alevin's account talk

[Viva_La_Migra]

I have no fear whatsoever that my right to buy and own a shotgun will disappear in the wake of any gun control laws of any kind, not so long as we have a functioning Supreme Court, regardless of who is president. The issue of right to bear arms by private citizens has not been eliminated nor will it be, the Supreme Court has ruled on that, more than once. And our soon-to-be President and Commander-in-Chief, being familiar with the Constitution, does not labor under any illusions or delusions that way either, as the material you posted from his website acknowledges.

So, how far apart are you and me? I'm not sure yet. As people who've been around me on this subject previously know, I'm hardly antigun, nor am I anti-handgun. So, where are we? What do you fear will happen, seriously? He accepts the right of states to interpret the Amendment and set limits. I believe the Supreme Court has already ruled on that, or will shortly with respect to DC if they havent already (haven't been keeping up with that). That has nothing to do with who is president and everything to do with differing interpretations between states and ultimately mediated by the Supremes.

We aren't apart at all. I have a healthy distrust for BHO and the gun control crowd. The Supremes made a signifcant ruling against the Brady Bill in 1997 that effectively stopped plans for more draconian gun control laws. I found this excerpt from a history of the SCOTUS decision in Mack v. USA: "The Clinton White House said the decision was meaningless and Janet Reno quickly downplayed it stating that it would change nothing. The truth of the matter is Mack's case changed history. There were actually five Brady bills scheduled for Congress' promulgation, each one to be passed one year after the other. Brady bill two was introduced just two months after Sheriff Mack filed his lawsuit by Senator Moynihan. It failed in committee and Brady bills 3, 4, and 5 were never even mentioned. Sarah Brady said at the signing of the first Brady bill that this "was only the beginning." If the rest of her Brady bills had been passed the Second Amendment would have been completely gutted and gun shows would have been a thing of the past."

Liberals frequently cry that conservatives are going to appoint Justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Why couldn't Obama appoint Justices that will overturn Mack v. USA and DC v. Heller? This is my concern. This is also why, even in the Peoples Republic of California, Barack Obama has been named by gun retailers as their "salesman of the year!" Why do you think that is? Many people don't trust him or the SCOTUS to protect the second amendment and I am one of them.

 

[CountryBoy]

Liberals frequently cry that conservatives are going to appoint Justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade. Why couldn't Obama appoint Justices that will overturn Mack v. USA and DC v. Heller? This is my concern. This is also why, even in the Peoples Republic of California, Barack Obama has been named by gun retailers as their "salesman of the year!" Why do you think that is? Many people don't trust him or the SCOTUS to protect the second amendment and I am one of them.

Well said La Migra,

That's the concern I was trying to express to alevin and I just couldn't say the reason's for my concern's succinctly enough to get the point across.

As an aside, one store that I always buy ammo from was completely out of all calibers larger than a .32 yesterday. The clerk said the ammo is flying off the shelves.

CB

 

[alevin]

Well, ok you guys. The possibility exists, but I truly think the fear is overblown and "eggagerated" like I said before. Warning, I lived for years in extreme anti-fed hostile country in my past life, and carried written instructions on how to handle a "citizen's arrest" of my person, just for doing my job in isolated areas-all my co-workers carried that card, not just me.

So I'm a little sensitive about those "I fear my federal government will take away my constitutional rights" phobias where there is no firm foundation in fact-which there wasn't in the situation described above, none, just people listening to anything that fed their preconceived notions and fears. And the DC case upheld individual right to keep and bear, even for people who believe in black helicopters.

So, to follow up on the "overblown and eggagerated" theory, Here's why I think as I do about the probability of the DC ruling being overturned:

1.

