Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Instead of learning to cower from a gunman, start packing your own heat!

Colleges confront shootings with survival training

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Hundreds of colleges across the nation have purchased a training program that teaches professors and students not to take campus threats lying down but to fight back with any "improvised weapon," from a backpack to a laptop computer.

The program — which includes a video showing a gunman opening fire in a packed classroom — urges them to be ready to respond to a shooter by taking advantage of the inherent strength in numbers....

"Look at your environment through the lens of survival," said Domenick Brouillette, who administered the course at Metropolitan Community College, which serves more than 20,000 students. "Survivors prepare themselves both mentally and emotionally to do what it takes. It might involve life-threatening risk. You may do something you never thought you were capable of doing."
Utter tripe. What people need to do is carry their own firearms, which will place them on equal footing with criminals. As the old saying goes, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. You also don't dodge bullets by turning over a table and hiding behind it, or by flinging a bag around. A backpack could work against someone who attacks you with a knife, but unless it's solid metal, it will do nothing against a bullet.

If you rely in this absurd concept of "strength of numbers," it simply means you're putting your life in other people's hands. In a public place, those "other people" are generally folks you don't know and therefore can't trust. Oh, someone might be honest to return a ten-spot that you dropped, but I'm talking about trusting strangers with your life, that they're willing to risk their necks alongside you. And what if they're incompetent at self-defense? I wouldn't even trust classmates I saw all the time. God knows one might dislike me and wants to see me hurt or dead, perhaps deliberately not trying so hard when it's my life at stake.

Even assuming others will coordinate effectively with your own maneuvers, it's still an excellent chance that when you try to subdue the gunman with your non-lethal items, someone's going to die! Three, four or five people might start whacking the gunman, but the odds are exceptionally good that the gunman will get off shots at close range. Look, my Christian faith teaches, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends," but that certainly doesn't mean Christians should want to die. Nor do I want to put up my life for a bunch of idiotic sheep who expect me to be their sacrificial lamb, especially when the sheep are the same ones who elect governments that restrict my ability to defend myself and others with effective weapons.

Some of you might still remember the 2007 shooting spree at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square. What stopped the shooting was the heroism of Kenneth Hammond, who traded shots with the gunman and bought precious time until a SWAT team showed up. It wasn't that Hammond was an off-duty cop, but the fact that he was armed. Any private citizen with a decent firearm, and competence in using it, could have done the same.

What if a bunch of people at Trolley Square decided to rush the shooter? Well, there would have been a higher body count, that's what. Real life isn't the cinema, where protagonists emerge unscathed or maybe wounded but not mortally. The only way for us, in the real world, to resist in such a situation is to respond with a lethal and ranged weapon. The only "mental preparation" you need is the will to kill a human being in the legitimate defense of yourself and others. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have no problem with that.

I went to Trolley Square many a time when I lived in Utah and still can't imagine it turned into a bloodbath. The Bush Administration, for all its "War on Terror" talk, didn't want to call it an act of terrorism. When a Muslim starts shooting indiscriminately in a public place, shouting "Allahu Akbar," what else could it be?

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

More liberal lies about energy

This idiot speaking before Hillary said that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil but has only 3% of the reserves.

First, that's proven reserves. Reserves are in fact not going down, but constantly going up despite global consumption. That's because because we keep discovering new reserves that exceed what we take out. The world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil per day, so Brazil's new reserves of 33 billion barrels could alone supply the world's needs for just over a year. And what about all the other deposits we know about and will likely continue to discover?

Second, the moron is confusing consumption with total supply, just like there's a difference between income and savings. The former is a rate at which the latter increases or decreases. If a wife is using 25% of the family's income but personally contributed only 3% of the assets, that's not necessarily a problem. What if the family spends $100,000 a year but has billions in wealth? If the U.S. uses 20 million barrels of oil per day. That means a newfound deposit of 20 billion barrels will by itself supply the U.S. for 1000 days.

Now the idiot is talking about Obama's plan to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in "green technology," how it will create 5 million new jobs. Don Luskin debunked this in June:
Let's see... $150 billion over ten years is $15 billion a year. Let's see... 5 million jobs. That's $3,000 a year per job. Let's see... that's a wage rate of about $1.40 an hour. If those are "good" jobs, I'll take a bad one if you don't mind.

Does this mean Obama favors repealing the minimum wage?
All you need to do is put things in perspective, to think for a minute that a billion is a thousand millions, and liberals' lies become so transparent.

Good lord, the fucker is so obese, he can't even fully button his shirt collar. Reminds me of Peter Jackson at the Oscars a few years ago. Surely they make enough to afford a decent shirt with a collar that fits?

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Biden for Obama's running mate? This has to be a joke

Putting aside the "Obama-Biden" jokes (imagine what Leno and Letterman will say Monday night!), this has to be a joke. Even the mainstream media, which has been fawning over Obama since Super Tuesday, is pointing out that "I'm not an insider" Obama has picked one of the biggest D.C. insiders.

Like Jesse Jackson's manufactured comments to give Obama "racial credibility," could choosing Biden also be contrived? As always, the only question is: why?

The answer: Hillary. She and Bubba are speaking at the convention, and they maneuvered to get her name on a roll-call. This is her opportunity to say, "Our presumptive nominee is faltering in his judgment, but I'm willing to lead you to victory!" Or what if Obama withdraws so Hillary can step in? Imagine dirty tricks behind the scenes, something the Clinton camp discovered that would destroy Obama in a general election, but something they'd rather use in secret. Remember the rumors last November, sparked by Robert Novak, that Hillary's people had dirt on Obama? Waiting to use it for blackmail could explain why "scandalous information," if it does exist, didn't come out earlier.

Self-anointed Hillary, after we all thought she was finished (at least this year), assuming what she always believed was rightfully hers. Hmm. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Random House bows to Islamofascist pressure

Apparently the truth about Islam's pedophile founder hurts. Random House has canceled the U.S. publication of Sherry Jones' novel about A'isha, the child whom Mohammed (hellfire be upon him) "married" when she was only 9 years old. Random House's statement cited thinly veiled threats: "The decision was based on advice from scholars of Islam, among several creditable sources, that publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community and could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

In other words, we're looking at more "protest" reactions like with the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Since the novel was already published in Serbia, Sherry Jones will probably have a fatwa issued against her, if one hasn't been already.

It's strange. I'm trying to think of when Catholics "strongly advised" Dan Brown and Doubleday regarding "The Da Vinci Code," or when Protestants issued death threats against someone for mocking Jesus. You might remember, Catholics did protest against "The Golden Compass," but show me one person or structure that was ever threatened.

Back in 2006, when Pope Benedict merely quoted someone's observation of Islam, virtually the entire Muslim world was ready to explode. Note that that NY Times article was completely dishonest: Benedict didn't make his own statement, instead only quoting a Byzantine king from the 14th century, and daring to claim, "But unlike the cartoons crisis, the reaction has been verbal rather than violent." Oh really? Not only was he threatened, but churches in Israel and Gaza were firebombed, and Sister Leonella Sgorbati was murdered. If that's only verbal, I'd hate to see what real violence is! Would that be what Sherry Jones might have had waiting for her?

Come to think of it, I never did post a graphic I made:



These Muslim "protesters" are like the Obama campaign, always finding something to be outraged about.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Just when you think envirowhore liberals can't get any more stupid

MoveOn.org (more aptly named Morons.org) e-mails:
Last year, the biggest oil companies made almost $150 billion in profits—an all-time record.1 But our friends at the Center for American Progress just released a report showing that John McCain wants to give them even more—$39 billion in tax cuts and subsidies.2

It's a stark choice: we can invest in solar panels on our roofs. Wind farms powering our homes. Plug-in hybrids that use barely any gas. New, green jobs revitalizing our communities. Or we can follow John McCain's plan, and keep giving billions of our tax dollars to oil companies.
Oh yes, their "research" and "studies" backed by the agenda-driven socialists at the CAP, which lists Tom Daschle -- one of the few in the Senate who was a bigger birdbrain than Harry Reid, for crying out loud -- among its "energy experts."

Contrary to what liberals say, "profit" is not a dirty word. Oil companies are providing a product that people want, and as best as they can, considering that the tree huggers and the federal government have screwed up natural forces of supply and demand. And if you think oil companies are making the biggest profits off oil, guess again: it's the federal and state governments. People buy oil and gasoline voluntarily, while governments force the companies to pay taxes.

