Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register
abichara
member since 08/01/2002
I'm a guy from HIALEAH, Florida/United States
About me: I'm a 26 year old graduate student living in Miami, FL. I enjoy traveling, reading, women, football, baseball, hanging out with friends and a good political debate, not all necessarily in that order!
User Votes: 12789 Helpful / 134 Funny / 1046 Agree / 86 Disagree
RSS Icon

Activity for abichara

3 hours ago

As a political issue, irrelevant.

But as a moral/metaphysical issue, highly fascinating. It is our best attempt at explaining our origins. Certainly a question that's well worth asking. Whether or not it should become a political football, well, that's another question. I think that we should be honest about what we teach kids in school, and leave the proselytizing at the door.

My take on evolution and natural selection is that it obviously isn't a testable scientific theory in the traditional sense. We can't go back in time and directly observe genetic shifts in the development of the species, so what we're left with here is a metaphysical theory of development. The gaps in the history of our development are particularly difficult to explain. But yet the theory has a lot of practical applications. In fact, because of Darwin, our knowledge of genetics and biology in general has grown exponentially. For example, an explanation of why some bacteria adapt to certain anti-biotics like penicillin whereas others don't would be incomplete without an understanding of the theory of natural selection. The theory allows us to study adaptation to a new environment in a clear and rational way. It suggests an element of adaptation, and it gives us the ability to actually study it in detail.

Darwinism, as modern biology understands it, is natural selection theory backed up by Medellian heredity. Put together, this can be a powerful explanatory tool. Basically, mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool is the result of our biological origins, as we've been able to decode through our DNA. Evolution is another component of Darwinism. This states that all life on Earth evolved from a few primitive one celled organisms, maybe even one organism. Over time, life developed into more complex organisms as the environment changed. It is a very broad theory with a lot of gaps, but from a metaphysical standpoint, it makes sense, irrespective of whether you think God was the prime driver in adaptation or not.

We might never get the science because the theory isn't testable, but then again, all scientific theories are merely based on conjecture, even those that have passed very rigorous tests. We are limited by our understanding of the universe to this very time and place only. In short, it is very hard to get our hands on the exact truth because our powers of observation are very limited to a few variables. In our attempts to devise rational explanations for the natural phenomenon, we can be very reductionist in our approaches. The truth is far more complex than our current knowledge of science can fathom. That's why we should endeavor to discover and grow our knowledge in these fields.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

yesterday

Another candidate with a chance at winning the nomination. The one thing Pawlenty has going for him that John Thune and the other Senators running don't have is that he's served in an executive capacity in government, and he comes from a Democratic-leaning state. That shows that he can win in areas that aren't always favorable to Republicans.

He's rising quick on the radars of a lot of national activists, and my bet is that if he doesn't win the nomination, he will get the VP nod. He should have gotten the vice presidential nomination last year, but McCain made a dumb decision by going with Palin. He will likely finish in the top three.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

yesterday

Of all the candidates on this list, John Thune likely has the best shot at winning the nomination. He has the conservative resume to win over the base and has solid communication skills, which will help him with the broader electorate. He also has broad appeal within the party, which is something that the major candidates don't have. Romney has big problems with the evangelicals, Huckabee won't win over the fiscal conservatives, and Palin doesn't score well with moderates. Thune does have a base in all wings, which will help during the primary.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

yesterday

Huckabee is a good public speaker and appeals to some evangelicals, but I don't see him as a top candidate for President.

He does have a lead in most of the polls at this point, and almost always comes in at 2nd or 3rd in the rest, but he still can't raise the money needed to mount a national campaign. That might be a negative for the GOP, who's will be looking for a candidate to match up against Obama, who can raise money at will.

As it stands now, I don't see any "heir apparent" within the Republican establishment for the party leadership. The GOP in recent years has almost never been in that situation: there has always been someone waiting in the wings to run. Huckabee seems to be the top choice, but Romney, Palin and a few others will make their case too.

Romney comes across as professional, but his record as Gov of Massachusetts isn't very strong and his business history as a leveraged buyout specialist won't exactly endear him to the voters, especially in the current economic environment. Palin has the same problems that Dan Quayle had--people don't take them seriously, and that can be very damaging.

Then you have another gaggle of senators and governors taking a look at the race--Bob Corker, Lindsay Graham, John Thune Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and maybe Charlie Crist. Most are moderate type of conservatives that are acceptable to most wings of the party, but I don't see any of them exactly lighting it up either.

In short, this is as wide open of a race as I've seen in some time.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

2 days ago

That was awesome.

Ironic that it usually takes the court jester to point out some of the absurdities of the political system.

Stewart is right; many of these partisaned debate obscure the true nature of the issues, the facts are lost in a ball of personal invective.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 3 Agree / 0 Disagree

2 days ago

Granted the Nobel Committee has in the past given out the award for the most specious of causes, but broadly speaking, it awards accomplishments in major fields of human endeavor. I'm not too sure that all the pop culture pablum on this list does the same.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 1 Disagree

3 days ago

GSE's (Government Sponsored Entities) like Fannie Mae would be bankrupt and long gone like Lehman and Bear Stearns today if not for explicit government and Federal Reserve facilitated write downs of their bad assets in the secondary mortgage markets (e.g. securities and derivatives). In their quarterly report last month, Fannie reported that they've transferred thus far over $1.5 trillion in bad mortgage securities to the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, in a loss sharing agreement they came up with after Fannie was put into government conservatorship last year. These are off balance sheet items--their reported losses, after considering operating costs, is a relatively paltry $19 billion.