The Supreme Court has the last word, within the American judicial system, on questions of constitutional interpretation. However, a Supreme Court decision regarding interpretation of the Constitution can a) be overturned by a constitutional amendment, or b) A Court decision on interpretation of federal laws can be overturned by Congressional enactment of a new law.
Reversals by Constitutional Amendment

a) Article 5 provides that constitutional amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of Congress or by a special convention that Congress calls after two-thirds of the state legislatures have voted to request it. For a proposed amendment to be ratified, three-fourths of the states must approve it, either by their legislatures or by conventions especially convened for this purpose. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress, and all but one (the 21st) have been ratified by state legislatures. The 21st Amendment was ratified by state conventions. Do you really think an amendment will happen that would abrogate the 2d amendment? given the process involved? I just don't think so.

b) Reversals of Court decisions by Congress
Congress has a rather simple and direct way to negate unpopular decisions of the Court that have nullified federal statutes (Roe v Wade did not nullify a fed statute, nor did the DC decision, as I understand the decisions and their bases): It can pass a new law (nullify state laws that support individual 2d amendment rights? that'd go down well with the voters at state level in those states, eh?). (they do that and it'd be immediately challenged and it's likely the Dems would get voted out for a very long time again, not every dem or indie voter is anti-gun, especially out west.

Although most bills that have been introduced to overturn Supreme Court decisions have not been passed, the power of Congress to negate certain kinds of Court decisions (not just any decision) is an important part of the American constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

http://www.answers.com/topic/reversals-of-supreme-court-decisions

There is a third way, and it sounds like this is the one that worries you guys most.... but how real is the probability, when you look at the cases discussed below? Every one of the cases below strengthened and expanded the Amendment in question, they did not weaken it. And Obama has gone on the record as recognizing self-defense as legitimate purpose for armed citizenry (website Viva la Migra posted).

c) Since the Marshall Court in the early nineteenth century, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a single opinion indicating its decision in a case. In providing reasons for its decision, the Court may offer constitutional interpretations which have a significant impact on American law and society.

In "dissenting" opinions, justices disagree with the outcome of the case and present rationales for their views. Unlike the Court's majority opinions, dissents have no legal force.

Dissenting justices may hope to influence, ultimately, the Court itself in future decisions. While the Court typically follows its own precedents in deciding cases (under the established judicial principle of "stare decisis" or "let the decision stand" in Latin), it has, on occasion, overturned or significantly modified its own earlier decisions. In exceptional cases, dissents have attained landmark status in American legal history in that they influenced subsequent reversals by the Court or otherwise have come to articulate revised opinions of the Court on significant matters of constitutional interpretation and public policy.

One of the most influential dissents was crafted by Justice John Marshall Harlan in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. The central issue in this case involves the question of whether or not the state law requiring separate railroad accommodations violated the 13th Amendment's outlawing of slavery or the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for all citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that the "equal protection of the laws" clause of the 14th Amendment allowed "separate but equal" facilities for blacks. The Court also ruled that the Separate Car Law did not violate the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery.

The lone dissent in Plessy was written by Justice John Marshall Harlan who wrote, "But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, Our Constitution is color-blind. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."
In 1954 the Court, finally ended over 50 years of "separate but equal" legislation with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling which struck down laws that enforced racial segregation in public schools.

In the 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case of Olmstead v. United States, decided by a 5-4 vote, Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion argued for a constitutional right to privacy. The evidence against Olmstead was gathered through the use of electronic wire-tapping of Olmstead's office and home. Olmstead claimed his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not agree with Olmstead.

Forty years later the U.S. Supreme Court embraced Brandeis's opinion in the 1967 Katz v. United States case which overturned the Olmstead decision. The Katz decision (7-1) concluded that wiretaps and other types of electronic surveillance were unconstitutional because they violate an individual's right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 1940, the Court upheld a flag salute requirement for Jehovah Witness students attending a public school. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone dissented, arguing that religious freedom was outside the jurisdiction of the government. Three years later, in a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed itself in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (religious freedom amendment upheld)


In 1942, Justice Hugo Black dissented in the Betts v. Brady case, decided 6-3, Justice Black's opinion became the majority view in 1963 when the Court overturned Betts in Gideon v. Wainwright in a 9-0 decision. In Gideon, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, required that indigent defendants charged with serious offenses in state criminal trials must be represented by counsel. (right to due process and right to counsel expanded).

http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-2/court.htm​

I dunno, guys. Seems to me like the chances are that if the court revisited the DC ruling or accepted a state-based case, even if they did reverse the DC ruling, the worst that could happen would be that the court would end up ruling that the individual state has the right to set reasonable boundaries, and the 50 states would each be free to continue doing whatever they're already doing along those lines. Every state is different. Move or get the state to change the state law in that case would be the logical choices to me.​

Anyway, those are the reasons I think the fear is "overblown and eggagerated". And I'll secede and/or become a Ron Paul activist if I have to eat my words someday. ​

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Anyway, those are the reasons I think the fear is "overblown and eggagerated". And I'll secede and/or become a Ron Paul activist if I have to eat my words someday. ​

Let's hope you never have to eat your words!