Liberals are also complete idiots in the financial sense of spending far more money than these "alternative energy" sources are worth. Oh, sure, let's all spend $20,000 per home to install solar panels on our roofs. Not only would it would take someone like me 10 years to break even, I'd have to turn to a steady energy source on a dark, rainy day like today, and in fact anytime I needed a bit more juice. That $20,000 might get you as strong as a 2000-watt system, barely enough to power a decent-sized microwave and a few light bulbs!

Look at all the "34,520 People (and Counting)" on an "unofficial waiting list" for the Volt plug-in hybrid, which Chevy won't start producing until November 2010. Think of how many are so unthinking, so brainwashed by the envirowhores' reality-defying propaganda of "clean energy," that they'll plunk down $40,000 to $50,000 (the car will cost at least $40K per unit just to manufacture) for what really isn't a lot of car, thinking that extra money will be offset by saving gasoline! However many there are, you can safely bet they vote Democrat.

Rather than the federal government waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the "clean energy" lobby's demands, think of what you could get instead of the Volt: a relatively fuel-efficient (even discounting its size) Camry, quite a lot of car for being only in the mid-$20K range. Think of how long it would take you to spend $15,000 on gasoline. I have a friend who commutes to Greenwich in his Jeep Liberty, which is comparably priced to the Camry. Even when gas was at its most expensive, spending $80 per week on gasoline means he'd need three years and seven months to save $15000 on a Volt, not even counting the electricity costs of plugging it in, and without using its hybrid engine!

What these dimwits call a "tax break" isn't one at all. If they want to hike someone's taxes, but the taxes stay at the same level, they call that a "tax break" or a "tax cut." It's the same trick that Democrats have used for years: they call it a "cut" when a government program still grows but at a slower rate.

McCain is far from perfect, but one thing that's surprised me is his stance against subsidies. On the other hand, Democrats, and a lot of Republicans too, want to waste untold billions. Will we really "revitalize our neighborhoods" with these inefficient "green" jobs? Have we already forgotten that Obama wants to spend $150 billion to create these? As Bastiat taught us, that's $150 billion taken away from the rest of the economy, meaning at best, that $150 billion will create jobs by removing $150 billion from the rest of the economy.

You might be wondering why I bother to get e-mail from the MoveOn morons. The first reason is because you should know your enemy. We know what liberals say, because it rarely varies from what they've said before. It's the same mixture of state-worshipping with a twisted desire to run our economy into the ground. But we should always hone ourselves by constantly rebutting whatever specific arguments they're sending out at the present time.

The second reason is that I signed up as part of getting my own free Obama pin. Never fear: I have absolutely no intention of wearing it. I'll probably mutilate it and throw it away, but the fact is that I'll cost MoveOn some money: they're giving it away, including shipping at their expense.

Just think: MoveOn wants to give a million of the buttons away this week, and I say that everyone against Obama should join in. Let's get them to give away a hundred million of them! That's less money for them to use for their propaganda. As I told Don Luskin, we could make this effort as cost-effective as the KKK advertising on BET.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Some, uh, shit you just can't make up

Flying piece of art causes museum chaos in Switzerland

GENEVA (AFP) — A giant inflatable dog turd by American artist Paul McCarthy blew away from an exhibition in the garden of a Swiss museum, bringing down a power line and breaking a greenhouse window before it landed again, the museum said Monday.

The art work, titled "Complex S(expletive..)", is the size of a house. The wind carried it 200 metres (yards) from the Paul Klee Centre in Berne before it fell back to Earth in the grounds of a children's home, said museum director Juri Steiner.

The inflatable turd broke the window at the children's home when it blew away on the night of July 31, Steiner said. The art work has a safety system which normally makes it deflate when there is a storm, but this did not work when it blew away.

Steiner said McCarthy had not yet been contacted and the museum was not sure if the piece would be put back on display.

What's the one U.S. "corporation" that is genuinely "too big"?

I was standing in a Wal-Mart checkout line the other day, and the in-store, third-party bank reminded me of a post from a couple of years ago, about the idiots who say Wal-Mart is "too big" for government to permit it to have its own industrial banking operations. The claim is that Wal-Mart would become too dominant, drive "mom and pop" out of business, and so on. Lost is the simple logic that Wal-Mart's continued success is because it delivers what consumers want! Consumers aren't forced to go inside a Wal-Mart, let alone buy anything.

Well, I realized something. There is a "corporation," a quasi-business entity in the United States, that forces every American to transact business with it. It's true.

This public corporation dwarfs even Wal-Mart. It takes in a fifth of the U.S. economy (and not counting all your unseen costs because of what it enforces), and you have no choice but to pay in for whatever services it provides. And it doesn't matter if you get nothing back. It's so powerful that if you refuse to do business with it, and they find out, they'll send the police after you. The police, courts and military are all in its pocket.

The board of directors has 546 people, assisted and sometimes fellated by tens of thousands of overpaid lackeys. The chairman and chief executive has 20 major advisors of his own, each with their own bloated hierarchies. Supposedly the board members are accountable to the 300 million forced American customers, but they rarely seem to be held accountable to anything. It's always the same story of bribery, sex, even drugs, and any "rotation" is merely to the next generation of corrupt officers. Many people have a sense of "outrage" but resign themselves to being forced customers for all their lives. Many others like being "forced," because they pay little for a lot of services received. The entire business seems to be making one half of customers happy with services that the other half are coerced into paying for.

This corporation has made only occasional profits in the last century. Back in the 1990s, it used accounting tricks to make it appear it had a small surplus, and its executives never have to sign off on financial statements. Meanwhile it hypocritically wants every other public corporation to follow standard accounting rules, and for their executives to sign off on company financials.

This corporation is so powerful, and remember its influence runs throughout the courts, that it can subject all other corporations to prosecution, fines, even breakup. This one is seemingly invincible, always holding itself above the law. Oh, a few members leave in disgrace after being caught (but often still keeping generous pensions), and even fewer are indicted, but the corporation as a whole always gets away with it. It has no compunction in employing corporate espionage to make would-be competitors uncompetitive to the point of bankruptcy. It routinely uses the threat of physical violence to force other companies into "deals." It accuses other companies of "predatory pricing," "collusion," "price-gouging" and "market manipulation," when its day-to-day operations are all about those!

Now, wouldn't you all agree this corporation is a bad one to permit to exist? It's too big, too involved in our economy, too dangerous. And the name of this corporation: the United States federal government.

Ask yourself why there's "outrage" over big companies, but rarely a significant squeak about the federal government's size -- most complaints are mere pandering to voters. Federal debt is bad, there's no denying that, but even with zero federal budget deficits, federal spending is still an enormous portion of the economy!

Ask yourself why we should be worried at all about Wal-Mart, with whom you at least have a choice. You have no such choice with government, which compels you under the eventual threat of death.

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Bravo to these parents who won't stand for their children being kidnapped

As I've written before, justice does not require law. Justice and the need to uphold it existed before men made laws, and upholding justice does not require that something be codified, inked on parchment or cut into a stone wall. For example, when God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, did that mean it was ok if people had broken them before?

Bastiat said, "The nature of law is to maintain justice." And the only thing required to maintain justice is that people have the will to do what is necessary to defeat evil. ("The training is nothing! Will is everything!")

My friend Charlie sent me the link to this story about parents who found that their kids were suddenly over at the next-door home of two men. After retrieving their children, the parents didn't call the police. No, they instead got some friends together:
Moments later, several adults from the children's house, including their father, broke into Bell's home from several points, breaking through the locked door and some windows, Kraft said.

Bell and Fair were beaten, with Fair getting the worst of it. At one point, the attackers smashed a TV set onto Fair's head. He suffered a broken eye socket and his forehead was split open badly enough that doctors had to use staples to put it back together.

Bell ran out of the house to escape but was caught in a neighbor's yard and beaten. He suffered two black eyes, and the side of his head and an ear were heavily injured after his head was repeatedly pounded into the pavement and his neck was cut with shards of glass.

After police came, Bell was arrested and later charged in 3rd District Court with two counts of child kidnapping.
Absolutely fantastic. Maybe now these two will learn that they should not expect to get away with kidnapping children.

