>> ^T-man:

A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth. What the fuck are you talking about? impossible to answer my ass, its a simple question where a yes or no answer would suffice.

What's GDP growth right now?
The last reported quarter (Jan-Mar), we had 1% growth. So if we are in a recession it would of had to have started in the Apr-Jun quarter and it hasn't been determined yet. Do you know what GDP growth was in the Apr-Jun quarter? And since a recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth, do you know what GDP growth is going to be this quarter (you know, the one that started 9 days ago)?
So you try and answer the question. Are we in a recession? Yes or no?


Here's how I would answer the question. "Based on last quarters figures, we had a net gain in our gross domestic product, therefore by definition, no we are not in a recession"

I'm not pissed because I think he's lying, I'm pissed because he doesn't FUCKING KNOW! I mean, I don't know but, then again, I'm not running for President and I'm sure I'd find out if I were.

A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth. What the fuck are you talking about? impossible to answer my ass, its a simple question where a yes or no answer would suffice.

What's GDP growth right now?

The last reported quarter (Jan-Mar), we had 1% growth. So if we are in a recession it would of had to have started in the Apr-Jun quarter and it hasn't been determined yet. Do you know what GDP growth was in the Apr-Jun quarter? And since a recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth, do you know what GDP growth is going to be this quarter (you know, the one that started 9 days ago)?

So you try and answer the question. Are we in a recession? Yes or no?

The terrifying truth about Komodo dragons.

Already on its way to become one of the most complained-about ads of the year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/23/asa.advertising.

Sbouldn't it be added to gay channel?

On the flip-side - Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Wait - so that bill passes - where's the 25% drop in oil prices?


I found the below article on CBS News ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/19/politics/animal/main4197625.shtml )...not sure if there should be any concern that there was a big "Presented By ExxonMobile" near the top of the article. I would think it's going to take a while to make any impact and that whole time the speculators are going to do what they can to find workarounds. All up I think it's a good opinion piece and does raise a couple questions in my mind about the loophole and the oil industry. But for now I think we wait a bit and see what develops.


Jun 19, 2008 - (Political Animal) THINKING OUT LOUD ABOUT OIL....Is oil in a speculative bubble? There are a couple of memes making the rounds on this score: First, that the "real" fair market price of oil ought to be around $70/barrel or so, and second, that the speculative bubble sending the price up to $130/barrel has been fueled by the "Enron loophole," a measure passed in 2000 that exempted online energy commodity trading from federal regulation.

On the first issue, I'm confused: I have no idea how you'd figure out the "real" price of oil even in theory. I suppose you could make historical arguments about oil prices, or perhaps compare the prices of different forward contracts and look for inconsistencies, but those strike me as the kinds of strategies that can be used to prove whatever you set out to prove. So count me as skeptical that they can tell us very much. At the very least, claiming that $70 is the right price because that's how much it costs to pump a marginal barrel of oil is silly. If demand increases but nobody has any more oil to pump, then the price will get bid up regardless of the cost of production.

Now, that doesn't mean there isn't a bubble. Maybe the global savings glut, which powered the housing bubble, is now being redirected to oil. But unlike housing, where there are analytical tools and historical trends you can use to get at least a sense of whether prices are way above their fundamentals, oil bobs up and down all the time. And since there's no truly reliable data on how much production capacity the world has (hell, there's not even any truly reliable data on how much oil is actually produced on a monthly basis), there's no way of setting any kind of baseline. So who knows?

On the second issue, I'm also confused, though a little less so. But here's the thing: the Enron loophole has been closed. I can't quite figure out if it got closed last month or last week (there was a technical glitch with the farm bill it was attached to), but in any case, it's been closed. It will be several months before the CFTC can actually implement regulation and oversight of online trading, but if this is really a factor in driving up oil prices then even the prospect of near-term regulation ought to have a dramatic effect on speculative buying. But in fact, nothing much has happened lately. Oil prices are down today based on news out of China, but for the most part prices have just jumped around sort of randomly in the $130-140 range over the past couple of weeks. There's been nothing dramatic at all. So my initial feeling is that the Enron loophole theory doesn't hold water.

In any case, this is mostly a long-winded way of shrugging my shoulders and saying, "eh." I just felt like noodling over this stuff in public. Based on my general knowledge of the oil industry and its constraints, I've long believed that the steady rise in oil prices since 2003 has been basically driven by supply and demand. But I have to admit that the huge increase over the past five months has had a bit of a bubbly feel to it. Aside from a few interesting tidbits, though, I haven't really come across much solid evidence to back that up. But I'll keep looking into it.