 

[CountryBoy]

I hope you never have to eat them either, but I see us sliding slowly into socialism with all these buyouts. Once the gov't does something it rarely if ever reverses course after the problem has been solved. Barney Frank, he of the male escort pros service, is just licking his chomps to take over as much as possible. I just saw an interview a few weeks ago, where Franks admitted to loving welfare and the more the better he likes it. Wow, that spoke volumes, just like Rep Maxine Walters threat to nationalize the oil industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE

I sure don't have to be hit over the head with a 2x4 to know what these whack jobs want to turn our country into. That's not being parnoid, that's just taking them at their words.

CB

CB

 

[alevin]

Fork is holstered ready for use if ever needed. Researching shotguns in the meantime, and finding out where all the area gun dealers and indoor ranges are located. Meantime, I didn't post in tracker on Monday, but silly me, I didn't notice the weekly harami candle from last week and waded into C 23%. Which I've been regretting ever since. Still trying to decide whether to cut losses if we regain even half of this weeks decline in the next week, or whether to hold on and wait for another big dive toward 750-800 before end of the month. There's a doji forming in the weekly AKG which suggests a move to F would not be smart at this point. Decisions decisions. I may count myself having done well at years end again if I am 1.5% to the good like I ended last year (real account, not tracker).

 

[Silverbird]

Although DC "laws" are a lot weaker than those of any State (since DC is not a State), this a Constitutional ruling has a lot stronger standing than State's rights. What you always want is a judicial precident to overrule, and you have one. Supreme Court will have lots of trouble trying to overturn it's own ruling.

Hey, if we have "Socialism" already, please blame Paulson, but it doesn't look like socialism to me but big money run amok. Big Finance and the big Cheeses get the free lunches. Oh and also paying for wars off budget, which again isn't even close to Socialism, it's more like kick the can.

 

[CountryBoy]

Although DC "laws" are a lot weaker than those of any State (since DC is not a State), this a Constitutional ruling has a lot stronger standing than State's rights. What you always want is a judicial precident to overrule, and you have one. Supreme Court will have lots of trouble trying to overturn it's own ruling.

Hey, if we have Socialism already, please blame Paulson, though I think of it more as Big Finance gets the money with no strings.

Oh I do blame Paulson, the CRA and the folks who coherced the banks to loan out money to those ninja folks. I don't have any sacred cows when it comes to dishing out the blame, I just calls'em like I sees'em.

And you're right banks got a blank check. The Gov't has no skin in the game, since they are playing with our money, so they don't care for any verification that the money is going to the right folks instead of the bank's back pockets.

Now the US Gov't is the largest shareholder of BOA, with more to come. The rules have been thrown out the window and the working American public are going to be steam rolled in the process and are being force to foot the bill for all of these bailouts and increased entitlements, especially to folks that don't even pay taxes. But that's what us working stiffs have to look forward to, bummer.

CB

 

[alevin]

OK, hijacked Show-Me's thread long enough on topic of loans yesterday, so moving my flustrations back over here. Sorry Show-Me! It just kind of happened after the Peter Schiff post. All the chat yesterday motivated me this morning to go back and do some more pencil figuring instead of estimating in my head.

Penciling out expected cash flow year by year through 2011, it looks like I'll be able to fund the 2009 Roth from this years cash flow and save for much of the expected roof cost. Realized I can fund the 08 Roth from last years savings after all (thanks to having paid off the house last spring), if I let my current standard emergency cash cushion drift down a bit and refill the savings deficit along the way this year.

Looking into 2010, I'd have to pay-go the 2010 Roth (I really wanted to fund it fully at the beginning of 2010 by saving up this year). I can swing it via pay-go if I absolutely don't want to take out a loan-still puzzling that one for now). I can save up the rest of what I need for roof cost by mid nextsummer (prime work window) and get that done next summer if everything works out. I can then start saving for replacement vehicle.