Here is Bell's mug shot. He got too little of what he really deserved. For what he did, he shouldn't have been able to stand on his own.

If you read only this story and selected comments, you might think that the parents and neighbors "overreacted" and were the ones in the wrong. A Google search turns up much more on the Deseret News site and elsewhere, showing that the children were abducted -- nonviolently, but that's still abduction.

Why didn't the parents just call the police? Well, why didn't Bell and Fair call the police right away, to tell them about two very young children who had, oh, "wandered away from home"? Why didn't they just bring them back next door, instead of taking them into their house?

The parents did not call the police because the police often do not defend us to the extent that is necessary, especially when it's easier to subjugate and harass the innocent. And when good cops do come, it's all too often too late to do anything useful. For all the parents knew, there might be insufficient proof the children were ever in that house, in which case it's their word against the accused. The two men are already playing the victim card, claiming they were targetted for their homosexuality in ultra-conservative Utah.

More importantly, if government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, then the government cannot do anything legitimate that the people themselves cannot do legitimately. That means the police cannot enforce justice with any greater authority than the people -- so the people have every bit of authority to act as needed so they themselves can uphold justice, even if it means they assume the roles of judge, jury and, yes, even executioner. When I hear of some thief getting shot while fleeing from a store owner, or a mugger who gets beaten within an inch of his life, I call it justice. If the guilt is clear, why weep for the criminal?

And I call this justice too. Idiot commenter "Moral of the story" said, "If you see a wandering child, run away as fast as you can," but the whole story (not revealed in this single article, but others) is that the children were kidnapped from their own home! The two kidnappers have now provided three distinctly different stories. They found the children unsupervised on the street. The children wandered to their house. The parents asked them to watch the children during the all-night party. The mother, on the other hand, has never changed her story on how the children wound up next door, so how can any thinking person not give her the most credibility?

Equally idiotic commenter Sad said, "The real tragedy here was the violence. To have true world peace we must live it." Really. And what about those who don't want to live peacefully and won't leave us alone?

One anonymous fool said, "Looks like they are a bunch of salvages that know no law or order in society." So to have "law or order" in society, we should do nothing ourselves, and instead beg the police to come rescue our children? That's what this goddamn fool is saying!

"I agree" said, "No one has the right to take the law into their own hands..No One! Regardless of the emotions involved there are laws and procedures in place for a reason. It may not be the best system but it beats anything else. Vigilante just is criminals going after criminals. Charge these adults with assault and battery as well as breaking and entering. The law needs to be upheld by all, regardless of the situation." Here you have bleeding-heart liberalism combining with authority-worshipping conservatism to form the biggest degree of state-worshipping. It's a deference to whatever is "the law," no matter whether the law is right, and a belief that doing anything outside of "the law" is being a "vigilante." This person does not understand that the authority of any legitimate law comes from the people, not the other way around.

This person "embarrassing" should be embarrassed to be a human being. "I cannot believe the parents behaved in this fashion. If they noticed their children missing, they should have contacted the Police. They have no right, regardless of if the neighbor had or had not kidnapped the children to round up an angry mob to attack the neighbor and his sleeping housemate. I am terribly embarrassed the children have such out of countrol parents. I am embarrassed by the behavior of the parents. Ridiculous!" Again, this is someone else who worships "law" and fails to understand that the authority of legitimate government comes from people. Now, were I a child who was kidnapped and whose whereabouts were known, I would grow up to be embarrassed if my parents were so spineless that they did no more than rely on the police, instead of coming to take me home by force. I would be ashamed that my parents were such cowards.

As far as the allegations of "hate crime," these "Utah Pride" morons can go to hell. Bell and Fair had their asses kicked because they kidnapped what they figured was easy prey. And what is this horseshit about "The children were not harmed"? Kidnapping someone is most certainly causing harm, even if the victim is too young to realize it.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Fry in hell, Jose Medellin

This rapist-murderer finally got deported -- to hell, where he belongs.

Good riddance. This bleeding heart defense says that he was never allowed to contact the Mexican consulate, but that's beside the point. Medellin's guilt was never in question, and as a comment points out, it was four years after his conviction when "I didn't get to talk to my consulate!" came up. In other words, it was a legal trick he and his lawyer used.

As far as Stephen Breyer's idiotic dissent that executing Medellin would violate our treaties, I'd like to see what treaty we signed that permits wetbacks to come here, rape and murder two U.S. citizens, and get away with it.

The only travesty is that he wasn't sodomized until he bled to death, which is still more than what he deserved.

A comment at Michelle Malkin's blog puts it so well: "I wonder if he let his victims contact their consulate before he raped, strangled and murdered them."

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

The truth about oil versus gasoline prices

Updated: the formatting was off on the chart. It's more readable now.

This New York Post article jumps on the tired old bandwagon: oh, those evil oil companies raise prices quickly and lower them slowly!

There are several reasons why this argument is completely false and absurd, not to mention dishonest when you look at the numbers.

First, it compares crude oil's $140 very temporary peak with pump prices that don't fluctuate as quickly. Short-lived peaks tend not to be reflected at the pump, because station managers prefer to keep prices stable: consumers like a stable price that's a midpoint of fluctuations, rather than a constantly changing price, because it minimizes their costs of searching for and remembering gas prices. So if oil peaked at $140 for a few days and averaged around $130 for a longer period of time, you won't see a 7.7% drop of pump prices. The pump price changed based on oil's price over a longer period of time, not to mention the lag time of several weeks that's required to refine crude oil into gasoline and deliver it.

A while back I sent Don Luskin the link to a story describing how gas stations -- yes, gas stations! -- are hurting. Believe it or not, gas stations have razor thin profit margins of a few cents per gallon, and that's before paying fees to a credit card company.

Second, the graph is statistically absurd and completely dishonest. A proper evaluation of crude versus gasoline requires much more than just the last ten months of prices. Also, the y axes have been dishonestly misaligned. An honest graph would have started with a base of zero, but here there are offsets, which were chosen carefully and deliberately. The only reason to choose them is force the prices to appear somewhat correlated until the last little while, which isn't true.

Third, oil and gasoline have separate price elasticities, on both the supply and demand curves. It's partly because not all oil is converted into gasoline, and mainly because sunk costs, marginal costs and marginal revenues are very different for the two.

Fourth, the truth is that gasoline prices have gone up more slowly than crude prices. Let's take a look at some numbers. The Department of Energy provides historical gasoline pump prices from 1978 forward and historical crude oil prices from 1993 forward. However, I went back only to 1997 for my analysis. Crude prices from 1993 through 1996 are spotty, and it's simply poor statistical work to interpolate one week's price for an entire year.

The only difficulty is in formatting the numbers. After that, it's just a matter of applying common sense, instead of succumbing to anti-capitalist hysteria. Look at the ratio of a barrel of crude to a gallon of gasoline: the truth is that the price of oil has increased much faster than the pump price of gasoline, precisely the reverse of these accusations of price-gouging! If anything, oil companies are doing a favor to consumers by increasing gasoline prices more slowly than the price of crude has gone up, wouldn't you say?

Actually, no. They're still acting in their self-interest, but for each product, the price charged is what people are willing to pay, and the different rates of price increase are merely demonstrative of the different price elasticities.

