons technology, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
"It's clearly a success for the proliferation initiative but it's also an allied success, especially for the Germans and Italians," a senior administration official said. The official described both the German government and the shipping company as "extremely cooperative."
The secret shipment also offered important insight into Libya's arms programs. Although U.S. intelligence was aware of Libya's chemical weapons program, Washington was surprised by Tripoli's ongoing interest in developing nuclear arms. The shipment, several large crates, also indicated Gaddafi had an active nuclear program, U.S. officials said.
The Bush administration is still reluctant to provide details of the operation or the source of the centrifuge parts. U.S. officials insisted the shipment did not come from Pakistan, which has been linked to sales of nuclear technology to other countries.
"The technology we're talking about was stolen years ago from Urenco, a European consortium. It was used in Pakistan to enrich uranium but it was also used elsewhere. There's a black market in this material," said the senior U.S. official.
A European official said, however, that a private Pakistani arms specialist is being investigated to see if he was involved in any aspect of the deal.
After the intelligence discovery, the United States tracked the German freighter, U.S. officials said. Most of the operation was conducted by U.S. intelligence in cooperation with other countries, but with no U.S. military involvement. Once the ship docked in the Italian port of Taranto, one of two Italian military ports, U.S. officials boarded the freighter.
U.S. officials are not sure why Gaddafi was reaching out to the international community and pledging privately to disarm at the same time his government was acquiring a large shipment of weapons-development equipment. U.S. officials speculate that Libya was hedging its bets.
Centrifuges of the kind found on the German ship can be used to develop weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons. On Sunday, U.N. investigators in Libya were shown dozens of centrifuges and other equipment, although no evidence was found that the country had enriched uranium. Mohammed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday the equipment indicated that Libya was at an "early stage" of its weapons program.
Washington Post staff writers Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44389-2003Dec31.html
COMMENTARY:
I find it just amazing how some people seem to insist that economic and political sanctions are actually effective against some of these dictatorial megalomaniacs...
Qaddafi obviously was presented a clear choice by the US/UK representatives.
"We know what you're up to..
We have seized sufficient evidence to justify taking military action against you.
So now you have a choice.."
And as the article mentioned, they were not sure that this seizure wasn't going to derail the talks which had been ongoing for some 6 months already..
Can anyone truly claim that Muhammar didn't take a look at what happened to Saddam and factor that into his decision??
The US doesn't want to be in the position of having to use force in every case of proliferation. But we also don't want these rogue regimes to be able to predict exactly when the threshold of tolerance has been crossed. Don't let them be able to predict your response. Keep them off balance and unwilling to take major risks that might threaten their power.
The Central Scrutinizer
Secret Shipment Contained Component Parts Used in Nuclear Production
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 4, 2003; Page A18
U.S. and British intelligence services in late September discovered that a freighter bound for Libya was hauling thousands of parts for centrifuges, a key component for producing nuclear weapons, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday. Officials said the interception of the cargo, worth tens of millions of dollars, was a factor in squeezing Libya to give up its deadliest weapons programs.
The shipment was headed from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, an interim transshipment point, aboard a German ship. With help from the German government and the German shipping company, the United States was able to get the freighter, BBC China, diverted to a southern Italian port shortly after it passed through the Suez Canal.
Officials boarded the ship in Italy in early October and seized the cargo, which was not listed on the ship's manifest, U.S. officials said. The craft was less than two days from docking in Libya.
The Bush administration believes the intelligence coup accelerated Libya's cooperation with the United States and Britain. Although secret talks on Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs had begun some six months earlier, the government of Moammar Gaddafi had not yet given a date for U.S. and British intelligence to visit Libyan weapons-development sites. After the interdiction, U.S. and British inspectors were in Libya within two weeks, U.S. officials said.