2011-I'd have to pay-go the 2011 Roth, and continue saving for replacement vehicle. Should have enough for decent used replacement vehicle by end of 2011. Looks like I'd have to wait to open a non-retirement investment account til 2012, after all the big expenses are saved for and expended. If something untoward happens, I still have loan possibilities to fall backon between now and then. Patience. I don't want to have to wait for all these investing opportunities, not when we have lifetime market conditions, rats. But neither do I really want to go back into debt if I can work things out without doing so. If we start going into serious recovery mode before 2012 tho, I'll rethink the loan thing for funding Roths and investment accounts earlier than I could do otherwise.

On a wider note, anyone heard something this weekend about Cemex going BK? I read on another forum this am that there's a rumor. I was looking at that as a possible infrastructure play with 08 Roth account.....:worried:

 

[alevin]

Decided to finally sit down and figure out the deal with Ichimoku Clouds today-first time I tried, my eyes glazed over. As of today, my comprehension is just enough to make my stomach turn inside out and upside down. Ichimokus look forward about 6 months, have to look backward about 6-9 months also to get a fairly complete picture of the current and forward situation. If I'd understood ICs even as much as I do now, back about last March, there is no way I'd have been in the market first half of November, but might have gone back in later in Nov through Dec.

Looking forward 6 months from last July-I'd have known to be fully out come January. I don't fully understand the situation looking 6 months ahead at this point, but it looks absolutely abysmal on IC chart, even terrifying if I even half understand what I'm looking at. As best I can see, I'd best better get all the way out of my 25%C in real account this week and stay out for the next 6 months if not longer. Whether that means go F is another story entirely.

I've got chart (sharp charts) set up to go back to 2007-1-1 up to the current date (weekly charts). Anyone else interested in studying and learning Ichimoku behavior with me as we go forward?

 

[malyla]

Decided to finally sit down and figure out the deal with Ichimoku Clouds today-first time I tried, my eyes glazed over. As of today, my comprehension is just enough to make my stomach turn inside out and upside down. Ichimokus look forward about 6 months, have to look backward about 6-9 months also to get a fairly complete picture of the current and forward situation. If I'd understood ICs even as much as I do now, back about last March, there is no way I'd have been in the market first half of November, but might have gone back in later in Nov through Dec.

Looking forward 6 months from last July-I'd have known to be fully out come January. I don't fully understand the situation looking 6 months ahead at this point, but it looks absolutely abysmal on IC chart, even terrifying if I even half understand what I'm looking at. As best I can see, I'd best better get all the way out of my 25%C in real account this week and stay out for the next 6 months if not longer. Whether that means go F is another story entirely.

I've got chart (sharp charts) set up to go back to 2007-1-1 up to the current date (weekly charts). Anyone else interested in studying and learning Ichimoku behavior with me as we go forward?

Sure. I'm game to learn something new. I like indicators that are postion indicators (greater than 6 months).

I have been watching C-Span all day and they are showing past inaugurations. They are also showing past Obama speaches. He gave a speech at Barnes and Noble 11/23/2004 on his new book and the possibility of running in 2008. There are a number of things that strike me but the one that really tickles me is that he has a great sense of humor. He is going to need it according to your indicator. Where do I look first for info on this Ichimoku behavior?

 

[alevin]

Sure. I'm game to learn something new. I like indicators that are postion indicators (greater than 6 months).

Where do I look first for info on this Ichimoku behavior?

Alrighty then! You'll need to use SharpCharts/StockCharts. Big Charts doesn't have ICs available as indicators.

The article that helped me start making sense of ICs I only just found today. URL here: http://www.fxwords.com/u/ichimoku-cloud.html

I only picked up little bits and pieces from the article before my eyes started glazing over again, so I just started staring at the charts and focusing in on 1 line at a time and studying behavior of the line as it changed week by week, use weekly charts, only way I could start getting a handle on what's going on in the chart.

One of the lines doesn't show up on left hand side of the chart until you have a window of time at least 6 months wide. Study the transitions and cross-overs of the heavy green line, the cloud colors, relationship of the 2 red lines, relationship of red and blue line, relationship of heavy green line to the heavy red and blue lines. Change your 6mo to 1.5yr window a week at a time going forwards or backwards or both. It's mindboggling-that's why I need a second pair of eyes to help with peering into the future a week at a time.