Lots of numbers follow:
               U.S. All Grades All
Formulations Retail Price per Ratio of crude
Gasoline Prices barrel of price to
Date (dollars per gallon) crude gasoline price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 06, 1997 1.272 22.90 18.00
Jan 13, 1997 1.287 23.56 18.31
Jan 20, 1997 1.287 22.79 17.71
Jan 27, 1997 1.284 21.83 17.00
Feb 03, 1997 1.282 21.16 16.51
Feb 10, 1997 1.280 20.97 16.38
Feb 17, 1997 1.273 19.93 15.66
Feb 24, 1997 1.270 19.38 15.26
Mar 03, 1997 1.261 18.05 14.31
Mar 10, 1997 1.253 17.74 14.16
Mar 17, 1997 1.246 17.79 14.28
Mar 24, 1997 1.250 18.36 14.69
Mar 31, 1997 1.246 17.95 14.41
Apr 07, 1997 1.248 17.09 13.69
Apr 14, 1997 1.244 16.55 13.30
Apr 21, 1997 1.245 16.32 13.11
Apr 28, 1997 1.240 16.59 13.38
May 05, 1997 1.238 16.98 13.72
May 12, 1997 1.238 16.73 13.51
May 19, 1997 1.247 17.82 14.29
May 26, 1997 1.255 18.45 14.70
Jun 02, 1997 1.258 17.97 14.28
Jun 09, 1997 1.251 17.45 13.95
Jun 16, 1997 1.242 16.50 13.29
Jun 23, 1997 1.232 16.40 13.31
Jun 30, 1997 1.226 16.71 13.63
Jul 07, 1997 1.222 17.09 13.99
Jul 14, 1997 1.219 16.81 13.79
Jul 21, 1997 1.222 16.91 13.84
Jul 28, 1997 1.216 17.00 13.98
Aug 04, 1997 1.237 17.31 13.99
Aug 11, 1997 1.272 17.70 13.92
Aug 18, 1997 1.274 17.33 13.60
Aug 25, 1997 1.288 17.39 13.50
Sep 01, 1997 1.287 16.99 13.20
Sep 08, 1997 1.288 17.04 13.23
Sep 15, 1997 1.281 16.88 13.18
Sep 22, 1997 1.269 16.59 13.07
Sep 29, 1997 1.255 16.95 13.51
Oct 06, 1997 1.254 17.92 14.29
Oct 13, 1997 1.248 18.61 14.91
Oct 20, 1997 1.238 17.77 14.35
Oct 27, 1997 1.228 17.75 14.45
Nov 03, 1997 1.221 17.59 14.41
Nov 10, 1997 1.222 17.41 14.25
Nov 17, 1997 1.213 17.37 14.32
Nov 24, 1997 1.207 17.19 14.24
Dec 01, 1997 1.197 16.87 14.09
Dec 08, 1997 1.187 16.17 13.62
Dec 15, 1997 1.176 15.62 13.28
Dec 22, 1997 1.167 15.42 13.21
Dec 29, 1997 1.158 15.41 13.31
Jan 05, 1998 1.148 14.86 12.94
Jan 12, 1998 1.140 13.80 12.11
Jan 19, 1998 1.129 13.26 11.74
Jan 26, 1998 1.112 12.95 11.65
Feb 02, 1998 1.108 13.26 11.97
Feb 09, 1998 1.101 13.05 11.85
Feb 16, 1998 1.085 12.77 11.77
Feb 23, 1998 1.090 12.38 11.36
Mar 02, 1998 1.075 11.66 10.85
Mar 09, 1998 1.065 11.59 10.88
Mar 16, 1998 1.055 10.69 10.13
Mar 23, 1998 1.047 10.38 9.91
Mar 30, 1998 1.077 12.40 11.51
Apr 06, 1998 1.074 12.48 11.62
Apr 13, 1998 1.072 11.91 11.11
Apr 20, 1998 1.075 11.92 11.09
Apr 27, 1998 1.086 11.99 11.04
May 04, 1998 1.095 12.28 11.21
May 11, 1998 1.109 12.80 11.54
May 18, 1998 1.109 12.62 11.38
May 25, 1998 1.108 12.20 11.01
Jun 01, 1998 1.104 12.38 11.21
Jun 08, 1998 1.113 12.06 10.84
Jun 15, 1998 1.104 11.01 9.97
Jun 22, 1998 1.096 9.62 8.78
Jun 29, 1998 1.096 10.74 9.80
Jul 06, 1998 1.097 10.72 9.77
Jul 13, 1998 1.092 10.68 9.78
Jul 20, 1998 1.097 11.11 10.13
Jul 27, 1998 1.088 11.03 10.14
Aug 03, 1998 1.077 11.53 10.71
Aug 10, 1998 1.072 11.34 10.58
Aug 17, 1998 1.065 10.80 10.14
Aug 24, 1998 1.058 10.98 10.38
Aug 31, 1998 1.053 11.17 10.61
Sep 07, 1998 1.046 11.14 10.65
Sep 14, 1998 1.042 11.50 11.04
Sep 21, 1998 1.053 11.79 11.20
Sep 28, 1998 1.053 13.07 12.41
Oct 05, 1998 1.059 13.50 12.75
Oct 12, 1998 1.063 12.64 11.89
Oct 19, 1998 1.058 11.69 11.05
Oct 26, 1998 1.055 11.07 10.49
Nov 02, 1998 1.050 11.77 11.21
Nov 09, 1998 1.048 11.44 10.92
Nov 16, 1998 1.037 10.84 10.45
Nov 23, 1998 1.030 9.99 9.70
Nov 30, 1998 1.015 9.72 9.58
Dec 07, 1998 0.996 8.87 8.91
Dec 14, 1998 0.987 8.51 8.62
Dec 21, 1998 0.986 8.95 9.08
Dec 28, 1998 0.979 8.73 8.92
Jan 04, 1999 0.977 9.10 9.31
Jan 11, 1999 0.982 10.00 10.18
Jan 18, 1999 0.985 10.14 10.29
Jan 25, 1999 0.977 9.63 9.86
Feb 01, 1999 0.971 9.89 10.19
Feb 08, 1999 0.968 9.60 9.92
Feb 15, 1999 0.960 8.90 9.27
Feb 22, 1999 0.949 8.99 9.47
Mar 01, 1999 0.955 9.62 10.07
Mar 08, 1999 0.963 10.03 10.42
Mar 15, 1999 1.017 11.12 10.93
Mar 22, 1999 1.056 12.10 11.46
Mar 29, 1999 1.121 12.90 11.51
Apr 05, 1999 1.158 14.14 12.21
Apr 12, 1999 1.179 13.77 11.68
Apr 19, 1999 1.175 14.24 12.12
Apr 26, 1999 1.171 15.39 13.14
May 03, 1999 1.176 15.83 13.46
May 10, 1999 1.180 16.17 13.70
May 17, 1999 1.180 15.29 12.96
May 24, 1999 1.166 14.52 12.45
May 31, 1999 1.151 14.63 12.71
Jun 07, 1999 1.152 14.07 12.21
Jun 14, 1999 1.148 15.21 13.25
Jun 21, 1999 1.163 15.55 13.37
Jun 28, 1999 1.153 15.47 13.42
Jul 05, 1999 1.165 16.16 13.87
Jul 12, 1999 1.182 16.97 14.36
Jul 19, 1999 1.208 17.56 14.54
Jul 26, 1999 1.232 17.78 14.43
Aug 02, 1999 1.234 18.23 14.77
Aug 09, 1999 1.246 18.32 14.70
Aug 16, 1999 1.275 19.15 15.02
Aug 23, 1999 1.273 19.58 15.38
Aug 30, 1999 1.273 19.24 15.11
Sep 06, 1999 1.282 19.64 15.32
Sep 13, 1999 1.290 20.82 16.14
Sep 20, 1999 1.307 21.84 16.71
Sep 27, 1999 1.302 21.97 16.87
Oct 04, 1999 1.296 22.29 17.20
Oct 11, 1999 1.290 21.10 16.36
Oct 18, 1999 1.277 20.39 15.97
Oct 25, 1999 1.277 20.64 16.16
Nov 01, 1999 1.271 20.62 16.22
Nov 08, 1999 1.274 20.73 16.27
Nov 15, 1999 1.292 22.39 17.33
Nov 22, 1999 1.309 23.24 17.75
Nov 29, 1999 1.315 24.24 18.43
Dec 06, 1999 1.313 23.43 17.84
Dec 13, 1999 1.315 24.05 18.29
Dec 20, 1999 1.310 23.60 18.02
Dec 27, 1999 1.314 23.65 18.00
Jan 03, 2000 1.312 23.86 18.19
Jan 10, 2000 1.304 22.68 17.39
Jan 17, 2000 1.318 23.18 17.59
Jan 24, 2000 1.354 25.56 18.88
Jan 31, 2000 1.355 25.34 18.70
Feb 07, 2000 1.364 25.53 18.72
Feb 14, 2000 1.394 26.10 18.72
Feb 21, 2000 1.443 26.62 18.45
Feb 28, 2000 1.458 26.60 18.24
Mar 06, 2000 1.539 27.55 17.90
Mar 13, 2000 1.566 29.11 18.59
Mar 20, 2000 1.569 27.89 17.78
Mar 27, 2000 1.549 25.08 16.19
Apr 03, 2000 1.543 24.29 15.74
Apr 10, 2000 1.516 23.26 15.34
Apr 17, 2000 1.486 22.05 14.84
Apr 24, 2000 1.478 23.00 15.56
May 01, 2000 1.461 23.32 15.96
May 08, 2000 1.495 24.40 16.32
May 15, 2000 1.531 25.77 16.83
May 22, 2000 1.566 26.96 17.22
May 29, 2000 1.579 26.93 17.06
Jun 05, 2000 1.599 27.14 16.97
Jun 12, 2000 1.664 27.02 16.24
Jun 19, 2000 1.711 28.56 16.69
Jun 26, 2000 1.691 28.37 16.78
Jul 03, 2000 1.661 28.78 17.33
Jul 10, 2000 1.630 27.58 16.92
Jul 17, 2000 1.586 27.03 17.04
Jul 24, 2000 1.562 26.32 16.85
Jul 31, 2000 1.514 24.74 16.34
Aug 07, 2000 1.504 24.78 16.48
Aug 14, 2000 1.489 26.68 17.92
Aug 21, 2000 1.508 27.88 18.49
Aug 28, 2000 1.521 28.36 18.65
Sep 04, 2000 1.568 29.81 19.01
Sep 11, 2000 1.598 31.50 19.71
Sep 18, 2000 1.599 30.08 18.81
Sep 25, 2000 1.586 30.94 19.51
Oct 02, 2000 1.563 27.93 17.87
Oct 09, 2000 1.541 27.49 17.84