>> ^Rambaldi:
if people don't want to vote for candidates that support AIPAC, no one's forcing them.

I think that is where the contention lies, the major party system simply does not allow people who are critical of AIPAC or it's polices, much less the policies of Israel, to win a major party endorsement, and therefor have a realistic chance of being elected to office in the US.

I can, and have voted for candidates who oppose AIPACs polices, but in a winner take all system, such as we have in the US, such votes for minor party candidates don't end up changing policy ,and at times they even work in the other direction, such as Florida 2000.

The Guardian's take on it: Clinton's reaction was dangerously abrasive and selfish.

CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKECAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE CAR-LS JUN-IOR MILK-SHAKE

"Save the Green Planet":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_the_green_planet

Director: Jang Jun-hwan - the article isn't big, but here it is anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Jun-hwan

When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby Dick, I'll believe them.
(Newsweek, Jun 9, 1997)

Assassinations predicted by "Moby Dick":

-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
-President Rene Moawad
-Soviet exile Leon Trotsky
-The Reverend Martin Luther King
-Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss
-The assassin Sirhan Sirhan
-John F. Kennedy
-Abraham Lincoln
-Yitzhak Rabin

And Special Guest star:
Princess Diana
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

Judging by the room this chair is in, its furniture for some of the "swankier" love motels which litter the cities. I was here (South Korea) from jun o4-jun 05 and am here again since last October. I had a chance (on several occasions) to stay in a love motel and just looking at cover on the bed in the background proves to me that it is a love motel. How do I know? haha just look at this.

I fervently disagree with you. I have asserted that "the article is based on the argument that thiomersal is bad for you" or more specifically that it causes autism or neurological disorders.

"a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children."

I assert that thimerosal is main topic of this article(Published Jun 2005).

I never said that article was based on Wakefield's work.

I said, 'I believe' and 'I think' the article is based on Wakefield's work, there is a difference. And I still think that this could be true. It is the only article I could find on PubMed and ISI that discussed links between autism and thimerosal.

There are a couple other peer reviewed papers, which showed inconclusive results, but this is the main one and it is the most frequently cited. Wakefield is one of the only scientist who has published data that says this is true. A myriad of other work, most conclusively done by that Danish researcher I cited earlier, say that there is no evidence to link the two.

Without any other research to base their facts on, the most likely source in my opinion is Wakefield's paper from 1998. If this is the case, then the claims made the paper are not as strong as they would be otherwise because,

"In 2004, 10 of the 13 authors of the original Wakefield study retracted the paper's "interpretation", or conclusion, section, which had claimed: "Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." The retraction of this claim stated that the data were insufficient to establish a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism.[8] Wakefield was later found to have received £435,000 in fees from trial lawyers attempting to show the vaccine was dangerous [9] [10]. Also in 2004, the United States' Institute of Medicine reported that evidence "favors rejection" of any link between vaccines containing thimerosal, or MMR, and the development of autism [11]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

The most important comment I think I have made is that this is A NONISSUE BECAUSE MOST IF NOT ALL VACCINES CAN BE OBTAINED WITHOUT THIMEROSAL.

@ant - I think it is based on All Videos page of 620 pages * 30 vids per page. (18600 live videos)
(If you use the front page it only says 612 pages * 30 videos)

67,700 submissions to-date (regular, dead, discarded, sifttalks, collective pages? maybe even playlists)

195,000 comments (including siftbots ?

In Jun 2006 we were at 3300 submissions.

What does Da Vinci have to do with scientific evidence of 'ideal beauty'?

A man drew a chick with no eyebrows. Whoa, so beautiful, eh?

If you want a REAL scientific research paper done on this subject, I found this in JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9556(197403%2F06)87%3A1%2F2%3C269%3AT'SAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

The 'Golden Section': An Artifact of Stimulus Range and Measure of Preference
Michael Godkewitsch
The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 1/2 (Mar. - Jun., 1974), pp. 269-277

Quote from Abstract:

"The conclusion is that preference for the golden section is an artifact of its position in the range of stimuli presented and of the measures of preference rather than of any intrinsic aesthetic quality."

I do admit that there's some type of 'universally ugly' or 'universally pretty' face do exist in this world. But I'm pretty dang certain that golden ratio doesn't apply here. Basically almost everyone on this earth who looks 'normal' will fit within that graphed mask.

Besides, it's no rocket science that you'd find a man with 2 feet of jaws and a cranium the size of Jupiter not fit for 'pretty ratio'. Duh.