 

[budnipper1]

Sure. I'm game to learn something new. I like indicators that are postion indicators (greater than 6 months).

I have been watching C-Span all day and they are showing past inaugurations. They are also showing past Obama speaches. He gave a speech at Barnes and Noble 11/23/2004 on his new book and the possibility of running in 2008. There are a number of things that strike me but the one that really tickles me is that he has a great sense of humor. He is going to need it according to your indicator. Where do I look first for info on this Ichimoku behavior?

"One look" at that make my moku itch.

http://www.fxwords.com/u/ichimoku-cloud.html
​

 

[alevin]

"One look" at that make my moku itch.

http://www.fxwords.com/u/ichimoku-cloud.html
​

Itch long and prosper, my friend. It is Japanese, their brains are on a different wavelength-calls for developing new synapses. :embarrest:

 

[alevin]

View attachment 5471 View attachment 5472


OK, here's a sample of what I was seeing in Ichimoku Clouds today-previews, lead time approx. 6 months. topping actions based on weekly charts. Pattern holds for intermediate and longterm trend tops and drops 6 months out-through Jan 09. Bottoms and pops I'm still muddling on. Hope Malyla and me together can figure that part out.

Haven't figured out yet if can predict correlated price levels at turns yet or not, but when I tried it today, it freaked me out so hope I'm trying too hard on that angle.

 

[Steadygain]

Looking forward 6 months from last July-I'd have known to be fully out come January.

I should have known by then but the Powers that be did everything possible to hide the truth and make it look amenable. By 9/08 I realized the truth - they could no longer keep the evidence of our circumstances hidden and I went to G Fund.

I don't fully understand the situation looking 6 months ahead at this point, but it looks absolutely abysmal on IC chart, even terrifying if I even half understand what I'm looking at.

Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, explains the situation well in his book 'The Return of DEPRESSION ECONOMICS and the crisis of 2008. It's absolutely amazing how everything works on a global basis. Everything makes a lot of sense after reading that and all the more you realize how much more TERRIFYING things will be in the future if some major tweaking doesn't occur.

Thanks for the info Alevin - very good stuff.

 

[malyla]

Alrighty then! You'll need to use SharpCharts/StockCharts. Big Charts doesn't have ICs available as indicators.

The article that helped me start making sense of ICs I only just found today. URL here: http://www.fxwords.com/u/ichimoku-cloud.html

I only picked up little bits and pieces from the article before my eyes started glazing over again, so I just started staring at the charts and focusing in on 1 line at a time and studying behavior of the line as it changed week by week, use weekly charts, only way I could start getting a handle on what's going on in the chart.

One of the lines doesn't show up on left hand side of the chart until you have a window of time at least 6 months wide. Study the transitions and cross-overs of the heavy green line, the cloud colors, relationship of the 2 red lines, relationship of red and blue line, relationship of heavy green line to the heavy red and blue lines. Change your 6mo to 1.5yr window a week at a time going forwards or backwards or both. It's mindboggling-that's why I need a second pair of eyes to help with peering into the future a week at a time.

OK - looking at the link and pictures. First impressions - nice. I'll look at it in more detail tonight. Gotta run and thanks. This will be a good verification for the business cycle model:nuts:

 

[alevin]

Warrenlm noted recently that KD has said repeatedly, the U.S. may hurt, but the rest of the world is and will hurt worse. No argument there, and I haven't heard KD change that tune either. Thing is, there are relative hurts and there are absolute hurts.

Per this morning's ticker, absolute hurt is unspeakable-not impossible.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Before I present this chart, I want to make clear that this is NOT a prediction. It is, however, a caution. It is a place we can go, but not one where we must go.
This, should Obama or others in Congress and The Administration try to play "too cute by half" and jack around the markets, the public, and the world, is what is going to happen:

That structure is known as a "pennant" or "symmetrical triangle."


The rules of technical analysis for this pattern are:

• Pennants are continuation patterns - that is, whatever direction the market is moving when it comes in, it will move when it comes out.
• The minimum target for the move is given by the length of the pole to which the pennant is attached.