Oct 16, 2000 1.578 30.13 19.09
Oct 23, 2000 1.588 29.03 18.28
Oct 30, 2000 1.584 29.73 18.77
Nov 06, 2000 1.565 28.49 18.20
Nov 13, 2000 1.562 29.09 18.62
Nov 20, 2000 1.550 30.26 19.52
Nov 27, 2000 1.549 30.39 19.62
Dec 04, 2000 1.526 29.20 19.13
Dec 11, 2000 1.490 24.70 16.58
Dec 18, 2000 1.462 22.84 15.62
Dec 25, 2000 1.453 21.07 14.50
Jan 01, 2001 1.446 20.38 14.09
Jan 08, 2001 1.465 21.77 14.86
Jan 15, 2001 1.513 22.91 15.14
Jan 22, 2001 1.511 23.59 15.61
Jan 29, 2001 1.500 24.37 16.25
Feb 05, 2001 1.483 23.74 16.01
Feb 12, 2001 1.515 25.67 16.94
Feb 19, 2001 1.489 24.18 16.24
Feb 26, 2001 1.471 23.36 15.88
Mar 05, 2001 1.457 22.50 15.44
Mar 12, 2001 1.453 23.42 16.12
Mar 19, 2001 1.444 22.01 15.24
Mar 26, 2001 1.445 21.17 14.65
Apr 02, 2001 1.482 21.78 14.70
Apr 09, 2001 1.540 21.82 14.17
Apr 16, 2001 1.610 22.86 14.20
Apr 23, 2001 1.658 23.23 14.01
Apr 30, 2001 1.665 22.89 13.75
May 07, 2001 1.739 23.97 13.78
May 14, 2001 1.748 23.96 13.71
May 21, 2001 1.724 24.46 14.19
May 28, 2001 1.739 24.96 14.35
Jun 04, 2001 1.715 24.67 14.38
Jun 11, 2001 1.688 24.28 14.38
Jun 18, 2001 1.644 24.50 14.90
Jun 25, 2001 1.583 23.38 14.77
Jul 02, 2001 1.520 22.91 15.07
Jul 09, 2001 1.484 22.58 15.22
Jul 16, 2001 1.459 22.64 15.52
Jul 23, 2001 1.440 21.38 14.85
Jul 30, 2001 1.428 22.28 15.60
Aug 06, 2001 1.419 22.48 15.84
Aug 13, 2001 1.434 23.19 16.17
Aug 20, 2001 1.467 23.32 15.90
Aug 27, 2001 1.523 23.08 15.15
Sep 03, 2001 1.579 23.57 14.93
Sep 10, 2001 1.562 23.89 15.29
Sep 17, 2001 1.564 23.89 15.27
Sep 24, 2001 1.522 23.70 15.57
Oct 01, 2001 1.455 19.61 13.48
Oct 08, 2001 1.393 19.13 13.73
Oct 15, 2001 1.351 18.96 14.03
Oct 22, 2001 1.307 18.02 13.79
Oct 29, 2001 1.277 17.66 13.83
Nov 05, 2001 1.249 17.03 13.63
Nov 12, 2001 1.224 16.36 13.37
Nov 19, 2001 1.208 15.62 12.93
Nov 26, 2001 1.168 14.87 12.73
Dec 03, 2001 1.149 15.76 13.72
Dec 10, 2001 1.136 15.96 14.05
Dec 17, 2001 1.101 15.16 13.77
Dec 24, 2001 1.113 15.59 14.01
Dec 31, 2001 1.137 16.75 14.73
Jan 07, 2002 1.152 17.06 14.81
Jan 14, 2002 1.152 17.60 15.28
Jan 21, 2002 1.146 15.71 13.71
Jan 28, 2002 1.142 15.67 13.72
Feb 04, 2002 1.157 16.53 14.29
Feb 11, 2002 1.148 16.97 14.78
Feb 18, 2002 1.157 18.00 15.56
Feb 25, 2002 1.157 17.54 15.16
Mar 04, 2002 1.185 18.62 15.71
Mar 11, 2002 1.262 20.02 15.86
Mar 18, 2002 1.328 21.62 16.28
Mar 25, 2002 1.382 22.53 16.30
Apr 01, 2002 1.412 23.12 16.37
Apr 08, 2002 1.454 24.00 16.51
Apr 15, 2002 1.446 22.86 15.81
Apr 22, 2002 1.446 22.10 15.28
Apr 29, 2002 1.435 23.34 16.26
May 06, 2002 1.437 24.16 16.81
May 13, 2002 1.431 23.91 16.71
May 20, 2002 1.439 24.69 17.16
May 27, 2002 1.429 24.98 17.48
Jun 03, 2002 1.433 22.01 15.36
Jun 10, 2002 1.417 21.66 15.29
Jun 17, 2002 1.419 21.33 15.03
Jun 24, 2002 1.425 22.92 16.08
Jul 01, 2002 1.433 23.66 16.51
Jul 08, 2002 1.423 23.73 16.68
Jul 15, 2002 1.435 23.94 16.68
Jul 22, 2002 1.451 24.90 17.16
Jul 29, 2002 1.447 24.30 16.79
Aug 05, 2002 1.437 24.28 16.90
Aug 12, 2002 1.435 23.95 16.69
Aug 19, 2002 1.434 24.95 17.40
Aug 26, 2002 1.444 25.87 17.92
Sep 02, 2002 1.436 25.74 17.92
Sep 09, 2002 1.437 25.54 17.77
Sep 16, 2002 1.442 26.29 18.23
Sep 23, 2002 1.436 26.39 18.38
Sep 30, 2002 1.455 27.24 18.72
Oct 07, 2002 1.480 27.08 18.30
Oct 14, 2002 1.481 26.35 17.79
Oct 21, 2002 1.499 26.24 17.51
Oct 28, 2002 1.485 25.11 16.91
Nov 04, 2002 1.489 23.61 15.86
Nov 11, 2002 1.480 22.56 15.24
Nov 18, 2002 1.451 21.46 14.79
Nov 25, 2002 1.423 21.92 15.40
Dec 02, 2002 1.408 22.66 16.09
Dec 09, 2002 1.404 23.48 16.72
Dec 16, 2002 1.407 24.04 17.09
Dec 23, 2002 1.443 26.34 18.25
Dec 30, 2002 1.484 28.23 19.02
Jan 06, 2003 1.487 28.52 19.18
Jan 13, 2003 1.496 28.44 19.01
Jan 20, 2003 1.502 29.21 19.45
Jan 27, 2003 1.515 29.71 19.61
Feb 03, 2003 1.569 29.31 18.68
Feb 10, 2003 1.649 29.46 17.87
Feb 17, 2003 1.701 30.65 18.02
Feb 24, 2003 1.699 30.79 18.12
Mar 03, 2003 1.726 31.35 18.16
Mar 10, 2003 1.752 31.14 17.77
Mar 17, 2003 1.768 30.87 17.46
Mar 24, 2003 1.732 26.51 15.31
Mar 31, 2003 1.692 23.45 13.86
Apr 07, 2003 1.673 24.38 14.57
Apr 14, 2003 1.639 22.69 13.84
Apr 21, 2003 1.618 22.70 14.03
Apr 28, 2003 1.600 23.11 14.44
May 05, 2003 1.556 21.53 13.84
May 12, 2003 1.534 21.83 14.23
May 19, 2003 1.539 23.53 15.29
May 26, 2003 1.528 24.95 16.33
Jun 02, 2003 1.514 24.48 16.17
Jun 09, 2003 1.530 25.50 16.67
Jun 16, 2003 1.558 26.13 16.77
Jun 23, 2003 1.537 25.07 16.31
Jun 30, 2003 1.528 24.95 16.33
Jul 07, 2003 1.530 26.28 17.18
Jul 14, 2003 1.563 26.14 16.72
Jul 21, 2003 1.566 26.90 17.18
Jul 28, 2003 1.558 26.72 17.15
Aug 04, 2003 1.576 26.48 16.80
Aug 11, 2003 1.611 28.20 17.50
Aug 18, 2003 1.668 27.91 16.73
Aug 25, 2003 1.787 27.30 15.28
Sep 01, 2003 1.786 27.84 15.59
Sep 08, 2003 1.758 26.49 15.07
Sep 15, 2003 1.739 25.09 14.43
Sep 22, 2003 1.686 24.09 14.29
Sep 29, 2003 1.635 23.86 14.59
Oct 06, 2003 1.617 25.39 15.70
Oct 13, 2003 1.611 26.69 16.57
Oct 20, 2003 1.612 28.34 17.58
Oct 27, 2003 1.584 26.69 16.85
Nov 03, 2003 1.577 26.23 16.63
Nov 10, 2003 1.547 25.71 16.62
Nov 17, 2003 1.540 27.03 17.55
Nov 24, 2003 1.554 27.94 17.98
Dec 01, 2003 1.533 26.76 17.46
Dec 08, 2003 1.519 26.62 17.52
Dec 15, 2003 1.509 27.46 18.20
Dec 22, 2003 1.528 26.84 17.57
Dec 29, 2003 1.521 27.77 18.26
Jan 05, 2004 1.552 27.63 17.80
Jan 12, 2004 1.603 28.57 17.82
Jan 19, 2004 1.637 29.49 18.01
Jan 26, 2004 1.664 29.28 17.60
Feb 02, 2004 1.660 28.49 17.16
Feb 09, 2004 1.681 27.23 16.20
Feb 16, 2004 1.690 27.10 16.04
Feb 23, 2004 1.730 28.51 16.48
Mar 01, 2004 1.758 29.02 16.51
Mar 08, 2004 1.780 30.42 17.09
Mar 15, 2004 1.767 30.74 17.40
Mar 22, 2004 1.785 31.08 17.41
Mar 29, 2004 1.800 31.09 17.27
Apr 05, 2004 1.822 29.82 16.37
Apr 12, 2004 1.827 29.95 16.39
Apr 19, 2004 1.853 31.05 16.76
Apr 26, 2004 1.853 31.11 16.79
May 03, 2004 1.884 31.71 16.83
May 10, 2004 1.979 33.40 16.88
May 17, 2004 2.055 34.61 16.84
May 24, 2004 2.104 35.56 16.90
May 31, 2004 2.092 34.98 16.72
Jun 07, 2004 2.075 34.83 16.79
Jun 14, 2004 2.029 32.78 16.16
Jun 21, 2004 1.981 32.44 16.38
Jun 28, 2004 1.965 32.43 16.50
Jul 05, 2004 1.939 31.15 16.06
Jul 12, 2004 1.959 33.57 17.14
Jul 19, 2004 1.971 34.30 17.40
Jul 26, 2004 1.948 35.14 18.04
Aug 02, 2004 1.930 36.08 18.69
Aug 09, 2004 1.920 37.51 19.54
Aug 16, 2004 1.917 38.16 19.91
Aug 23, 2004 1.926 39.84 20.69
Aug 30, 2004 1.909 38.58 20.21
Sep 06, 2004 1.893 36.31 19.18