Other U.S. officials, however, said they were concerned at the time that the seizure might undermine the attempt to win Libya's cooperation. "Quite the contrary. It could have derailed the effort," said a well-placed U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The operation, details of which were reported today in the Wall Street Journal, was the first interdiction under the new Proliferation Security Initiative, an agreement among 11 countries to stop and search planes and ships suspected of carrying banned weapons or missile technology. Seizure of the cargo proves the initiative's importance as a new tool in tracking and curtailing the spread of weapons technology, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
"It's clearly a success for the proliferation initiative but it's also an allied success, especially for the Germans and Italians," a senior administration official said. The official described both the German government and the shipping company as "extremely cooperative."
The secret shipment also offered important insight into Libya's arms programs. Although U.S. intelligence was aware of Libya's chemical weapons program, Washington was surprised by Tripoli's ongoing interest in developing nuclear arms. The shipment, several large crates, also indicated Gaddafi had an active nuclear program, U.S. officials said.
The Bush administration is still reluctant to provide details of the operation or the source of the centrifuge parts. U.S. officials insisted the shipment did not come from Pakistan, which has been linked to sales of nuclear technology to other countries.
"The technology we're talking about was stolen years ago from Urenco, a European consortium. It was used in Pakistan to enrich uranium but it was also used elsewhere. There's a black market in this material," said the senior U.S. official.
A European official said, however, that a private Pakistani arms specialist is being investigated to see if he was involved in any aspect of the deal.
After the intelligence discovery, the United States tracked the German freighter, U.S. officials said. Most of the operation was conducted by U.S. intelligence in cooperation with other countries, but with no U.S. military involvement. Once the ship docked in the Italian port of Taranto, one of two Italian military ports, U.S. officials boarded the freighter.
U.S. officials are not sure why Gaddafi was reaching out to the international community and pledging privately to disarm at the same time his government was acquiring a large shipment of weapons-development equipment. U.S. officials speculate that Libya was hedging its bets.
Centrifuges of the kind found on the German ship can be used to develop weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons. On Sunday, U.N. investigators in Libya were shown dozens of centrifuges and other equipment, although no evidence was found that the country had enriched uranium. Mohammed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Monday the equipment indicated that Libya was at an "early stage" of its weapons program.
Washington Post staff writers Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44389-2003Dec31.html
COMMENTARY:
I find it just amazing how some people seem to insist that economic and political sanctions are actually effective against some of these dictatorial megalomaniacs...
Qaddafi obviously was presented a clear choice by the US/UK representatives.
"We know what you're up to..
We have seized sufficient evidence to justify taking military action against you.
So now you have a choice.."
And as the article mentioned, they were not sure that this seizure wasn't going to derail the talks which had been ongoing for some 6 months already..
Can anyone truly claim that Muhammar didn't take a look at what happened to Saddam and factor that into his decision??
The US doesn't want to be in the position of having to use force in every case of proliferation. But we also don't want these rogue regimes to be able to predict exactly when the threshold of tolerance has been crossed. Don't let them be able to predict your response. Keep them off balance and unwilling to take major risks that might threaten their power.
The Central Scrutinizer
Sunday, December 28, 2003
Coincident with my previous post, here's a link to the Middle East Media Researsh Institute, a valuable resource for getting the "jist" of the latest and greatest in current Arab thought:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2403
Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003
By: Steven Stalinsky
Introduction
The following report consists of Palestinian sermons from 2000-2003. Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The sermons are broadcast live every Friday at noon from mosques under control of the PA and are shown on PA television. Part I of this report includes the common themes of the sermons, such as: calls for the destruction of the U.S., the perceived American Crusader war against Islam, honoring Shahids and the rewards of the martyrs, educating children to martyrdom, and antisemitism, including calls for the killing of Jews. Part II includes Palestinian leaders being questioned by Western journalists about the content of the sermons, and is followed by Part III, the transcripts of the Friday sermons.
Part I: Common Themes
Calls for the Destruction of the U.S.
