Centerblue.org

It is a very ugly day on Wall Street today. As of this writing the Dow is down 425 points, after being down over 500 points a little while ago. Gold is down $22 an ounce. This comes on the heels of a breakdown in the Shanghai Stock Exchange that saw a 9% drop, the largest fall in a decade. That has sent ripples around the world.

Why is this happening? Lots of reasons, although ultimately I believe one of the culprits is the US housing market. Recently a great deal of trouble has arisen in the “subprime” market–those people who were given the exotic interest-only and negative amortization loans, and especially folks who didn’t have to put any money down. As their rates start to rise in a bad housing market they are defaulting left and right. There are even lots of them who default right after buying the property! These people clearly should not have been given these loans for houses they could not afford, and the chickens are now coming home to roost.

Tons of subprime lenders have gone under or reported huge losses in the last two months. That is causing lenders to re-think their business (finally), and they are beginning to tighten credit and lending standards. That immediately axes a bunch of people right out of the housing market, which will exert further pressure on prices. More pressure on prices mean fewer people can sell their houses at a price sufficient to pay off the mortgage, including people who might have better credit and better loans but who might find themselves in financial trouble. So the risks are rising that the “disease” in the subprime market may spread to the rest of the market as well, and the worse the housing market is the worse the impact on the economy. Chances of a recession are increasing, as was stated aloud by Alan Greenspan in a speech yesterday.

There are a ton of other problems too. People are drowning in debt because of all the cheap credit, both mortgages and otherwise. The budget deficit continues to be a problem, as is the outrageous trade deficit. There’s Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. There is expensive energy (the price of oil is on the rise again). The economy is seriously out of whack, thanks in no small part to crooked economists like “the Maestro” Greenspan himself and the shill for the National Association of Realtors David Lereah, and their constant hyping of why it’s good for consumers to be in debt up to their eyeballs (all the while encouraging the debt through rock-bottom interest rates and taking out ads in papers extolling the virtues of buying overpriced houses in a bad market).

There had to be a day of reckoning. Was this it? Time will tell..but if so, it’s going to be one ugly ride.

Here’s a very interesting video on where technology is progressively taking us by 2100. (Turn the volume down, the music is rather annoying).

What’s contained in this video isn’t the dream of some sci-fi junkie. The possibilities depicted are the work of some of the planet’s most respected scientists and thinkers who understand the accelerating trends in artificial intelligence and nanotechnology. Work is already underway to make some of the earlier predictions shown in the video a reality.

One notable omission from the video is how our emerging technology will handle global warming–because if we don’t deal with that problem then all bets are off. But I do believe that we will eventually possess ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so that we can return our planet to its normal pre-industrial state (and there’s a prize out there waiting to be claimed right now by whoever comes up with an initial answer).

“I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well.”

–Vice President Dick Cheney, responding to Britain PM Tony Blair’s decision to withdraw 1600 British troops from Iraq, which was probably a prelude to a full withdrawal.

A monthly roundup of technological breakthroughs in energy, computing, nanotechnology, and biotechnology–and how these converging technologies are transforming our society, solving problems, and creating new ones.

Let’s round up evil-doers before they commit crimes: (computing, ethics) I’m sure my friend Boztopia will “love” this one. A team of neuroscientists has come up with a powerful technique that can scan deep inside a person’s mind and read his intentions before he acts, “Minority Report” style. It raises some serious ethical questions about how and whether this device should be used in interrogations and police work. That tearing sound you hear is that of the Bill of Rights enduring further shredding.

If you live 20 more years, you may get to live forever: (biotechnology) Research into senescence continues to gather speed, as more scientists come to view old age as a curable disease rather than as an inevitability. Researchers like Dr. John Langmore are looking at telomeres in the DNA code, which become damaged as cells keep replicating over time and cause eventual degeneration–in the same way that making copies of copies of copies of a piece of paper eventually results in a mess. Understanding how this works could lead the way to stopping and reversing the aging process.

World’s first “bionic woman:” (robotics) US Marine Claudia Mitchell is the world’s first person to have a prosthetic arm she can control through thought alone. It can do things like cutting up food, and she can feel touch when something touches her artificial hand.