Sep 13, 2004 1.889 36.68 19.42
Sep 20, 2004 1.908 37.01 19.40
Sep 27, 2004 1.959 39.55 20.19
Oct 04, 2004 1.980 41.20 20.81
Oct 11, 2004 2.035 42.02 20.65
Oct 18, 2004 2.077 44.22 21.29
Oct 25, 2004 2.074 44.44 21.43
Nov 01, 2004 2.076 46.00 22.16
Nov 08, 2004 2.045 41.70 20.39
Nov 15, 2004 2.014 39.30 19.51
Nov 22, 2004 1.992 36.74 18.44
Nov 29, 2004 1.989 38.81 19.51
Dec 06, 2004 1.956 35.80 18.30
Dec 13, 2004 1.893 30.30 16.01
Dec 20, 2004 1.861 31.45 16.90
Dec 27, 2004 1.838 34.20 18.61
Jan 03, 2005 1.824 32.07 17.58
Jan 10, 2005 1.837 33.79 18.39
Jan 17, 2005 1.863 36.96 19.84
Jan 24, 2005 1.896 38.16 20.13
Jan 31, 2005 1.953 39.14 20.04
Feb 07, 2005 1.952 37.92 19.43
Feb 14, 2005 1.941 36.58 18.85
Feb 21, 2005 1.948 38.08 19.55
Feb 28, 2005 1.969 40.57 20.60
Mar 07, 2005 2.040 43.38 21.26
Mar 14, 2005 2.098 45.46 21.67
Mar 21, 2005 2.149 46.42 21.60
Mar 28, 2005 2.194 46.97 21.41
Apr 04, 2005 2.258 45.32 20.07
Apr 11, 2005 2.321 47.69 20.55
Apr 18, 2005 2.280 44.23 19.40
Apr 25, 2005 2.279 43.96 19.29
May 02, 2005 2.277 45.90 20.16
May 09, 2005 2.231 43.36 19.44
May 16, 2005 2.206 43.62 19.77
May 23, 2005 2.169 41.17 18.98
May 30, 2005 2.141 41.76 19.50
Jun 06, 2005 2.159 44.79 20.75
Jun 13, 2005 2.173 46.89 21.58
Jun 20, 2005 2.204 47.77 21.67
Jun 27, 2005 2.257 51.22 22.69
Jul 04, 2005 2.268 50.89 22.44
Jul 11, 2005 2.369 52.01 21.95
Jul 18, 2005 2.360 52.57 22.28
Jul 25, 2005 2.333 50.59 21.68
Aug 01, 2005 2.335 51.73 22.15
Aug 08, 2005 2.410 53.65 22.26
Aug 15, 2005 2.592 56.28 21.71
Aug 22, 2005 2.654 57.56 21.69
Aug 29, 2005 2.653 57.66 21.73
Sep 05, 2005 3.117 59.84 19.20
Sep 12, 2005 3.002 58.09 19.35
Sep 19, 2005 2.835 55.86 19.70
Sep 26, 2005 2.851 58.11 20.38
Oct 03, 2005 2.975 57.79 19.43
Oct 10, 2005 2.896 55.47 19.15
Oct 17, 2005 2.775 54.14 19.51
Oct 24, 2005 2.652 53.64 20.23
Oct 31, 2005 2.528 51.84 20.51
Nov 07, 2005 2.424 51.74 21.34
Nov 14, 2005 2.342 50.31 21.48
Nov 21, 2005 2.247 47.86 21.30
Nov 28, 2005 2.200 48.17 21.90
Dec 05, 2005 2.191 48.08 21.94
Dec 12, 2005 2.228 50.11 22.49
Dec 19, 2005 2.255 51.58 22.87
Dec 26, 2005 2.241 49.37 22.03
Jan 02, 2006 2.281 49.56 21.73
Jan 09, 2006 2.371 53.28 22.47
Jan 16, 2006 2.366 55.05 23.27
Jan 23, 2006 2.382 56.45 23.70
Jan 30, 2006 2.402 57.70 24.02
Feb 06, 2006 2.388 57.57 24.11
Feb 13, 2006 2.331 54.70 23.47
Feb 20, 2006 2.286 51.35 22.46
Feb 27, 2006 2.298 51.43 22.38
Mar 06, 2006 2.373 52.96 22.32
Mar 13, 2006 2.408 53.61 22.26
Mar 20, 2006 2.548 53.80 21.11
Mar 27, 2006 2.542 54.18 21.31
Apr 03, 2006 2.631 56.68 21.54
Apr 10, 2006 2.727 58.82 21.57
Apr 17, 2006 2.828 60.99 21.57
Apr 24, 2006 2.960 64.00 21.62
May 01, 2006 2.966 64.89 21.88
May 08, 2006 2.955 65.54 22.18
May 15, 2006 2.992 64.68 21.62
May 22, 2006 2.938 63.38 21.57
May 29, 2006 2.913 62.83 21.57
Jun 05, 2006 2.937 63.84 21.74
Jun 12, 2006 2.951 62.97 21.34
Jun 19, 2006 2.917 61.46 21.07
Jun 26, 2006 2.914 60.89 20.90
Jul 03, 2006 2.979 63.44 21.30
Jul 10, 2006 3.017 66.54 22.06
Jul 17, 2006 3.033 67.24 22.17
Jul 24, 2006 3.048 67.98 22.30
Jul 31, 2006 3.050 66.57 21.83
Aug 07, 2006 3.083 68.13 22.10
Aug 14, 2006 3.047 69.52 22.82
Aug 21, 2006 2.971 66.15 22.27
Aug 28, 2006 2.893 64.86 22.42
Sep 04, 2006 2.777 63.18 22.75
Sep 11, 2006 2.670 60.49 22.66
Sep 18, 2006 2.549 57.28 22.47
Sep 25, 2006 2.429 54.46 22.42
Oct 02, 2006 2.360 53.26 22.57
Oct 09, 2006 2.310 52.75 22.84
Oct 16, 2006 2.274 51.78 22.77
Oct 23, 2006 2.255 51.87 23.00
Oct 30, 2006 2.264 51.61 22.80
Nov 06, 2006 2.246 50.65 22.55
Nov 13, 2006 2.278 51.71 22.70
Nov 20, 2006 2.285 51.50 22.54
Nov 27, 2006 2.292 50.42 22.00
Dec 04, 2006 2.342 53.54 22.86
Dec 11, 2006 2.340 55.55 23.74
Dec 18, 2006 2.366 54.79 23.16
Dec 25, 2006 2.387 55.09 23.08
Jan 01, 2007 2.382 54.00 22.67
Jan 08, 2007 2.354 51.57 21.91
Jan 15, 2007 2.280 47.72 20.93
Jan 22, 2007 2.216 45.29 20.44
Jan 29, 2007 2.213 46.94 21.21
Feb 05, 2007 2.237 49.35 22.06
Feb 12, 2007 2.287 52.15 22.80
Feb 19, 2007 2.341 51.62 22.05
Feb 26, 2007 2.428 52.31 21.54
Mar 05, 2007 2.551 55.18 21.63
Mar 12, 2007 2.605 55.53 21.32
Mar 19, 2007 2.623 54.39 20.74
Mar 26, 2007 2.655 54.02 20.35
Apr 02, 2007 2.753 58.08 21.10
Apr 09, 2007 2.848 60.53 21.25
Apr 16, 2007 2.922 59.21 20.26
Apr 23, 2007 2.917 58.66 20.11
Apr 30, 2007 3.017 59.19 19.62
May 07, 2007 3.097 59.76 19.30
May 14, 2007 3.143 58.06 18.47
May 21, 2007 3.258 60.29 18.51
May 28, 2007 3.250 63.11 19.42
Jun 04, 2007 3.200 62.10 19.41
Jun 11, 2007 3.122 64.10 20.53
Jun 18, 2007 3.057 63.45 20.76
Jun 25, 2007 3.029 65.69 21.69
Jul 02, 2007 3.005 65.51 21.80
Jul 09, 2007 3.026 67.65 22.36
Jul 16, 2007 3.092 70.63 22.84
Jul 23, 2007 3.005 71.71 23.86
Jul 30, 2007 2.926 71.36 24.39
Aug 06, 2007 2.888 72.19 25.00
Aug 13, 2007 2.821 68.09 24.14
Aug 20, 2007 2.832 66.29 23.41
Aug 27, 2007 2.796 65.16 23.30
Sep 03, 2007 2.840 66.47 23.40
Sep 10, 2007 2.862 68.93 24.08
Sep 17, 2007 2.835 70.24 24.78
Sep 24, 2007 2.860 72.62 25.39
Oct 01, 2007 2.838 73.50 25.90
Oct 08, 2007 2.821 73.65 26.11
Oct 15, 2007 2.813 73.39 26.09
Oct 22, 2007 2.873 77.84 27.09
Oct 29, 2007 2.921 79.47 27.21
Nov 05, 2007 3.060 83.69 27.35
Nov 12, 2007 3.158 86.88 27.51
Nov 19, 2007 3.148 85.21 27.07
Nov 26, 2007 3.147 87.93 27.94
Dec 03, 2007 3.113 87.22 28.02
Dec 10, 2007 3.053 81.95 26.84
Dec 17, 2007 3.050 82.44 27.03
Dec 24, 2007 3.032 83.41 27.51
Dec 31, 2007 3.104 85.52 27.55
Jan 07, 2008 3.159 88.41 27.99
Jan 14, 2008 3.119 89.60 28.73
Jan 21, 2008 3.070 85.36 27.80
Jan 28, 2008 3.030 82.66 27.28
Feb 04, 2008 3.030 85.36 28.17
Feb 11, 2008 3.011 83.21 27.64
Feb 18, 2008 3.092 85.50 27.65
Feb 25, 2008 3.180 89.61 28.18
Mar 03, 2008 3.212 91.74 28.56
Mar 10, 2008 3.273 95.15 29.07
Mar 17, 2008 3.332 99.76 29.94
Mar 24, 2008 3.310 99.67 30.11
Mar 31, 2008 3.339 96.65 28.95
Apr 07, 2008 3.381 95.56 28.26
Apr 14, 2008 3.438 101.22 29.44
Apr 21, 2008 3.557 105.27 29.60
Apr 28, 2008 3.653 109.25 29.91
May 05, 2008 3.663 108.98 29.75
May 12, 2008 3.771 112.96 29.95
May 19, 2008 3.840 116.32 30.29
May 26, 2008 3.986 120.16 30.15
Jun 02, 2008 4.026 121.92 30.28
Jun 09, 2008 4.090 117.82 28.81
Jun 16, 2008 4.134 125.28 30.30
Jun 23, 2008 4.131 125.93 30.48
Jun 30, 2008 4.146 128.02 30.88
Jul 07, 2008 4.165 133.60 32.08
Jul 14, 2008 4.164 133.32 32.02
Jul 21, 2008 4.118 134.44 32.65
Jul 28, 2008 4.010 122.59 30.57