"Allah wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans" is a common theme heard in PA sermons, as with Sheikh Ahmad Abd-Al-Razek's sermon on October 4, 2002. [1] Frequent calls for the destruction of the main allies of the U.S. - Britain and Israel - are also heard. As Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi stated, "Allah willing, this unjust state will be erased - Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States, will be erased; this unjust state, Britain, will be erased." [2]
Themes of Arab hatred of the U.S. within sermons often have Islamic historical undertones. For example, the leading Palestinian religious figure, Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, stated in a sermon on PA radio, "Allah, destroy the U.S., its helpers and its agents. Allah, destroy Britain, its helpers and its agents. Allah, prepare those who will unite the Muslims and march in the steps of Saladin. Allah, we ask you for forgiveness before death, and mercy and forgiveness after death. Allah, grant victory to Islam and the Muslims…" [3] The U.S. and its allies are also commonly referred to as Christian and Jewish Crusaders who must be fought. For example, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, speaking at a mosque named after UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, stated, "Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them… Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the Crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them…" [4]
2003: The Year the American Crusader War Against Islam Began
In the year 2003, a common theme which emerged in PA sermons is that the U.S has begun a Crusader war against the Arabs. Sheikh Muhammad Abu Al-Hunud stated in a sermon on March 28, 2003, "If, God forbid, something happens to Iraq, the aggression and the Crusade will turn tomorrow against the Koran… God forbid, his second assault is on the Koran, [he wants] to change verses and to mess with Allah's book, to Americanize the region, Americanize the religion, Americanize the Koran, Americanize Muhammad's message… To my brothers in Iraq, to the President of Iraq, to the Iraqi leadership, to the Iraqi people… Strike, my brother; may your right arm, oh proud Iraq, be strong… strike Allah's enemies with it. Strike with it the enemies of humanity… from the pulpits of Al-Azhar and other mosques around the world, that any Muslim who does not stand by Iraq and support it against the American-British-Crusaders cruel attack… Allah, grant victory to the Iraqi army… Allah, defeat America and its allies… Allah, purify the Islamic soil from the American and British treason and defilement… Allah, make their possessions a booty for the Muslims, Allah, annihilate them and their weapons, Allah, make their children orphans and their women widows…" [5]
Con't...
Commentary.
One has to really ask themselves exactly what form of govermental and social system
any Palestinian state eventually takes. Aside from the dubious rational for encouraging or rewarding nationalist movements amongst people who lack any of the traditional definitions of a distinct nationality (unique religion, language, culture, or even cuisine), we must ask ourselves whether we're going to permit ourselves to be complicit in the creation of a militant Islamic state.
Personally speaking, I could care less if a Palestinian State is created. Anyone who rationally analyzes the scenario recognizes that it will not be a viable economy or society. Furthermore, it will be far less tolerant of non-Palestinians than the Israelis are of their Arab citizenry (which constitutes 1/5 of their population).
But it appears that a Palestinian state is necessary to diffuse regional tension and militant rhetoric that sustains much of the Islamic militancy, as well as undermining US credibility in the region. Thus, the Bush administration will likely be facing increasing pressure to obtain some kind of peace treaty between the parties, even if it's "coerced", or purchased through bribes between the two parties (ala Camp David).
But it's clear that Israel is going to pursue their wall.. And currently I'm of the opinion that maybe it's the right thing to do... Walls can always be torn down when the animosity and distrust calm down..
But to get to that point, the kinds of militant diatribes we see evidenced in the above link will have to be confronted and defeated.
The Central Scrutinizer
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR2403
Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003
By: Steven Stalinsky
Introduction
The following report consists of Palestinian sermons from 2000-2003. Each Khatib (preacher) is a paid employee of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The sermons are broadcast live every Friday at noon from mosques under control of the PA and are shown on PA television. Part I of this report includes the common themes of the sermons, such as: calls for the destruction of the U.S., the perceived American Crusader war against Islam, honoring Shahids and the rewards of the martyrs, educating children to martyrdom, and antisemitism, including calls for the killing of Jews. Part II includes Palestinian leaders being questioned by Western journalists about the content of the sermons, and is followed by Part III, the transcripts of the Friday sermons.
