In-A-Gadda-Levitre

maybe done a better job of actually answering the question, he goes off with music, campaigning, genes, etc. which only indirectly get at why he might be fit. I would have said something like "it's a valid concern, but I'm very healthy for my age, my doctors confirm this with good reports (something that substantiates health, not just lots of hours), and there's always a risk of a catastrophic health problem for men much younger than me (something relating to men like Tim Russert who die in their 50s)". Ridiculing the kid that asked the question is messed up, but not surprised people on this board think that's a great thing.

airlines are some of the largest traders on the oil futures market. Here's an explanation from FT Jet Fuel only recently started to appear on futures markets, it's always been oil that the airlines hedged.

Stating that it's limited to 10% depends on who you believe. There are very knowledgeable people on both sides that say it's everything from $30-40 a barrel to next to nothing.

I never really looked into the connection between the big oil companies and the futures, but it seems to me that companies like Exxon deal directly with the petroleum producers; either through strategic partnerships or direct purchases, since they buy so much. The commodities markets are more for airlines, or other huge consumers like trucking companies that hedge future prices.

wow, I had no clue it was this blatant

You might be right, but I was living in cali then, and it sure didn't appear to be related to any kind of engineered plot. If was more indirect as the cost of energy was spiking and the usage was doing the same thing, due to hypergrowth. I'm admitting I don't know if that was manipulated by them or not.

bingo, the "enron rule" was added under intense lobbying from enron to allow speculators to trade on external platforms, aka unregulated.

yes, you're right on. The basic problem, which is compounded by the lack of oversight, is that these guys never have to take delivery of a physical product, and they can buy everything on credit, so with their market positions, they just drive up the price by buying and selling. Other commodities fall under (much more) regulation and their markets are much more diluted.

yeah, I was wondering this also. Does anyone know if he's likely to have a playbook of the new offense?

last time and then I'm done. There's no doubt that it was discussed, probably at length, about him leaving Beijing and doing something different. I don't know, but I'm guessing Bush himself made the decision, as he prides himself on that. IMO and others, that was the wrong choice. Talk about beating a dead horse... IMO, they didn't assume he was diddling around - they think he should have been somewhere else.

Rupert Murdoch, not some liberal half wit.

Of course he would have been briefed and coordinated with world leaders. That's just intuitively obvious. I understand your arguments about not making a big deal about it. I don't happen to agree, because I think history will show this as a watershed moment and a monumental change in the world order as Russia flexes its muscles. If he ran for Air Force 1, landed, and showed leadership, the free world would be cheering him, myself included.

So this about selling newspapers and little to do with their opinion of his leadership? You're entitled to your opinion as always.

as I've said about 5 times, my issue is with the choices he made - whether that meant staying at the Olympics, sending others instead of getting visibly involved, showing the US as weak instead of as a leader, as well making lame statements to the press. Getting briefed and making decisions in secure conference calls isn't the same as standing up and being visibly in charge, while the world watches a crisis unfold. I don't think the WSJ was false or disingenuous; they were saying "what in the hell was he doing in Beijing once the Russian tanks came through the Roki Tunnel?"

OPEC, big Oil, and others have been shouting about this for a while. At least CFTC is investigating. This is one area where changes can have a big effect on the price of crude in the short term.

2 million subscribers in print and 1 million paid, online pairs of eyeballs. Call it street creds.

Never said or thought that, ever. I actually said it was all about the world's perception of Bush doing his job in China vs. Washington. For the record, I believe he was working the phones, getting intel, expert advice, and probably got information overload while in China. That also was never in question. There's also no argument whatsoever that he's always on the job 24/7, never out of touch. I also strongly believe in the value of telecommuting, something else that may have been misunderstood. But when respected sources like the WSJ say stuff like "President Bush finally condemned Russia's actions on Monday after a weekend of Olympics tourism in Beijing while Georgia burned", it bothers me, as it should you.

and you know this because? LINK? because, to me, that's pretty big news.

I mentioned POTUS vacation once, along with supporting a major trading partner, working from the ranch, supporting US athletes, etc. - that only described choices he had made. Then it hilariously turned into a discussion what technologies were available where, how they were being used, and the productivity of telecommuting, amongst others. When someone says to me, ok, what would you do different in this case, and I'm not an expert, I'm going to offer a range of possibilities, that some might or might not work, some might have more merit or 'less bad' than others. Pretty obviously those and other choices get vetted, and potentially tossed aside as not feasible, or ridiculous consequences. At least I'm offering some alternatives when I criticize him. And, if someone says, well that won't work because of x, it's all good. Maybe I'll learn something that I didn't know.... Instead you combine everything together, and then assume it's all inclusive. Provoking the bear is probably not a good strategy, but there's not going to be much you can do that doesn't provoke them. I'm guessing every thing we (and others) might do involves major trade offs over how much we provoke them vs benefits and risks. They're majorly pissed off about the Patriot batteries in Poland and the radar systems in the Czech. Nobody is suggesting that we shouldn't have done that, are they? The Russians also understand strength, something we didn't show much of. I was surprised, and still am, about how much support people were giving the president over his choices and responses, while so many outlets and opinions were slamming him worldwide. George W. Bush is a hard man to like, and as John Ashcroft (who I've grown to greatly admire) once said, History will not judge this kindly. JA was talking about discussing torture in the white house, but the sentiment rings true.

just keep on hating, it's what you do best

sure, all of those things are gonna happen to completion. It's just a range of things that might be open for discussion. Maybe he goes to Russia with a few carrots and sticks, foolish me thinking you might be able to see that... Bush isn't head of the IOC, but invading a country during the current Olympics just might garner support from other IOC countries. Will it work? Who knows, it's just an option.

a week? I didn't realize there was a timetable here. I want them the USA to act like a leader. There's a time for diplomacy and there's also a time for a show of strength. This situation probably calls for a careful portion of both. Nobody said it was easy. I don't like to complain, but it's worth standing up and questioning blind support for a president's actions when the rest of the world sees him as a joke.

Invite the NATO leaders to Washington, or go over there and meet with them, collectively make an attempt to show solidarity and come to some agreement. Throw them out of the G8. Isolate them economically using whatever means you have. Send 5,000 multinational troops to Georgia as peacekeepers. Take away the 2014 Olympics. Go sit down with Putin. Oops, that would be diplomacy, and we can't be doing that now, can we?

I don't feel the need to offer an opinion on some unknown set of behind the scenes discussion. I just care how my country appears to the rest of the world when they look towards us for leadership. Check out what the usually conservative WSJ has to say...