Labels: ,

Monday, August 04, 2008

Florida and Michigan delegates are moot, so now Obama wants them seated

"Obama urges full voting rights for Florida, Michigan delegates."

If anything, I thought Democrats were all about "conservation" and reducing our "culture of consumption." So why bother seating delegates who aren't necessary, when their travel would require lots of carbon emissions and promote unnecessary spending on hotel rooms, meals and transportation?

Obama previously didn't want them seated, not when the two states' delegates meant more votes for Hillary Clinton. Now that it doesn't matter, Obama sees no problem in pandering, including throwing out the cliche of "party unity."

Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq troop withdrawal, bans on late-term abortions, and his threatened filibuster of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He told different things to Arabs and Jews -- on the same trip, no less. And just this last week he's flip-flopped on oil drilling. I'm not the first to express this thought, but this slime makes John Kerry look principled! He flip-flopped on public financing of his campaign, which isn't a bad thing since public money shouldn't be given to any candidate, but it shows that Obama can't be taken at his word.

Think of Jack Ryan testifying in front of the Senate panel in "Clear and Present Danger": the senator asks if they can have his word, and Ryan simply replies, "You may indeed, because you have it." When Jack Ryan told you something, you could count on it being the truth (as far as he knew, that is).

Now think of Obama implying that we have "his word" merely because he said something -- yeah, sure.