Part I: Common Themes
Calls for the Destruction of the U.S.
"Allah wreak vengeance on the Jews and the Americans" is a common theme heard in PA sermons, as with Sheikh Ahmad Abd-Al-Razek's sermon on October 4, 2002. [1] Frequent calls for the destruction of the main allies of the U.S. - Britain and Israel - are also heard. As Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi stated, "Allah willing, this unjust state will be erased - Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States, will be erased; this unjust state, Britain, will be erased." [2]
Themes of Arab hatred of the U.S. within sermons often have Islamic historical undertones. For example, the leading Palestinian religious figure, Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, stated in a sermon on PA radio, "Allah, destroy the U.S., its helpers and its agents. Allah, destroy Britain, its helpers and its agents. Allah, prepare those who will unite the Muslims and march in the steps of Saladin. Allah, we ask you for forgiveness before death, and mercy and forgiveness after death. Allah, grant victory to Islam and the Muslims…" [3] The U.S. and its allies are also commonly referred to as Christian and Jewish Crusaders who must be fought. For example, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, speaking at a mosque named after UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, stated, "Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them… Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the Crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them…" [4]
2003: The Year the American Crusader War Against Islam Began
In the year 2003, a common theme which emerged in PA sermons is that the U.S has begun a Crusader war against the Arabs. Sheikh Muhammad Abu Al-Hunud stated in a sermon on March 28, 2003, "If, God forbid, something happens to Iraq, the aggression and the Crusade will turn tomorrow against the Koran… God forbid, his second assault is on the Koran, [he wants] to change verses and to mess with Allah's book, to Americanize the region, Americanize the religion, Americanize the Koran, Americanize Muhammad's message… To my brothers in Iraq, to the President of Iraq, to the Iraqi leadership, to the Iraqi people… Strike, my brother; may your right arm, oh proud Iraq, be strong… strike Allah's enemies with it. Strike with it the enemies of humanity… from the pulpits of Al-Azhar and other mosques around the world, that any Muslim who does not stand by Iraq and support it against the American-British-Crusaders cruel attack… Allah, grant victory to the Iraqi army… Allah, defeat America and its allies… Allah, purify the Islamic soil from the American and British treason and defilement… Allah, make their possessions a booty for the Muslims, Allah, annihilate them and their weapons, Allah, make their children orphans and their women widows…" [5]
Con't...
Commentary.
One has to really ask themselves exactly what form of govermental and social system
any Palestinian state eventually takes. Aside from the dubious rational for encouraging or rewarding nationalist movements amongst people who lack any of the traditional definitions of a distinct nationality (unique religion, language, culture, or even cuisine), we must ask ourselves whether we're going to permit ourselves to be complicit in the creation of a militant Islamic state.
Personally speaking, I could care less if a Palestinian State is created. Anyone who rationally analyzes the scenario recognizes that it will not be a viable economy or society. Furthermore, it will be far less tolerant of non-Palestinians than the Israelis are of their Arab citizenry (which constitutes 1/5 of their population).
But it appears that a Palestinian state is necessary to diffuse regional tension and militant rhetoric that sustains much of the Islamic militancy, as well as undermining US credibility in the region. Thus, the Bush administration will likely be facing increasing pressure to obtain some kind of peace treaty between the parties, even if it's "coerced", or purchased through bribes between the two parties (ala Camp David).
But it's clear that Israel is going to pursue their wall.. And currently I'm of the opinion that maybe it's the right thing to do... Walls can always be torn down when the animosity and distrust calm down..
But to get to that point, the kinds of militant diatribes we see evidenced in the above link will have to be confronted and defeated.
The Central Scrutinizer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)