Let’s suck carbon dioxide out of the air: (environment) Bowing to the inevitable fact that we are not likely to reduce carbon emissions enough in time to prevent a climate disaster, Al Gore and Virgin Group boss Sir Richard Branson have announced a $25 million “Earth Challenge” Prize to be awarded to whoever comes up with a workable method of permanently removing at least one billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year. There are already ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as this contraption that looks like a goal post devised by a Columbia U. researcher, but such devices still lack a way of cheaply and permanently sequestering the carbon they capture.

Robots (may) have feelings too: (robotics) Astonishingly, researchers are working on giving robots emotions and feelings that may be seen in mainstream robots within ten years. They are getting their robots to react to stimuli with emotions like happiness and fear, or to spontaneously feel “hunger” as a way of telling them they need to recharge their batteries. If they can be taught feelings, can ethics follow? Let’s hope so.

Creating the Jordi LaForge visor: (computing) Jordi was the blind Chief Engineer on the Enterprise-D who wore a visor to help him see. A new implant puts receptors in some blind patients’ eyes that is interpreted by a computer and then sent to the user’s brain as signals he can understand. The device won’t equate to full sight, but would allow totally blind patients to see imagery and navigate about. However future versions should allow more sight, including recognizing someone’s face.

The computer that won’t work if you look at it:(computing) Well that’s a bit of an overstatement, but a start-up called D-Wave claims it has demo-ed the world’s first quantum computer. The computer relies on the state of quantum qubits rather than on binary 0’s and 1’s, and could be used to solve certain thorny problems in just a few seconds that would take regular computers eons. Hype or real? Who knows, but we’ll find out soon enough as the company makes its increasingly powerful computer available to corporations for research.

A 2012 laptop’s speed = 1997’s world’s fastest supercomputer: (computing) Intel recently demonstrated a new 80-core teraflop chip that will be widely available on computers within 5 years, and whose power is greater than the most powerful supercomputer on Earth just ten years ago. It will also only consume 62 watts of power, less than what a single processor consumes today.

Well here’s something not much covered by the lemming American media (and it’s one good reason to read non-American news sources):

According to the BBC, the US government has laid out thorough contingency plans for attacking Iran that include not just its nuclear facilities, but practically all of its military infrastructure as well. The two events that would trigger such an attack would be confirmation that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon or a large-scale attack on US troops in Iraq that is traced back (or that Bush’s government believes is traced back) to Iran.

It seems not only that we’ve stepped into a huge shitpile in Iraq from which we don’t know how to extricate ourselves, but that we’re also about to step into an even bigger one. Iran won’t take such an attack lying down, and knows where to find weary, under-protected and over-extended American soldiers to retaliate against conveniently next door.

A new Gallup Organization report demonstrates that the Republican brand name has been severely damaged as a result of Iraq and scandals over the last six years.

For 2001 through 2005, the party identification balance in Gallup polling — before independents are asked which way they lean — remained within 2 points of each other.

In 2001, Democrats had an edge of eight-tenths of a percent; in 2002 the GOP was up by nine-tenths of a percent, then in 2003, Republicans were 1.9 points ahead.

That GOP lead shrank to six-tenths of a point in 2004, then Democrats pulled within the error margin, with just four-tenths of a point separating the parties.

But for 2006, Democrats pulled away, leading Republicans by 3.9 points, with 34.3 percent identifying themselves as Democrats, 30.4 percent as Republicans and 33.9 percent as independents.

This represents a swing of 5.8 points in just three years, from a GOP lead of 1.9 points to a deficit of 3.9 points.

Much more startling, though, was about the identification of “leaners”–people who categorize themselves as independents but who tend to “lean” or “identify with” one party or the other and who in fact often end up voting for that party.

In this category of leaners, Democrats had an advantage of 1.3 points in 2001. The parties were within the margin of error in 2002, when four-tenths of a point separated them and in 2003, when there was just a one-tenth of a point difference.

In 2004, Democrats had a 2.7 point advantage, and it grew to 4.4 points in 2005.

But in 2006, this category exploded to a 10.2-point advantage for Democrats: 50.4 percent for Democrats, 40.2 percent for Republicans. The remaining 9.4 percent did not lean toward either party.

This 10.2-point advantage is the biggest lead either party has had since Gallup began tracking the leaners in 1991.

It should come as no surprise that fewer and fewer people want to be associated in any way with the party that brought us the Iraq disaster and Mark Foley. Time will tell, but I wonder whether the mid 2000’s will end up being a turning point in American politics. Just like the early 80’s under Reagan brought an end to decades of liberal thinking and progressive government, 2006 may be the time that brought the brand of conservatism espoused by the GOP to an end as a viable governing philosophy. Or maybe not..it depends on how well Democrats handle their new majorities.