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Kathy Hilton, thinking people are offended by you

A note to Kathy Hilton:

You might be "offended" by McCain comparing Obama to your daughter, but those of us with working brains are offended by you. It's not just because of your daughter and what you let her become, although since I bring that up, you know the phrase "Keep your knickers on"? Maybe you should have brought up your child to know that the phrase is metaphorical, not literal.

If you're really so concerned that "millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs," Kathy, then here's an easy way you can help: cut back on your own lifestyle and cut off your pathetic whelp's trust fund, and donate the money to charity. You could even use it to help pay off people's mortgages, or employ them directly.

Oh, that's right, you hypocritical bitch, you'd rather the rest of us pay for the solution, while you continue in your lifestyle. Gotcha!

The new president of the Foundation for Economic Education!

The Foundation for Economic Education held its last "Evening at FEE" was this last April, with a wonderful lecture by Walter Block. But we were shocked when Richard Ebeling announced that he was stepping down as president. Five years is a long time at FEE's helm, and he wanted to return to teaching. There had been no indication, at least outside FEE's inner circle, that he would do such a thing.

I will admit that it was with a sense of despair for FEE's future that I stopped visiting its website regularly. What was in store for the foundation? And if it couldn't find a new leader and languished or even died, would that be an indicator of our chances to restore real liberty to this country?

Maybe I do worry too much. I checked its website a couple of days ago, and there's a new announcement: Lawrence Reed has been named the new president, effective this September 1st.

Lawrence Reed, leading FEE? LAWRENCE REED! The same Larry Reed who heads the Mackinac Center, and has not only spoken at FEE but in the past has chaired its Board of Trustees.

I can think of only a few people as fine to head FEE. At that level, you're talking about lovers of liberty like Burt Folsom and James Bovard, who understand what governments do when they interfere with the free market. Reed probably won't remember when I had the privilege of meeting him four years ago, when we talked for a little about a little-spoken danger of a Kerry presidency: Robert Rubin as the new Fed chairman. If you think Greenspan and Bernanke are bad...

I will miss the Ebelings greatly. With their warmth and charm, their talent for management and cultivating contacts, their love of freedom, and especially Richard's wonderfully incessant Hillary jokes, FEE grew in the last four years I've attended its functions. The monthly "Evenings at FEE" became so popular that parking availability has been a problem! FEE made arrangements with a local school so that people could park there and be shuttled by FEE staff. The Ebelings really did so much to revitalize FEE after the disastrous Mark Skousen affair. Briefly, then-president Skousen invited Giuliani to speak at FEE's annual Liberty Banquet, and pay him a $30K honorarium! Skousen's motive was to "attract attention" to FEE and make the banquet into an "outreach program," but many members were outraged, and the Board of Trustees quickly asked for his resignation. FEE appeared in trouble for a while, and there was talk of selling the mansion and assets to be given to other groups.

I've never met Skousen and wasn't involved with FEE during his presidency, but I know the Ebelings and am proud to call them friends. What sets the Ebelings apart is that they've stayed true to their principles, even if it means FEE won't grow as much. No matter how much it might publicize FEE, they're not going to sell out by inviting a fascist to be the main speaker at the annual dinner, let alone waste a great deal of money to pay the person.

The issue with Sonny Landham isn't freedom of speech, but freedom of association

McQ understands: the Libertarian Party had every right to pull the plug on Sonny Landham's campaign. People might disagree, but ultimately it's registered Libertarians' party (pun intended), and its managers have every right to run it as they wish. Contractual agreements are different and are enforceable, but there was none here -- no political party will promise "You'll be our candidate no matter what you say, no matter what positions you'll reveal." Landham's positions on Arab immigration is, well, awfully conservative for someone running on the Libertarian ticket.

Freedom of speech does not mean that others must provide a platform for your speech; the same applies to all other freedoms. You have the right to life, liberty and property, but that does not mean others must guarantee your life and liberty, or provide you with property. Having the rights simply means that you and your defenders can legitimately go after those who violate your rights. But others do not violate your rights just because they won't let you join their group, won't let you borrow a printing device, or even not participate in protecting you and/or your home. It comes down to a private group's members' right to freedom of association, which is an extension of the rights to liberty and property. They have every right to refuse to permit someone's association, depending on enforceable agreements like contracts or by-laws. Likewise, members who think the group is wrong can themselves leave and form their own.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

We should "talk" to Iran because "It's working" with North Korea?!

I can't believe that anyone is so naive, but Ted Carpenter is. You'd think someone smart enough to be at Cato wouldn't have such foolish trust, but we can now rank Carpenter with Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter.
Washington made little progress with the North Koreans until the United States ended its refusal to enter negotiations before they ceased all violations of the 1994 agreement, which was supposed to freeze their nuclear program. Eventually, the U.S. succumbed to pressure from China and East Asian allies and agreed to multilateral negotiations in the form of the six-party talks. But it has only been in the past six months or so that the United States has engaged in direct negotiations with North Korea.
North Korea made it perfectly clear last year: after the U.S. alone gave it millions of tons of food "aid" and countless joules of fuel, it was lying to us for 11 years while it pursued a nuclear weapons program. Why should we believe for a second that it's being straight with us now?

If we have the same success "talking" with Iran as we've had with North Korea, then God help us.
These talks were crucial to the breakthrough that has taken place, and they have involved far more than a narrow focus on the nuclear issue. Washington and Pyongyang are now considering such matters as the normalization of diplomatic and economic relations, the removal of North Korea from the State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism, and a treaty to formally end the Korean War.
There's no breakthrough. Time and time again, U.S. diplomats have been suckered into "negotiations" that are merely the other side's way of stalling.
A U.S. diplomatic initiative involving Iran would require similar characteristics. Direct, high-level negotiations between Washington and Tehran — far more rigorous than the sporadic U.S.-Iranian talks on Iraq — would be imperative. A useful step would be for President Bush to appoint a prominent special envoy, perhaps former secretary of state James Baker, to represent the United States.
Iran loves this: it will buy them more time to build more centrifuges and acquire more technology.
Moreover, those negotiations would have to concern more than Iran's nuclear program or the future of Iraq. Indeed, they would need to encompass the entire range of U.S.-Iranian relations. Topics would have to include removal of U.S. and U.N. economic sanctions and the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, as well as the explicit end of Tehran's quest to build nuclear weapons.
Oh, and Iran will gladly renounce terrorism, including disarming and pulling funds from Hezbollah and other groups? I'm sure it will also offer to pay reparations to Western victims and their families.

I won't hold my breath for any results. Here's what will happen: o. Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will only appear to play nice. The red carpet will be rolled out in Tehran for any U.S. ambassador, and tokens of "friendship" will be exchanged. But behind the scenes, nothing will have changed.
One should have no illusions about such an initiative. The obstacles to success would be even greater than they have been with North Korea. Whereas North Korea is a small, impoverished state, Iran is a midsize power with considerable political and economic clout. And although Russia helps Iran with its nuclear program, it lacks the patronage power that China has exerted on its client North Korea.
Carpenter harbors his own illusion, namely this foolish trust that Iran will somehow play nice. He in fact debunks himself here, admitting that Iran has considerably greater means than North Korea to get what it wants. Why, then, should it bother "negotiating" when it can continue the status quo?
The nature of a resolution of the nuclear issue would also likely be different. North Korea has (at least in principle) agreed to give up its entire nuclear program in exchange for concessions from the United States, Japan and South Korea. It is unlikely that Tehran would agree to such a comprehensive de-nuclearization. Washington may have to accept that reality and focus on achieving sufficient international safeguards to ensure that material from a nuclear power program was not diverted to weapons production.
This is what you get when a libertarian tries to be "pragmatic" and accept "compromise." Compromise is great for the other side, and bad for you.
All of these obstacles are daunting, but if Washington does not adopt a strategy similar to its recent approach toward North Korea, it will soon face highly unpleasant options: accepting Iran as a nuclear-weapons state or launching military strikes to prevent that result.

It's worth trying diplomacy before we reach that point.
Or perhaps there are more choices than such stark ones, did Carpenter ever consider that?

What we do know is that if a neighbor once kidnapped your children, and this neighbor still funds groups that have killed some of your other children, and this neighbor has been perpetually hell-bent on acquiring an armory of assault rifles, then no matter how "reformed" he becomes, you should never trust him with so much as a Derringer. Maybe he can't blow your house to smithereens as he'd like, but one day you'll find yourself shot in the ass.

Labels: , ,