In this case the pennant prognosticates a move downward of six hundred S&P 500 points from the break, which occurs at approximately 810.
That gives us a target on the S&P 500 of 210.
No, that's not a misprint.

Neither you or I wantto see the S&P 500 collapse down into the 200s with 75% of the listed firms in this country going under. Nor do we want to see 20 or even 30% unemployment. All of this can and will happen if the bond market dislocates and starts a cascade. The price action in the market over the last couple of weeks is a strong warning that "borrow and spend" will not work and the market is getting rather upset with papering over ever-expanding losses.

 

[Steadygain]

'This, should Obama or others in Congress and The Administration try to play "too cute by half" and jack around the markets, the public, and the world, is what is going to happen:'

Alevin - this is an excellent post and since (?) and I are now posting the exact same sentiment hopefully I can feel freer to speak.

Since you mention Obama however - I believe more facts need to come out. It was during the Bush Administration the crisis evolved and only in the wake of his huge disaster is Obama stepping in.

The stock bubble of the 90's was followed by the housing bubble of the next decade - giving the appearance the Economy was gaining strength and things were going great. Greenspan was the one declaring that any major decline in home prices would be "most unlikely". He conceded there may be some "froth" but there wasn't a national bubble.

In essense Greenspan succeeded by replacing the stock bubble with a housing bubble.

Timothy Geithner sounded the alarms - showing how the financial system fundamentally changed with dramatic growth outside the traditional banking system.

The ideology of the Bush Administration was deeply antiregulation. They used federal power to block state-level efforts to impose some oversight on subprime lending. While Greenspan declared "Not only have individual financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilent." (The Return of Depression Economics p164. P.Krugman)

The growing risks of the crisis for the financial system and the economy as a whole were ignored or dismissed.

Also and equally important - Huge Bail Outs and Tons of Money have already gone to numerous places both in the US and Globally and the Rates were cut from over 5% - next to Zero

By the time Obama got in...

In light of the people Obama has in place to deal with the Financial System - I'd say everything that can be done will be done.

The main problem is the REAL AMOUNT of MONEY that is likely needed to actually turn things around quickly. Obama has to convince Congress and the US Population that a $2 Trillion stimulus package (for instance) will soundly fund the money to turn things around quickly.

I wholly agree with the dire circumstances we are facing - even if I don't see us going quite as low as you projected but at this point I believe we all need to realize that Obama will likely do all he can. I think we need to be very realistic with his limitations as a new president just getting started as well.

Peace my friend

 

[alevin]

'This, should Obama or others in Congress and The Administration try to play "too cute by half" and jack around the markets, the public, and the world, is what is going to happen:'


By the time Obama got in...


I wholly agree with the dire circumstances we are facing - even if I don't see us going quite as low as you projected but at this point I believe we all need to realize that Obama will likely do all he can. I think we need to be very realistic with his limitations as a new president just getting started as well.

Steady, you mistake me for someone else, my friend, I'm just a messenger, I didn't create the message. The new administration has inherited a situation nearly impossible to salvage. Whether it and Congress can salvage it or not, depends on who they listen to and when. Read the full reference (always go back to the source document for full context-we're not allowed to post references in their entirety), there are other solutions that might do better at heading off worstcase potential.

That being said, it's real hard to look up when a person's in the swamp surrounded by alligators, isn't it, unless someone on the bank screams loud enough to get their attention so they can point to the rope being dropped. Technicals are technicals, and I certainly am not proficient at technicals yet, to have drummed up this projection myself. You give me too much credit, I didn't spot this, KD did, and the technical is what it is-its not an off-the-cuff opinion from me.

My intent is to give people time to consider the technical indicator and think about what it tells them, and what will influence it. KD goes into great detail on influence factors. I've written letters to my congress people, and will continue to do so-irregardless of party. If they don't hear of other solutions that pose lower risk of adverse outcomes or at least hold stronger potential for less adverse outcomes, how're they going to do any better or different decisionmaking than they are doing?

People need information to help them with their decisionmaking too. That's all this is meant to be. Who knows whether either party would manage any better than the other at this point, especially w/o hearing ideas that don't fit preconceived notions.