Turns out that Fannie (and Freddie's) lending policies during the boom years were very relaxed, and in fact, they bought up a lot of NINJA loans (acronym for No job, No Income, No Assets) and repackaged them into securities. It's a blatant example of short term thinking and cheap political compromises. The thinking was that getting people into homes was a worthy policy goal, even if they couldn't afford it. The mentality was that RE prices would go up infinitely and that it would be a positive store of value for lower and middle income people. Credit expanded way too fast though and unnecessary risks were taken

That's why the losses at these organizations are so magnified today, and it's why even Fannie itself anticipates that the secondary mortgage market will only get worse from here on out. That makes talk of "green shoots" in the economy sound rather peculiar. It is estimated that the Federal Reserve has purchased $5 trillion in GSE debt. That's debt that has been transferred essentially right into the country's money supply. That's why they're printing so much money, to modulate the effects of this debt and to subsidize it. Note that this isn't money that's going towards positive credit creation in the form of business development, infrastructure, or research. Its going to pay off debts based on artificially high values: in short, its "clean" money chasing after bad money.

This is a dynamic that will only serve to continue keeping the market weak and job growth down for the next few years. The credit markets won't improve until this debt is written down, rather than subsidized by the government.

These numbers really make you wonder the true costs of the bailouts. Note that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve don't have to disclose all the true costs. The Comptroller General the other day reiterated his claim that the bailouts have cost the country over $23 trillion! That's a debt load that is simply mathematically unsustainable.

Of course, this has the added effect of debasing the currency, thus structurally weakening the value of the dollar. This is the long term effect that I'm truly worried about. This is partially why central banks throughout the world are moving out of the dollar and into other currencies. Whereas just 10 years ago, over 95% of international bank holdings were in dollars, today that number is down to 62% and dropping fast. In short, the dollar is no longer seen as a reliable store of value, and that's because of the unsustainable debt which the country is incurring.

What going on with Fannie and the rest of the GSE's along with the private banks is fundamentally unsound, especially as to how it relates to the Federal Reserves purchases of bad debt. That practice is specifically forbidden under the enabling legislation of the FED precisely because it could threaten the very stability of the monetary system. Yet the Treasury and the Fed continue the practice in direct contrivance of the law.

There's going to come a point where the country is just going to have to default on its debts. The dollar is already losing its status as the world's reserve currency, and whatever demand remains on the international currency markets is coming as a result of the carry forward trade, where currency dealers short the dollar, knowing that in the intermediate term, the value of the dollar will continue to drop as central banks sell off their holding in American treasuries. The long term trends are not looking good, and we're going to have to face the music sooner rather than later.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

4 days ago

Thanks.

Too many questions here, and too important of a matter to leave alone. Hopefully they ask the pertinent questions.

4 days ago

The facts aren't adding up here, as I see it. In particular, there are some extreme contradictions between what the government is saying and what the media is reporting. On the one hand, it appears as if he was in good standing with the army, he was indeed very recently promoted to Major according to most reports. Yet his family and close associates claim that he was unhappy with the Army, saying that he disapproved of American policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he had a strong presence online that highlighted these views. In fact, his positions were so strong that he was reportedly being tracked by the FBI.

Given this, why would this Hassan guy be lined up for a promotion? I think that perhaps Numbah has a good point here: their recruitment and retainment standards are so laxed that they'll overlook big things like open disagreement with the government's policies or public statements. Why would they promote someone who didn't want to deploy onto foreign soil, and who made himself a security threat? Furthermore, it now appears as if the guy was a religious fanatic; he said "Allhu Akbar" or "Allah is Good" as he methodically gunned down the victims.

These are the same questions that I had about the 9/11 terrorists. How could the FBI and other intelligence agencies, who were keeping tabs on these people for 2 years before the actual incident occurred, not moved in on the situation before it happened? The length and depth of the ineptitude of our security agencies was mindblowing there, and it's the same here. Very tough questions need to be asked, of both the army and the FBI.

I think that there is a lot more to this story than is being revealed. I hope that an honest investigation is conducted here, and that constructive policy changes occur so that a tragedy like this never occur again on one of our military bases.
votes 5 Helpful / 0 Funny / 5 Agree / 0 Disagree

5 days ago

Don't give Dick Cheney or any of his friends ideas!

They're probably already drumming up charges as we speak!
By the Numbers
Ruby magellan sperryc CastleBee Jed1000 DeathRattle
Bird808 MissPackRat4Jesus President -X-D BugahaNE kamylienne Redoedo
PzKpfw VI E Daccory twinmom101 Sarkia Vudija AndrewScott
Underspin irishgit Enkidu JonTheMan scarletfeather Drummond
louiethe20th minkey FranksWildYears Sundiszno portecrayon Flick01
winter_spirit Donovan DrEntropy EschewObfuscation LanceRoxas Randyman