I hate when other nations speak badly of America just like any other red-blooded American–but you have to call a spade a spade. There is no question that this nation’s irresponsible use of military force in the last few years has caused great damage to our reputation and made the world a much more dangerous place.

Russian president Vladimir Putin, speaking on Saturday at a security policy conference in Munich, used the strongest words heard in years from a Russian head of state regarding the United States:

“Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem, they have become a hotbed of further conflicts…One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way…It is a world of one master, one sovereign. … It has nothing to do with democracy. This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons. This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law.”

I’m no fan of Putin’s, as I think he behaves like a bandit in negotiating fossil fuel supplies with his neighbors and Europe–but that doesn’t detract from the truth of what he’s saying. It is no coincidence that it is two of the three remaining countries in Bush’s “Axis of Evil” that are now actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Can you blame them? They saw what happened to their “Axis” partner Iraq, and as Iran looks across the Iraqi border it sees the US itching for a fight (not that Iran is blameless, and they might even deserve a good bombing in response to their meddling and arming of insurgents in Iraq). But of course we would not be at such cross-purposes with Iran now if we had not so foolishly exerted American power in Iraq, which now will have serious regional consequences that we probably will not control.

Ironically it has been Bush’s so called push for democracy and his pre-emptive method of seeking American security that have made the world a far more dangerous place for our interests. If the leader of the free world cannot be made to stick to international law, why should anyone else observe it either? A world where nobody feels safe from the abuse of military power is a dangerous one indeed.

It’s official: Obama is running for the White House.

He is the personification of the American dream–rising from the humblest of roots to obtain an Ivy League education and then launch a political career that could culminate with the ultimate prize. He also has a facility with words that make him remarkably eloquent. These qualities have combined to make him a media sensation and a cultural phenomenon.

But is being a cultural phenomenon enough to win the White House? Does he have what it takes? Some have accused him of being silver-tongued, that he says what he thinks people want to hear–and that diametrically opposed individuals who listen to him each come away convinced that Obama is on their side. Maybe that’s true, maybe not–surely the harsh spotlight of a presidential campaign will soon pin him down on his positions and test his political acumen.

There’s also the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody seems to want to discuss: is America ready for a black president? It’s a sensitive question, but it simply must be asked.

I sure hope the answer is yes, that we’ve come far enough along that a person’s skin color (or gender) is not an impediment to reaching the White House. The shenanigans that surrounded Harold Ford’s Senate race in Tennessee (which he lost) gives me pause, however. It was a race replete with racism and innuendo, including a commercial featuring a scantily-clad white woman asking Ford to call her, obviously playing into people’s stereotypes and fears about black men with white women. Will we see more of the same with Obama? It’s an obnoxious truth that many people still hold racist feelings, whether they say so aloud or not–and it is unknown how powerfully this will play into a presidential vote.

All he can do is try, and in that I wish him success. Whether the race goes his way or someone else’s, I’ll be watching and ready to help the Democratic winner take Virginia in November 2008. Virginia has now twice elected a Democratic governor and more recently a Democratic senator. It has become a quintessential battleground state, one that can be delivered to the Democrats in the electoral vote. What a sweet upset that would be…and I intend to help make it happen.

Bush, apparently not wanting to be seen as the last and stupidest person on Earth to be convinced that global warming is real in the face of overwhelming evidence, is mounting a PR offensive. He is sending his lackeys out, claiming the administration has spent over $29 billion to fight climate change.

How cheeky, especially in light of evidence that the Bush administration has tried to suppress hundreds of scientists’ findings in support of global warming, which has done serious damage to American efforts to curb greenhouse gases. But then again, this administration has amply demonstrated its ability to live in Fantasyland.

Social conservatives are in a deep funk about Republican prospects for the White House in 2008. People like former and disgraced House Majority Leader Tom DeLay hate Giuliani because he is “for abortion,” favors gun control and supports gay rights. They also hate McCain because of his role in campaign finance reform (I guess these Republicans would rather buy political influence than have a fair democratic process). None of the leading contenders champion social conservatives’ causes, and those that do like Huckabee and Brownback are at the back of the pack.

As a result, DeLay has come out saying he believes Hillary Clinton will win the White House in 2008.

Ah, these be dark days for the lifeless corpse that was the Republican Revolution.